Lords Sitting of 9 July 1999

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

Road Traffic (Use of Mobile Telephones) Bill [H.L.]
11.5 a.m.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Before I begin the argument for the Bill I bring to the attention of the House the fact that I have just learnt from the noble Lord the Chief Whip that this is the last day on which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ely will be with us as he is leaving to take up a position with a college. I am sure the whole House will join me in wishing him well.
I begin by declaring an interest. I have the great honour and privilege of being deputy president of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, usually known as RoSPA, which takes a keen interest in the success of this measure, and on whose resources I have drawn substantially for evidence that it is needed. However, I must say that I drive quite frequently in this country and the evidence of my own eyes identifies the need for this measure.
Although the Bill seeks to make it a specific offence to use a hand-held mobile telephone while driving, I do not intend that the Bill should clog up the courts with offenders. I look upon this as overwhelmingly a preventive measure. After all we have seen the effect of seat-belt legislation—which, incidentally, was introduced through an amendment presented in this House—which ha; increased the use of seat-belts from a little over 50 per cent of drivers to almost universal usage. That occurred simply because the wearing of seat-belts became part of the law of the land. We are a law-abiding people and when a measure becomes law that has a significant effect.
If it becomes a specific offence to use hand-held mobile telephones while driving, I believe that few people will wish to be seen as pariahs on the road who are prepared to use a mobile telephone while everyone else is obeying the law. Already the vast majority of people are well aware of the common sense of not using a mobile telephone while driving one-handed on Britain's busy roads.
Sadly, I have to report that RoSPA has collected details from the courts of six deaths which are directly connected with the use of a mobile telephone while driving. Experts are quite sure that this has been a significant contributory cause of many other deaths and accidents which have resulted in injury. Since I introduced this Bill a few weeks ago in your Lordships' House I have received a number of poignant letters. I have never received such a heavy postbag
1152
expressing overwhelming support for a measure. I have had few letters expressing anxiety over the impact of the measure. As I say, there is overwhelming support for this measure.
As I indicated, I have received a number of poignant letters. A mother in Norfolk wrote to me about her motor cyclist son, who was seriously injured when a driver using a mobile telephone and travelling in the opposite direction swerved across the road and hit both her son and a police car. The young man's knee is never likely fully to recover. His future enjoyment of sport, of which he was an accomplished practitioner, is wrecked, and the quality of his life has been severely impaired.
The newspapers reported the tragic case of 79 year-old Arthur Smith from Lincolnshire, who was killed when a young businesswoman, busily arranging a dinner date on her mobile telephone, drove into his car at 70 miles an hour as she overtook another vehicle on a winding country road. This very morning on Radio Berkshire, the widow of a man who was killed in an accident in which the driver admitted that his concentration had been seriously affected because he had been using a mobile telephone made it explicit over the airwaves that every time she drives now and sees people using mobile telephones while driving she is filled with bitterness and a sense of outrage that people should be so careless. I am sure that we all recognise that feeling.
I am sure we all recognise too that, although we have lesser causes for anxiety, all of us experience tension when driving a car in today's difficult road conditions. We all resent people who take liberties with our road space or who endanger us in any way. We all know the importance of trying to keep calm while driving. What greater affront is their to one's sense of safety on the road than to see people making mistakes on the road because they are using a hand-held mobile telephone while driving?
I can give merely my own limited testimony. I spend a number of Mondays driving to Coventry. I drive along the motorway at a time when, obviously, business people have the week stretching out before them. I know the enormous temptation there is to ensure that everything is set up for the week—we are all fairly busy on Monday mornings—but the incidence of mobile phone use on the M1, particularly in the outside lane, is quite staggering. We should all recognise that the temptations are enormous. The pressures from offices upon people who are on the road as part of their business to indulge in this activity are quite enormous.
We should recognise that there is potential for an enormous growth of this danger. In Japan in 1997 there were 2,300 traffic accidents caused by the use of mobile phones. They resulted in 25 deaths and more than 3,000 injuries. Dubai has recently introduced on-the-spot fines for motorists caught using phones while driving. One in four people in the Emirates has a phone. Despite the fact that your Lordships may believe that ownership of mobile phones is well-nigh universal in this country at the present time, I must disillusion you. We have a relatively low use of mobile phones at the present time; only 13 per cent of the population use them. In Finland it is already 42 per cent; in Dubai,

1153
which I have mentioned, it is 25 per cent. Last week it was forecast that the growth in ownership of mobile phones is so rapid in this country that it will reach 50 per cent within the next three years. Everyone recognises that mobile phones are an enormous asset to people in all sorts of ways. They are not, however, an asset to a driver seeking to control a car.
Perhaps at this point I should make clear what the Bill does not do. It does not ban the carrying of a mobile phone in a car; it does not prevent the use of a hand-held mobile phone if the car is stationary; it most certainly does not prevent its use in an emergency; it does not even prevent the use of a phone while stuck in stationary traffic; and it does not prevent the use of the phone by a passenger. It restricts solely the use of a phone by a driver while the car is moving.
I am sure that many of your Lordships will have been concerned to see the way that drivers weave all over the road with a phone glued to their ear while you follow patiently behind, hoping that nothing too drastic will occur. In the past month, the Central Motorway Police Group decided that it would crack down on the use of mobile phones and carried out a purge of drivers using them on the M42, M6, M5, M69 and the M1. Their spokesman said:
"We are aware that the use of the mobile phone while driving is becoming an increasingly significant factor in the cause of road traffic incidents. This is based on evidence obtained from both drivers themselves and witnesses to accidents".
I quote the particular officer because I am concerned at the use of the word "becoming". We have not yet seen the full extent of the potential hazard. That is why we need legislation to nip this growing problem in the bud.
In that motorway crackdown, 1,000 drivers were pulled over for using mobile phones. There were also cases of passengers helping to steer the car while the driver took calls and rifled through his or her papers. I should hasten to add that no specific offence is committed by the use of these phones unless the police can establish that the driver was driving without due care and attention. Surely we need a measure to make this developing problem a specific offence.
Some of your Lordships may say that there are existing road traffic laws which cover the situation where a driver is not in full control of a vehicle, driving without due care and attention or even dangerously—and it is the case that a small number of prosecutions have taken place under those sections of the Road Traffic Act. But that is not enough. By adopting the offence named in my Bill, we will be sending a very clear and unambiguous message to drivers that driving and using the telephone while driving is unacceptable; that they cannot do both at once and driving must take precedence at all times. No phone call is worth anyone dying for.
The Highway Code has been strengthened in the past year. It states:
"Never use a hand-held mobile phone or microphone when driving. Hands-free equipment is also likely to distract your attention from the road. It is safer not to use any telephone while you are driving—find a safe place to stop".
1154
But the Highway Code is, of course, only advisory. It is good advice, but the situation is one which merits more than good advice.
A public opinion poll carried out by RoSPA showed that 84 per cent of people would like to see motorists banned from using hand-held phones while driving. The NOP Solutions poll revealed that a massive 92 per cent of people feel that it is unsafe for drivers to use such telephones.
The case is clear: there is an increasing problem of drivers putting themselves and others at risk. A measure which makes it quite clear that such behaviour is against the law will make our roads safer in these increasingly difficult times. On that basis, I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Davies of Oldham.)
11.19 a.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, on introducing this Bill on a topical subject and one that requires urgent examination, not least by the Government. I also thank the noble Lord for explaining the intentions and probable effects of the Bill.
No one should be surprised that I am taking part in this Second Reading debate. On the first day of Starred Questions in this Parliament, over two years ago, I asked a Question in this House on the subject of hand-held telephones being used by someone while driving a road vehicle. Several weeks later, I tabled another Question on the subject relating to drivers of buses and coaches.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, was most courteous in her replies and maintained a correspondence with me for months afterwards, informing me as to what was being done within government on this subject. That continued until the noble Baroness moved to the Department of Health. I am glad that the Bill now provides the opportunity for this House to discuss the present situation. I hope that the Government have been able during the past two years to formulate a draft code of practice, as I suggested on 19th May 1997.
In raising the subject, I pointed out that there were good reasons for having a telephone in the car. For example, a woman who drives alone quite often at night would be well-advised to have one and may need to use it while driving rather than stopping at the side of the road—for example, if she thinks that she is being stalked or harassed by a following car. That could be the reason for wanting to make an emergency call. I am therefore glad to hear that the Bill will not prevent the emergency use of hand-held telephones while driving.
I have not been able to look up the 1988 Act referred to in the Bill, or other connected legislation, to see whether exceptions for emergency situations are in the parent legislation. However, I understand from the noble Lord's opening remarks that that must be the case. There is nothing in the Bill on the matter. The Bill largely refers to existing statutes. So the noble Lord has already

1155
answered the question that I had intended to put; namely, whether provisions for an emergency are already incorporated in the legislation to which the Bill refers.
I do not know whether the Government support the Bill. We shall no doubt have to wait for the reply from the noble Lord, Lord Carter, on the Government Front Bench. Like the noble Lord, Lord Davies, I note that a considerable proportion of accidents are reported involving a driver using a mobile telephone. My own observations are that one sees a piece of careless driving and then sees that the driver is speaking into a hand-held telephone. That is taking a great risk. The driver's attention is being diverted to his telephone conversation instead of being on his driving and the other traffic on the road.
I support completely the principle behind the Bill. It will need government support if it is to go through Parliament at this stage of a Session. Nonetheless, it provides us with opportunities to discuss this very important question.
11.24 a.m.
Lord Jacobs: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, for introducing the Bill. He is doing us all a great service. During this debate there may be discussion on areas that appear to concern the Bill but in fact have nothing to do with it; namely, studies are presently being undertaken to determine to what degree people's concentration is affected when using a mobile phone, whether hand-held or otherwise. A good deal of research has been put forward to suggest that mobile phones are altogether unsafe when driving. The Bill, however, deals with only one issue, and we should disregard that research for the present. The issue is purely whether it is better to use a hands-free phone than to use a hand-held phone.
One would think that the answer is pretty obvious. But, as many of us who drive in London are already aware, a considerable number of people "cut up" other drivers while holding a phone in one hand because they are not fully able to concentrate. The Bill would not be necessary if we were blessed with three hands, but unfortunately we have only two. As cars have gear levers and clutches, if the driver is holding a telephone in one hand and has the other on the steering wheel, and then begins to turn or has to slow down so that it is necessary to change gear, that person will, we hope, put the phone down on the seat in order to do so. But I assure noble Lords that on several occasions I have seen people take the remaining hand off the steering wheel and change gear with that hand. That clearly shows how unsafe it is.
Surveys have been done, and I have personally conducted a survey of a dozen or so people, merely asking their views on this subject. I can report 100 per cent success. Of the dozen or so people to whom I spoke, not one thought that a measure of this kind would be unreasonable. Indeed, several quoted terrible incidents of being put at some risk by drivers using a hand-held phone. The other, more important survey is the one conducted by RoSPA, which indicated
1156
84 per cent in favour of a ban. My inquiries have shown that it is quite unusual for a Private Member's Bill to have that degree of public support.
So the question arises: why are the Government unlikely to support the Bill? Before turning to that, perhaps I may mention an important letter that I received opposing the Bill. It came from the RAC foundation for motoring. It is likely that all noble Lords who are participating in this debate will have received the same letter. A careful reading of it shows that it does not even address the correct subject. It states that there is no need for a Bill to ban the use of mobile phones while driving a vehicle. The RAC is expert in this subject; I should have thought that a simple reading of the Bill would have indicated that we are seeking to ban only hand-held phones, not hands-free phones. There is a significant difference.
I therefore rang the RAC to ask its view on banning only hand-held phones. After a few minutes' thought, the spokesman said that he thought we should still be able to use hand-held phones. I asked to what purpose. The reply was, "To hold brief conversations". I did not entirely follow the logic of that. I am sure that when noble Lords make telephone calls in the car they are very short indeed. However, the problem is that people at the other end tend to continue the conversation. Frankly, from my observations, many conversations when driving continue for five, 10 or 15 minutes. Therefore, the idea that we can persuade people to use hand-held phones for only very brief conversations is not fully justified by experience.
I should like to draw attention to the Government's position. If the Government intend to support the Bill, noble Lords must disregard these remarks. If, on the other hand, they do not—and my earlier information was that they do not support the Bill—it is important to understand their position. I was in correspondence with the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, Minister responsible for transport. Unfortunately, he is unable to be here today, but on 18th June he kindly wrote me an extensive letter. I shall read two parts of it:
"We want to discourage the practice of using hand-held phones while driving from becoming widespread. That is why earlier this year we launched a campaign to remind drivers of the potential dangers of using mobile phones whilst driving. The campaign included national newspaper advertisements and the enclosed advisory leaflet. This is being distributed by road safety officers, the police, and to learner drivers through driving instructors and test centres. The mobile phone companies are sending similar leaflets to their customers".
I happen to be involved with two mobile phone companies. I have not yet received my leaflet but no doubt it will arrive next week.
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, added:
"A ban on hand held mobile phones in cars would have clear implications for the motoring and mobile phone industries, which are of their own volition increasingly providing hands-free equipment as standard in vehicles. The burden of road traffic law is already quite substantial, and we do not wish to be over regulatory".
The leaflet that went with it was much clearer and easier to understand. It stated:
"Never use a hand-held phone while driving. You are not in full control of your vehicle if you are holding a mobile phone while driving. Doing so will risk the safety of yourself, your passengers and other road users".

1157
Finally, The Highway Code says:
"Never use a hand held mobile phone or microphone when driving".
The Government's position is that they do not want us to use a hand-held phone while driving. That is abundantly clear. Therefore, one must ask why they could possibly not want to support this simple, single measure.
My discussions with the Minister have shown that the Government's position is clear and simple to understand. The police are not in favour of the Bill, they do not want to see us bring in legislation to prevent people holding phones while driving. The police give two reasons: first, enforcement; secondly, something which I shall call "the sandwich issue". Enforcement relates to police resources. The police say, "We are overwhelmed with the amount of work we have to do already. If you bring in this measure, we will not have the resources to enable us to monitor it". That may be partly true from their point of view, but as the noble Lord, Lord Davies, said earlier, the public will enforce the Bill. It is quite evident if you use a mobile phone, it is not something you can disguise. If you have a phone held to your ear, you cannot put something over your head so that no one can see it. Members of the public nearby will see the phone.
The position will be similar to what happens with bus lanes. We are all tempted once in a while to drive down a bus lane. There have been one or two recent cases involving that, but people do not drive in bus lanes, either because they want to obey the law or because they resent what will happen when other members of the public drive past them. I have seen it happen occasionally, people sound their horns and cut in on you. I believe that this offence will be greeted in the same way. If you see someone in front of you holding a mobile phone, you are likely to be irritated and sound your horn. I do not think people will risk that in public.
In Israel it has been made illegal to hold a hand-held phone while driving. For a few pounds everyone who drives and has a mobile phone—and virtually everyone in Israel has one—buys an adapter which enables them to use the phone hand-free. It has worked very well. They have the added incentive, if one be needed, that there are on-the-spot fines of £100 in the event of them using the phone while driving. The result is that they do not. Everyone knows that you have to plug your mobile phone into the adapter when you get into the car if you want to use it. Altogether, enforcement will not be the problem that the police fear.
I come to my final point; to what is known as "the sandwich issue". As I have difficulty in understanding it, I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if they do not fully understand what I shall try to explain. The position appears to be that at the moment it is not a legal offence to hold a hand-held phone. It is equally not an offence to eat a sandwich when you are driving. If you are driving along the road with either in your hand and you are in proper control of your car, you cannot be prosecuted for either of those activities if you are not driving negligently or dangerously.
1158
The police say that if you make holding a hand-held phone illegal, those who drive negligently while eating a sandwich will put forward the defence that the holding and eating of the sandwich cannot have been a major factor because, if it were, it would be illegal to eat a sandwich while driving. Technically, there is a difference between holding a mobile phone and eating a sandwich. For most people, eating a sandwich tends to be momentary, but I do not advocate doing it while driving. If you take a bite and put the sandwich down, you do not chew all the time. However, as we know, a mobile phone conversation sometimes goes on for ever. Therefore, people driving with one hand while eating a sandwich do so momentarily and continue driving most of the time with two hands.
I am sure that the Government's position will be explained more clearly, but that is my understanding. In this case, the Government should reconsider the position. We do not have an idealistic government tinged with pragmatism; I believe that we have a pragmatic government tinged with idealism. That is a good combination. Can they not understand that in this case there is one simple issue? If a mobile phone can be used in one of two ways—either hands-free or by holding it in one's hand—there is effectively no difference in use, but it is absolutely clear to all of us that if the phone is not held in the hand while driving, the driver must be able to keep considerably better control of the car because he will have two hands free rather than one. Therefore, I strongly support the Bill and urge the Government and the Minister, who has just left the Chamber, to reconsider the position.
11.36 a.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, for his explanation of the Bill. I am sorry to say that I have little sympathy with it. I do not for one moment dispute the facts and figures he gave which have been repeated by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy, and the noble Lord, Lord Jacobs. However, we are looking at the problem from the wrong end.
I should have started by saying that I have an interest to declare in that I am and have been for some years a Vice-President of RoSPA. Of course, I support their widest endeavours where road safety is concerned.
I accept that enforcement is a big problem. I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Jacobs, said in reading out the letter from the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. We are inundated with road legislation. We must look at the problem in a different way. Today's motor car isolates the driver because of in-car entertainment, telephones, comfort, air conditioning and so on. We must make people more aware when they are driving a car that they belong to the wider society outside and must therefore take greater responsibility. That is where I start.
A hand-held telephone is no worse than the person who spends time trying to find a radio station lower down on the console, or changing a cassette tape. I understand that there was a fairly serious accident in recent weeks where that was the case. I quarrel with the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Davies—the noble

1159
Lord, Lord Jacobs, came close to echoing it—that The Highway Code was advisory. I am no lawyer, but that document is not merely advisory. The noble Lord quoted paragraph 127, which begins,
"You MUST exercise".
It goes on to refer to telephones and so forth. However, the introduction starts with the following statement:
"Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements … Such rules are identified by the use of the words MUST/MUST NOT".
It is quite clear that there is a legal requirement. I do not believe that there can be any argument about it. Therefore, we already have a law and we do not need another.
If nothing else, perhaps this debate highlights the growing concern, irritation and need for car drivers to accept a bigger share of responsibility to the wider public. I do not believe for one moment that the public will take enforcement into their own hands. I see the noble Lord, Lord Imbert, sitting across the Chamber. Three or four years ago he and I had long discussions about road rage. At that time we did not believe that it would escalate to today's level. People will not interfere with others on the road in case they are rammed or there is an element of road rage. I am quite sure that the noble Lord remembers the conversation.
Enforcement means personal acceptance of what is already the law and responsible behaviour, and that is what we must deal with. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, will get his Second Reading. I do not object to it. However, we are looking at the problem in too isolated a way. We must look at the much wider range of features that affects control of the motorcar and the behaviour of its driver.
11.43 a.m.
Viscount Simon: My Lords, I am delighted that this Bill is receiving a Second Reading today, having been admirably introduced by my noble friend Lord Davies of Oldham, who may be interested to know that I have been known to hand out copies of the DETR leaflet on the use of mobile phones to errant drivers. I also admit that I am somewhat circumspect in doing that. The Bill provides for a specific offence which, one hopes, may be dealt with by a fixed penalty notice and, say, a three-points endorsement on the offender's driving licence. That should concentrate the mind. In the long term, perhaps vehicle manufacturers will acknowledge the problem and build into their vehicles a device which prevents the use of a mobile phone by the driver of a vehicle unless its wheels are stationary. I feel sure that that could be easily achieved.
Notwithstanding the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Jacobs, I have been on traffic patrol with police officers who regularly ask for legislation to prohibit the use of a mobile telephone in a moving vehicle. In December 1997 Auto Express reported that mobile phones could cause a car's ABS to fail and that warnings were being placed in car handbooks. Perhaps that problem has been overcome; I do not know. At the same time, Mercedes warned drivers not to use their cellular telephones unless they were compatible with the
1160
vehicle for certain technical reasons. However, use of a mobile phone is a physical operation, and it is on that that I shall concentrate.
A study conducted, I believe, by the TRRL indicated that motorists who use mobile phones while driving are as dangerous to other road users as drink-drivers. It also indicated that sober motorists who use mobile phones may have heated conversations that lead to a lack of control similar to that suffered by a driver who has been drinking. The study further concluded that hands-free phones are no less distracting for drivers and that dialling out is judged to be as dangerous as reading a map when behind the wheel.
Your Lordships will be aware of the Toronto study which concluded that the use of mobile phones, either hand-held or hands-free, can affect concentration for up to 10 minutes after completing a call. A driver can go a long way in that time and expose other drivers to potentially dangerous manoeuvres. Irrespective of the technical advances in phones, the distraction caused by the mental effort of conducting a conversation is still present.
To counter the argument of those who say that to use a phone is no worse than talking to a passenger, eating a sandwich or changing a radio station or cassette, these three actions can be started and stopped at any chosen safe time, while chatting on a phone to somebody who is not aware of traffic conditions will continue regardless of the circumstances.
As my noble friend said in introducing the Bill, in 1997 drivers in Japan who used mobile phones caused 2,297 accidents, killing 25 people and injuring more than 3,000. Nearly half of the phone-related accidents took place while drivers tried to answer their phones and, in most cases, their vehicles smashed into cars ahead. The Japanese National Police Agency has been one of the few police forces to analyse the frequency of mobile phone-related crashes. To reinforce the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Jacobs, some time ago while I was on traffic patrol with the police, the driver of a box van was stopped on a motorway slip road for changing gear while using a mobile phone and, incidentally, for not wearing a seat belt.
I am indebted to the current edition of Driving Magazine, the bi-monthly magazine for driving instructors, which has a very detailed article on research into the relationship between mobile phone use and traffic accidents. I was not aware that most American states, with the exception of Minnesota and Oklahoma, do not include a specific place on their accident reports relating to phone use. Analysis of reporting system data for 1995 showed only 40 possible phone-related fatalities, 26 of which were in Oklahoma. That is not surprising in view of the fact that only two states report phone usage. I should like to know what the figures are now.
Violanti and Marshall in 1996 showed that drivers talking on the phone for more than 50 minutes per month were five times more likely to be involved in a crash. In 1997 Redelemeir and Tibshirani found that collision risk was between three and six times higher within 10 minutes of a phone call than when the phone

1161
was not in use. This excellent article continues with human factors, human tasks, engineering, safety concerns, education and other areas too numerous to mention on a Friday—which is such a shame. There are 16 scientific references to support their article. The mobile phone is here to stay, and the more motorists use it while in motion the greater the increase in phone-related crashes, which must be avoided. That is the intention of the Bill which I fully support. Legislation exists in other countries. Why not here?
I conclude by quoting from the current edition of The Highway Code, as did my noble friend. Paragraph 127 states, in bold type:
"You MUST exercise proper control of your vehicle at all times. Never use a hand held mobile phone or microphone when driving. Using hands free equipment is also likely to distract your attention from the road. It is far safer not to use any telephone while you are driving—find a safe place to stop first".
11.48 a.m.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I strongly support the noble Lord, Lord Davies, in his endeavour to make the roads a safer place. I, too, must declare an interest as the current President of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. In that role I have watched the issue developing as fears have grown over the way in which the car is, for many people, turning into a mobile office. That is acceptable if the car is parked safety, but we must be concerned if people try to conduct business and drive at the same time.
RoSPA has been running a successful campaign to persuade employers to manage their fleets of company cars and vans with safety in mind. It is known as managing occupational road risk. If employers ask employees to drive while conducting conversations on hand-held telephones, clearly they are not giving safety a priority. Employers are putting their businesses first and the lives of their employees and other road users second. Regardless of the outcome of today's debate—I hope that the Government will be sympathetic to the point that we are making—I would urge all organisations to make it part of their health and safety policies that employees should not make or receive calls while driving.
I am also President of RoSPA Advanced Drivers Association, known as RoADA. That role has given me a graphic insight into the shortcomings of Britain's motorists. It has made me aware of the need for people to continue to develop their driving skills in the years after they have passed their driving tests—and right throughout their driving careers. We can all benefit from extra driver training. But driving is about much more than that, it is also about judgment, hazard awareness and attitude. A motorist's mental approach to driving is as important, if not more so, than the ability to handle the car mechanically. Unnecessary distractions erode drivers' awareness, making them less likely to spot the child about to step off the kerb or the van driver about to open a door as they pass.
People who drive with a mobile phone clamped to their ear must believe they are good drivers, if they are convinced they can control a powerful vehicle safely on
1162
Britain's crowded roads with only one hand. That physical distraction is bad enough, but the actual telephone call itself can be even more distracting. It is far too easy to become sucked into the conversation and let the phone call take priority over your driving. If you are at the wheel of a car, your driving should have priority at all times. No telephone call is more important than a human life. And as we have already heard from the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, mobile phones have been implicated in at least six deaths on Britain's roads and possibly more.
If we allow people to use hand-held mobile phones while they are driving, we are condoning bad driving. The law needs to state clearly that it is wrong to do so. One would only need to stand for a few moments on the busy street corners around this House to realise that the present law is not working. We all see drivers selfishly putting their own interests first and taking and making calls on mobiles, regardless of the consequences that practice may have on the safety of others.
Making it a specific offence to use a hand-held mobile phone while driving would make it clear to everyone that it is wrong to do so. There would be no grey areas and no excuses could be offered by motorists found guilty of this highly dangerous practice. Allowing that activity to continue is simply supporting further erosion of this country's driving standards.
The measures proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, are sensible and will make a positive contribution to the safety of everyone as they travel on Britain's busy roads.
11.53 a.m.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I commend the Bill, to which the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, gave a very good introduction. I really believe that the ability to have a telephone in a car is a huge advantage, as it gives a feeling of significant security to women.
I can understand the reluctance of the police to back the Bill, not only because of the enforcement and the sandwich issues mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Jacobs, but because motorists can and do alert the emergency services with a mobile phone if they come across an accident.
I believe that great pressure should be alerted on the mobile phone providers and car phone installers to reduce the cost of the modifications needed to install hands-free sets. It is not a question of just a few pounds, as in the Israeli example cited by the noble Lord, Lord Jacobs. It is a significant amount of money. It would surely be a great advantage for the mobile phone providers and car manufacturers to provide hands-free sets for nominal cost, because they would get greater market penetration than the extraordinary level of 13 per cent mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham. I would have thought that it was much higher.
I support the point made by my noble friend Lord Astor of Hever that cars should not become mobile phone booths, but I cannot believe that people keep on phoning. Surely somebody must say to them, "Don't you realise the cost of making a phone call to a mobile

1163
phone and the cost of making a mobile phone call are so expensive that it would be much better to say, 'Sorry, I am in my car and I will call you when I get back home'".
11.55 a.m.
Lord Annan: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, for being late—I missed only two minutes of his speech—bur. I got caught in a series of traffic jams. I wish to address myself to the Government. I am entirely in favour of the noble Lord's Bill. It is splendid that he has brought it forward.
I was distressed to hear the noble Lord, Lord Jacobs, give a description of his correspondence with the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. I gather that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said that he did not want to bring in this sort of legislation because it could harm the finances of the phone industry. That seems to me to be a weak and despicable argument, if I may say so
My second point concerns the question of the sandwich. Is a sandwich more or less dangerous than a mobile phone? Is it as dangerous to put a cassette in as it is to use a held-hand phone? I do not think that it is, because with a hand-held phone one is doing business, talking to someone and trying to get one's point across. That is very different to talking to a passenger in the next seat.
There is bound to be the usual opposition to the Bill from the motor car lobby. I would politely remind the Government that one of the most splendid displays of courageous statesmanship was shown by the then Barbara Castle when she introduced compulsory seat-belt legislation. That was very unpopular and it was denounced as a typical socialist regulatory measure. However, we all now accept that we should wear seat-belts. The police have put forward the argument that the Bill would be difficult to enforce, but they cannot catch everyone who does not wear seat-belts and so they cannot enforce fully that legislation. That is not an argument against the Bill.
I hope that the Government will have the courage, if not now then when they are willing to give parliamentary time, to introduce a Bill. They should remember what the noble Baroness, Lady Castle, did many years ago.
11.58 a.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, we all owe the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, thanks for introducing this subject, which has provoked or encouraged—I am not sure which is the right word—a series of interesting and useful speeches. I for one will read with great interest the extremely well researched speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Simon. I had difficulty in following it, because I am no technician, but I am sure that it contained some nuggets of gold that I could bear in mind for future reference.
I loathe phones, whether they are hand-held or not. The idea of being at someone else's beck and call wherever I am and in whatever circumstances is enough to drive me from the Liberal Democrat Party much further left, into the arms of those absurd people who
1164
do not like laws of any kind. On the other hand, I have often considered buying one for this reason. A mobile phone offers safety in emergencies if, as a woman, you are on your own in a car. As of now, I am still trying to balance my hatred against the advantages of having one. I am not sure yet which way I will decide.
Conversation in a car can be very distracting to the driver. When I have a passenger in my car, for about 90 per cent of the time I tend to tune out the conversation. If you are thinking about driving, you cannot participate in a conversation. Obviously if it is your boss on the other end of the telephone you cannot afford to give only half of your attention to what he or she is saying. Equally, if you are giving instructions you want to ensure that those instructions are being understood and obeyed.
Several people have talked about what they have witnessed with their own eyes. I believe the worst incident I have ever seen was when driving along the main road towards the Imperial War Museum. A transit van carrying several people, presumably on their way back from work, pulled out from my left. The driver turned to his right—that is, across the entire stream of traffic—with one hand on the steering wheel and the other hand holding his mobile phone. No doubt he was telling someone that he was on his way, just as one overhears people in the Underground and on commuter trains telling their loved ones that they have just arrived at such-and-such a station, and that they will be with them soon. Through the whole of my married life, my husband never felt it necessary to tell me which station he had reached. Times change, and I understand that, but that incident was a very striking example of an utterly unsafe way of driving. No accident was caused on that occasion, but the potential for an accident was great.
One of the interesting points made by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, concerned the potential for increasing the number of accidents because of the increasing use of mobile phone. We are still at the beginning of a practice which will become much more widespread as the years go by.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, referred to the cocoon in which we drive in our cars. That was followed up, though in a different sense, by the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever. However, I cannot accept the argument the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, went on to develop. He said that all we can do is to persuade drivers to behave better. I have in mind the drink-driving campaign. That has been one of the most successful campaigns of any that have been run in the area of road safety. I am sure most noble Lords can remember a time when, as a party was breaking up, people would say, "Oh, have another one for the road". No one says that now. We were encouraged to drink just as we left the party to get into our cars. No one would dream of doing that today. Indeed, if two people are going out as a couple in a car, they will decide before the evening begins which of them is driving home. I have to drive a good deal myself, and I can assure noble Lords that I take great care with my ingestion of liquor if I am going to have to drive afterwards.

1165
The drink-driving campaign is in part a campaign of hearts and minds, but it is backed up by police action; and from time to time during the year, severe police action. If you are over the limit you never know whether someone will pick you up on that. Both of those elements make the campaign effective. My response to the argument that drivers can be persuaded to use their mobile phones more intelligently, or not to use them at all, is that I do not think it will work well unless that persuasion is backed up by the force of the law and some enforcement—I am not saying constant enforcement—by the police.
I hope that the Government will at least consider the ideas put forward in this simple and straightforward Bill which was explained so clearly to us by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham. No one can be in the slightest doubt as to the intent of his Bill. I hope that the Government will be able to give us a response which at least does not cut off the whole idea but rather takes it forward, even if the Government feel that they would be the more suitable body to bring forward such a measure, or perhaps that the Bill needs further consideration. Arguments such as that would be accepted by noble Lords. However, I hope that we will not have to hear a direct refusal of support.
12.6 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Davies, on introducing his Bill. There is no doubt that there is much support in the House for the principle of the Bill in that we are all against the use of hand-held mobile phones while driving.
I had a question to put to the noble Lord, but I believe he answered it in his opening remarks. What is the definition of "driving"? Would that term cover the use of a mobile phone while stationary, perhaps when stuck in a traffic jam. I should like to know the answer to that point, either from the noble Lord the Captain of the Gentleman-at-Arms, in his reply, or from the noble Lord, Lord Davies, in his closing speech.
I have a number of other questions with regard to the Bill. We all wish to make our roads safer. We are lucky that in this country we do have a good road safety record when we consider the huge growth in traffic over the past 50 years or so. We have the lowest number of deaths, or very nearly the lowest number of deaths, since statistics were first collected. We should be proud of that, but that does not mean that we should not try to improve further on that record.
I admit that I have a hands-free mobile phone in my car. The phone is what I would describe to my noble friend Lady O'Cathain as a proper hands-free telephone; namely, one of the most expensive types, rather than merely a kit which consists of a couple of ear-pieces and a microphone. I would say further, and in response to the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, that it is not only women who feel safer with a mobile phone in their car; it is men as well. If one is travelling late at night with one's family and one has a breakdown—fortunately that has not happened to me—
1166
there would be no doubt about the advantages of the mobile phone. For that reason, I do not believe that we should condemn mobile phones altogether. In any case, they are here to stay, whether one likes it or not.
I am interested in the figures and statistics given by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, in his opening remarks. I believe he said that six deaths had been precisely attributed to the use of mobile phones. I have not seen those statistics. I would be interested to know whether they are official statistics from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions or the TRRL. It appears to me that more work needs to be done on this matter. We need to find out exactly how many accidents are caused by the use of mobile phones, and how many are not.
It has already been said that there are a number of equally distracting activities that one can do while driving a car. Mention has already been made of several of them: changing a tape or a CD; smoking; eating a sandwich, to which the noble Lord, Lord Jacobs, referred; reading; or shaving with an electric razor. We see all those activities going on while we are driving on the road or walking on the pavement. Small children in the back of the car can also be extremely distracting. I disagree with those who say that eating a sandwich may be less dangerous than using a mobile phone. If a child runs out into the road in front of the car while the driver is eating a sandwich with only one hand on the steering wheel, it is just as dangerous as using a mobile phone at that time.
I turn briefly to The Highway Code. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about that. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, referred to The Highway Code which states:
"You MUST exercise proper control of your vehicle at all times. Never use a hand held mobile phone",
and so on. As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said, the introduction of The Highway Code makes it very clear that when the words "must/must not" are used those rules are legal requirements and if one disobeys them one is committing a criminal offence. That seems clear enough to me.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies, also referred to a campaign, I think he said by the Midlands motorway police. Presumably that campaign was on the basis of offences in The Highway Code. We should have more such campaigns. There should be more publicity as to the undesirability of using a mobile phone. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Jacobs, I received with my mobile phone bill a note from the company telling me that I would be best advised not to use it in the car. However, I suspect that the Government may say that they also issue leaflets with their vehicle excise duty reminder telling people about this. Is any research undertaken into the number of people who read those slips which accompany the vehicle excise duty reminder? I suspect that 99.9 per cent of people put them straight into the waste paper basket unread. I may be wrong about that: I hope that I am.
There is no doubt in my mind that it is highly undesirable to use a mobile phone while driving. I was interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Jacobs, said

1167
about the view of the police. I do not think that any speaker has stated the official view of the Association of Chief Police Officers. I should be interested to hear that view. If it is, as the noble Lord, Lord Jacobs, said, against the Bill, it is a consideration that we should take seriously. The noble Lord referred to the sandwich argument. There is no doubt that there is some merit in that argument.
We have had a good debate. Again I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Davies, on introducing the Bill.
12.12 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, we have had a useful and informative debate. Because of the time available I may not be able to reply to every point raised in the debate. If I fail to do so, I undertake, as I always do, to write to noble Lords to deal with their questions.
I, too, congratulate my noble friend Lord Davies of Oldham on his commitment to road safety as demonstrated by his willingness to bring this Bill before the House today. I welcome this opportunity to debate the issue of mobile phones and driving so that we can consider the issues and the evidence in a calm and reasoned manner, and perhaps dispel some of the myths. Before turning to the particulars of the Bill, I can advise the House that we believe that it has no implications for the European Convention on Human Rights. I should also say that my noble friend Lord Whitty is attending an important ministerial meeting in Brussels today and cannot be here to reply to the debate.
While a large percentage of the population use mobile phones, they attract wildly different reactions. Some would say they are the curse of the 20th century—in particular on trains. Others regard them as indispensable. The reality is somewhere in between. They can be vital in the competitive world of commerce and very useful for social and emergency purposes. On the other hand, as we have all experienced, the inconsiderate user can make them annoying and intrusive.
Whatever people may think about them, mobile phones are here to stay. They can be of great assistance to drivers and especially vulnerable road users—the disabled, the elderly and women travelling alone—for their personal security and in the event of an accident; and I think we should welcome this aid to communication. My wife drives alone a great deal on the motorway between our home in Wiltshire and London. She had a mobile phone in her car before I had one myself. She remarks on the increased sense of security that it gives her.
I noted the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, who said that she hated the idea of being traced wherever she was, and being at the beck and call of callers. I gently point out to the noble Baroness that this argument is not persuasive to a Chief Whip!
If we want to restrict the use of mobile phones in cars, we must be clear about the risks they pose to car drivers and other road users in the event of an accident.
1168
A number of noble Lords mentioned research. My noble friend Lord Davies is quite right to be concerned about the safety implications of using mobile phones while driving. There has been a great deal of research carried out into this very issue over the past 25 years, most of which suggests that there is some cause for concern. However, we need to be very clear about the specific problems caused by mobile phones and their impact on accident risk lbefore we consider enacting specific legislation against them. The conclusions of the research carried out to date are complex and do not allow us to say unequivocally that the use per se of mobile phones causes accidents. A full review of the body of research available was carried out by the Transport Research Laboratory on behalf of the department in November 1997 and the resulting report,The use of mobile phones while driving: a review, by A Stevens and D A O Paulo, is available from the House Library.
One of the things the review highlighted was that despite the numerous studies into the use of mobile phones, the size of many of them was small and limited in scope. Furthermore, the research studies had many different objectives. They used different measuring equipment, required different tasks and made different measurements. Studies have involved road and track environments in instrumented vehicles, laboratory equipment or driving simulators—like the RoSPA-funded research. Each approach has its merits, but that diversity has also made it more difficult to discern and reach a consensus about the safety concerns of driving and mobile phones as opposed to the distraction, and we are still not in a position to confirm a causal link between accidents and the use of mobile phones. Research may be able to identify mobile phones as a contributory factor in accidents, but the importance of that factor is still not completely clear.
The most recent pieces of research brought to our attention highlight the problem of the complexity of the research and the apparently contradictory results. Research undertaken by the Psychology Department of Aston University concluded that,
"distractions while driving may interfere with individuals' ability to make potentially important risk judgments and may therefore compromise safety on the road."
That is supported by a recent University of Toronto study which concluded that drivers talking on a mobile phone were four times as likely to have an accident as those not on the phone. Also we are aware of the review of research conducted by Texas University, referred to by my noble friend Lord Simon. It concluded that the evidence did not imply that mobile phones were themselves hazardous but that there was a suggestion of a possible relationship with crashes and that more study was necessary.
On the other hand, the RAC, perhaps not surprisingly, believes that mobile phones can in certain circumstances alleviate tension and can reduce the temptation of drivers to speed.
I do not propose to debate the nature and quality of any of this research. I cite the range of research as examples of the diversity of opinion.

1169
There would appear to be plenty of anecdotal information about the use of mobile phones. Some of the information has been mentioned in the debate, but this is mainly circumstantial. There have been about six high profile road accident fatalities associated with the use of mobile phones, but while any accident is regrettable, I should be cautious about concluding anything as complex as accident causation from reports in the press.
One of the main problems with the findings of the research—it has been touched on in the debate—is that there have been few specific studies on the use of hand-held mobile phones while driving whereas there have been a great number of studies about the effect of hands-free equipment.
Studies suggest that the distraction effect of phones reduces as they are made easier to use—that is common sense—through more sophisticated hands-free equipment; for example, voice-operated call dialling. However, the distraction that is caused by the mental effort of a telephone conversation is still present, even with advanced aids. Brief casual conversations that take place under light traffic conditions are unlikely to have a discernible safety effect. More intense telephone conversations, which we have all experienced from time to time, have been shown to cause considerable distraction and it is thought that this may impact on safety. It is true that there is some evidence suggesting that phone conversations are more stressful than equivalent conversations with passengers, but comparison with the use of other in-vehicle equipment is difficult to ascertain.
So what is the best solution? I hope that your Lordships will agree that the problem is not a simple one, as today's debate has confirmed. However, we believe that the inappropriate use of mobile phones is a real risk to road safety. There is a temptation for car drivers to turn their cars into mobile offices. We do not object to the idea in principle, provided the drivers are responsible and pull over at an appropriate site to carry out a conversation or other office-based activity.
I believe that drivers in this country are, on the whole, responsible. They are required to demonstrate a high degree of competence in their driving test and there is no evidence to suggest that driving standards have been deteriorating. This country's road safety record is ever improving and is one of the best in Europe. If people are using mobile phones unsafely, we believe that we should first try to rectify this problem through education and publicity.
In order to educate the public about the dangers of mobile phones, we launched a campaign last year to remind drivers of the potential dangers of using mobile phones while driving. The noble Lord, Lord Jacobs, mentioned that campaign. It included national newspaper advertisements and the publication of a leaflet that we have distributed to local authority road safety officers, the police and to learner drivers through driving instructors and test centres. Following discussions with the mobile phone companies, they sent similar leaflets to their customers.
1170
The message we are sending in this publicity is that it is unsafe to use a hand-held mobile phone when driving. Even receiving a call from a hands-free phone can cause a dangerous distraction. It is safer to switch the phone off, relying on divert or a message service, or to let a passenger make or take calls. Essential calls taken with a hands-free phone should be kept brief, including those by the emergency services, taxi drivers and couriers. Employers should not expect their staff to use a phone while driving.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, mentioned the code of practice. We have also strengthened the advice in the latest edition of The Highway Code, which was published in February. It now states:
"You MUST exercise proper control of your vehicle at all times. Never use a hand held mobile phone or microphone when driving. Using hands free equipment is also likely to distract your attention from the road. It is far safer not to use any telephone while you are driving—find a safe place to stop first".
The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, asked about the exact legal effects of that rule. I shall write to him about the matter as it involves a complex legal point. We shall continue to review the need to educate and train the public in using mobile phones in vehicles, especially in the light of new research findings, or—as can be expected—in the light of new technological advances.
My noble friend has, with this Bill, suggested that the next logical step is to introduce specific legislation to criminalise the use of a hand-held mobile phone while driving. I have heard the arguments that we should penalise drivers who fail to heed the messages that we send and who put the safety of themselves and the safety of others at risk through improper and unsafe use of their mobile phones.
I agree that the police should have the power to penalise those people who ignore the safety risks of using mobile phones—hand-held or hands-free—and who drive without proper control of their vehicle as a result. However, the police have powers available to them under existing legislation. Possible offences and the penalties available upon conviction include: failing to have proper control of the vehicle, which has a maximum fine of £2,500; and careless and inconsiderate driving, which has a maximum fine of £2,500, three to nine penalty points and discretionary disqualification. Even the offence of dangerous driving can be used if using a mobile phone causes such driver behaviour. It carries a maximum penalty of two years' imprisonment, an unlimited fine and a minimum one-year disqualification and extended retest.
We know that offenders are being prosecuted by the police under these powers or being offered fixed penalty tickets. We expect the police to continue doing that, just as they would prosecute any offence in which drivers are not in control of their vehicles. The police have available to them—and use—the existing powers to prosecute not just people who drive unsafely while using hand-held mobile phones, but for any sort of activity that causes distraction and results in drivers not having proper control of their vehicles. This can include tuning radios, eating or arguing with passengers—the sorts of distractions that are mentioned in The Highway Code—or other types of distraction. Research cannot tell us the

1171
level at which any of these or similar activities causes enough distraction to cause an accident, and that is why it is better to have a blanket power to tackle all of them, rather than singling out one type of activity for special legislation.
The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, asked about the reaction of the Association of Chief Police Officers. According to its brief, which I will send to the noble Lord, ACPO considers the existing legislation to be sufficient to deal with cases that allege driving offences arising from the use of a mobile telephone.
The police believe that specific legislation for mobile phones could weaken their ability to prosecute similar offences such as eating while driving—or what may come to be known in legal circles as the "Jacobs sandwich" defence. This is a matter of how well the legislation is framed, but I imagine that, if specific offences are created, there must be a risk, as the noble Lord, Lord Jacobs, pointed out, that the absence of a specific offence for another dangerous activity could be used as a defence, or at least could downgrade the seriousness of that offence, regardless of the safety and accident risk. I am sure that your Lordships have read the story of the person who was prosecuted and charged with dangerous driving for driving at more than 80 miles per hour while reading a newspaper. I believe that he overtook a police car, which I thought was a little careless in the circumstances. He was fined and banned from driving for two years. We must not risk watering down the powers available to deal with offences such as this.
We believe that the existing powers are adequate at this stage—and so do the police. Our campaign about the dangers of using hand-held phones must be given a chance to persuade drivers about the proper use of mobile phones. Although we do not support this Bill, road safety will continue to be one of our highest priorities. We have not closed our minds to the option of further legislation, but, as I have said, precise drafting may prove difficult. If drivers fail to take notice of the dangers of using mobile phones in cars and fail to behave responsibly—as all drivers are required to do—we shall certainly review the case for specific legislation.
Lord Jacobs: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, can he confirm that using a mobile phone—either hands-free or hand-held—while driving is not an offence if one remains in proper control of one's vehicle?
Lord Carter: My Lords, that is the case at the moment. The offence occurs only if the use of a mobile phone leads to dangerous driving.
12.27 p.m.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, this has been a fascinating and instructive debate. I did a great deal of work in preparing my case, but I have learnt more from the debate in the Chamber in the past hour and a quarter than from my research. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken, and I pay particular tribute to the
1172
speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Simon. I appreciate the research that he conducted in support of his argument.
It would be invidious to comment on every contribution that has been made. The Minister has already responded well to those speeches and it would protract my remarks unduly. However, perhaps I may refer to several contributions. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, who was the first to raise the issue in this Parliament when he tabled a question in May 1997. I hope that he appreciates the extent to which I am seeking to sustain the pressure at this time. I also pay tribute to the president of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, the noble Lord, Lord Astor, who has guided me in the current work of that society. We all recognise the merits of his contribution today.
However, I think that the debate turned largely on the contributions of the noble Lords, Lord Jacobs and Lord Lucas. The noble Lord, Lord Jacobs, identified what the Minister referred to as the "Jacobs sandwich".
Let me be clear that we are concerned about the translation of the car into the mobile office. It is a cocooned environment and for many business people it is their working environment for much of the day. The RAC's research indicates that frequently businessmen are called and told to slow down because they do not need to carry out their work under such a high degree of pressure. In those circumstances, the mobile telephone can be an aid to safety. However, I doubt whether that squares with the reality of the pressures of modern business life. Calls from head office are more likely to be along the lines of, "Here is an extra commitment that we are expecting you to fulfil and it will increase the pressure". That is the nature of the business world in which we live. I wonder how many noble Lords are in an environment where people telephone to say, "Relax a little. You are overdoing things and we would like you to do a little less". We receive telephone calls which increase the pressure upon us and I am sure that that is equally true of the wider population.
In the office environment of the motor car, is it the case that the driver is engaged in the same kind of activity when eating a sandwich, having a row with a fellow passenger, changing a cassette or any of the other incidents which occur in a car? With regard to car entertainment, the manufacturers have increased the safety dimension by making controls more easily available to the driver. But surely we all recognise from our own common sense that telephone calls are more intrusive than any other form of activity within the car. Using a phone is not the same activity as eating a sandwich, which you can put down immediately; nor can it be compared to a threatening situation which would quickly stop all the other passengers talking.
The problem with the telephone is that it is totally preoccupying. One only has to test that at home when taking a telephone call and at the same time trying to take part in any other activity or to respond to what is happening in one's immediate environment. When one is listening only to the human voice and receiving no

1173
body signals, the degree of concentration required is very high. The telephone is a most intrusive and demanding instrument which puts us all under pressure at various times. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, said that she would join the Labour Party if that would reduce the degree of pressure—
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, my suggestion was that I should join not the Labour Party, but the anarchists.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, in which case, what a pity we have not gained a welcome recruit! However, I must be honest and say that in my party the pressure with regard to the telephone is not reduced. My noble friend the Chief Whip indicated that, too.
Telephone calls are intrusive and are dangerous in the driving environment. My noble friend the Chief Whip indicated the measures which the Government have taken. Studying The Highway Code is, of course, of great benefit, although in my experience the only people who read The Highway Code are those who are preparing for the driving test. If The Highway Code is an important element in improving driving behaviour, why only in the past month did the West Midlands Police Force pull in 1,000 motorway drivers for infringing the code by using mobile telephones while driving? The simple fact is that until we have a specific law our nation will not appreciate the dangers of using the hand-held mobile telephone.
That is the basis of the case for this Bill; it is not to overburden the police. However, I must say that it is easier for the police to see a mobile telephone held up to the ear than it is to monitor the seat-belt legislation, yet its implementation is recognised as an important safety measure. I do not want to see additional burdens put upon the police, but I do want to see the behaviour of our driving public improve. Once it is against the law to use a hand-held mobile telephone while driving, the vast majority of our law-abiding fellow citizens will desist the practice; their common sense will tell them that it is dangerous on our crowded roads.
I accept what the Minister said and recognise that I do not have the warmest support for the measure. However, this is a listening government and I suggest that we should continue to make a gentle din in their ears on a worthy measure. On that basis, I ask the House to give the Bill a second reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Genetically Modified Crops Bill [H.L.]
12.35 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Miller of Hendon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Brougham and Vaux) in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Consents for genetically modified organisms for agricultural purposes]:
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. A1:
Page 1, line 16, at end insert (", such research being subject to subsection (8G),")
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 6A which can be grouped with it. I was assured that the Minister had been informed about that.
At first, it seemed a little strange to be tabling amendments to my own Bill. But then I looked at what the Government did to the Greater London Authority Bill, which grew by 30 per cent while in the other place and was still being subjected to government amendments while in your Lordships' House. Furthermore, the Employment Relations Bill grew enormously yesterday when a whole new schedule was introduced.
The amendments are necessary because it is more than four months since the Bill was originally introduced. It took from 24th February until 18th June to receive a Second Reading and it is three weeks since then. As Harold Macmillan said, events have happened since then. I am sure that noble Lords will understand that I have received so much lobbying and advice from so many learned sources that I needed to table the amendments.
Amendment No. 1 is a paving amendment for Amendment No. 6A. In speaking to both amendments I remind the Committee that the primary purpose of the Bill is to ensure that genetically modified crops cannot be authorised for commercial release without adequate research being conducted into the risk involved in doing so.
The contemporary experience of GM crop field trials are currently in progress at sites throughout Britain. That experience has raised certain fundamental concerns with the testing procedures now in use. The two amendments seek to address those concerns. One of the greatest importance is that any decision on commercial release should not precede the completion of the associated research programme. That is why the amendments would require the Secretary of State to set an end date for each research programme that may be extended as required but may not be preceded by an authorisation for commercial release.
It is also important that a research programme is not allowed to develop into a de facto situation of commercial release. One could envisage a situation in which GM test sites could be used to produce a commercial crop. This amendment would outlaw the sale of crops from GM test sites on which authorisation for commercial release was yet to be granted. Without such a provision, the risk will always remain that the purpose of any piece of legislation designed to regulate GM crops could be undermined.
Any Government guarantee on GM crops depends upon the integrity of the research programme, as I am sure the Government would agree. This amendment makes the minimum provision required to ensure that integrity and I hope that it will be supported on all sides. I beg to move.
Lord Taverne: I shall make only one speech on the various amendments put forward today. The amendments have a common theme. I do not regard them as helpful, as they add to bureaucracy when present safeguards seem to be adequate. It is particularly worrying that they should be part of a. world-wide trend towards over-regulation and increased bureaucracy, which is likely to prove harmful, and which is based on the fundamental fallacy that one should be concerned with a particular process rather than with the product.
There seems to be a requirement for ever more detailed regulation. I have just read a rather disturbing article in the May issue of Trends in Biotechnology, by a Mr Henry Miller from the Hoover Institute of Stanford university. He points out that international codes are being developed at the instigation of several European governments which require the establishment of new environmental bureaucracies, and demand a commitment of resources from impoverished developing countries if researchers in those countries wish to perform even small-scale field trials of crops of local economic value, such as cassava, potatoes, rice, wheat and ornamental flowers. He points out that they are founded on an unscientific process-based definition of what requires regulation that is wholly irrelevant to risk. They are based on what is irrational and counter-productive, because they tend to ignore organisms actually known to present a threat to biodiversity, while focusing on others for which only hypothetical analyses can be offered.
The trend is worrying, because it limits the ability of crop breeders to test a large number of new varieties readily and rapidly in field trials. Those field trials are essential. Regulation is also needed to assure the public that these products are not harmful. However, we already have a high degree of regulation. Much of the concern is driven by hostility to biotechnology rather than by concern for biodiversity. It is the product not the process that should be regulated.
After all, what is the process with which the amendments and Bill are so concerned? It is genetic modification or engineering; the DNA processes used to develop transgenic foods. But the process is exactly the same as that used to develop numerous pharmaceutical products; products for the use of humans and animals that are accepted and are highly beneficial. It is exactly the same technology. The problem is that what the supporters of this approach are doing is having an effect, as the article points out, throughout the world.
This is not the occasion to go into the issue in detail, but I wish that those concerned about biotechnology and, in particular, GM technology, would read Nature more often, in which there are frequent articles that examine such questions. I was struck by an article that I read the other day in the latest July issue of that leading scientific journal. Florence Wambugu, director
1176
of the International Service for the Acquisition of Agro-biotech Applications in Nairobi, Kenya, pointed out the harmful effect of publications such as the research by Dr Pusztai, which has now been completely discredited, and the effect on areas such as Africa which need such technology where there is potential for doubling production if viral diseases can be controlled using transgenic technology.
We do not need ever more bureaucratic regulation. It is self-defeating, harmful to the environment, unrealistic and is based on a disregard of scientific evidence and on scare stories in newspapers that do not pay much regard to the research that has been carried out.
12.45 p.m.
Baroness Wilcox: How could one disagree with what has been said? I spend my life representing the British consumer and it is in that context that I add my comments.
The problem is that British and European consumers have been frightened by biotechnology, genetic modification and all the processes that are going on. Unfortunately, they do not read Science Today or Nature. They read the Sun and other newspapers, and watch food programmes on television but never see a scientist speaking about these issues. I have no doubt that technically what is being sought is laborious and will bring even more regulation on top of that which already exists, and which according to the scientific community is perfectly sufficient.
But this House does not talk only to the scientific community, but to the people of this country. That is why we are here. My noble friend Lord Taverne has expertise in science; mine is in representing the consumer and ensuring that they may be reassured. It has been said that we could save the world if we moved much faster and that the amendments will slow things down. I have heard of people saving the world before. Many countries can defend themselves against the power of multi-national companies only by the use of their regulatory authorities, which are rightly becoming more and more powerful.
The amendments may acid another level of regulation, but we need to reassure the British people that what they are being offered to eat is subject to the protection of their country's government. I shall therefore support anything that slows down the process to a point at which the public can begin to feel more confident. If more scientists could speak to us, if they could lower their standards and write in the Sun instead of in scientific journals, we might not be quite so frightened by what is going on. That is important.
Lord Skelmersdale: I should like to raise a query about Amendment No. 6A, which states:
"The Secretary of State shall not authorise the release of genetically modified organisms … until …
(c) a survey has been conducted over the area in which the genetically modified organisms are to be released, in order to gather ecological baseline data that pertain to the site prior to release."
That process will take a considerable time. If the amendment's object is to delay almost indefinitely any field trials of genetically modified crops, all well and

1177
good, but I am sure that that is not the intention. I hope that that point can be met by my noble friend Baroness Miller of Hendon.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: I shall not promise to speak only once today. I should like to express my profound disagreement with the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Taverne. On Second Reading he spoke after me so that there was nothing that I could do to express my increasingly sharp disagreement with what he said. I believe that he has misunderstood the notion of process in the matter. To draw comparisons between the process which is involved in genetic modification in the pharmaceutical industry and to try to extrapolate from that the processes involved in genetic modification agriculture is entirely misguided. In the pharmaceutical industry, the process takes place in the controlled conditions of a laboratory. In agriculture, the process inevitably takes place in open country.
It is of course true that some food safety fears are groundless. I am quite glad that there is fear about food safety because I believe that it has helped to put the brakes on the process. The development has been slowed down due to general public concern. I want to reassure the public about the food safety aspects, but I emphasise as strongly as possible to the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, and to the Committee in general that the environmental dangers of this kind of cultivation are simply unknowable until a great deal of research has taken place. That is bound to take time. I do not think that it matters that it takes time. I believe that most responsible people are prepared to wait.
The impact of genetically modified organisms will be on the biodiversity of our country, where agriculture and biodiversity have to co-exist. That point was made effectively at Second Reading. The situation is entirely different in the United States. People there are not particularly interested in the potential impact of genetically modified crops on biodiversity. That is why I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, has in a sense "grown her own Bill", because at Second Reading it was a very brief document, an alarmingly brief document in fact. Its future looked rather uncertain because not enough was spelt out in it concerning the actual processes involved. I suspect that we shall come to some difficult questions of technicality under Amendment No. 5, in relation to defining when a new product must be treated in a new way. But I warmly support this amendment and I believe it is entirely in keeping with the precautionary principle which must obtain before we allow the commercial release of GM crops.
There is a valid question concerning how we control farm-scale trials, where they take place and within what limits. I am still glad to see the increasing care and degree of control set out in these amendments. At this stage, I speak to register my profound disagreement with the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, which I hope he will not mind.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: Perhaps I too may add a word. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, is
1178
very keen on the scientific approach. One must say that the scientists have not been always been that clever. They have also made some terrible mistakes which have been inflicted on society as a result of their demand to be accepted as infallible. They are very fallible. The farming of genetically modified crops may be a process, as the noble Lord, Lord Taverne said, but it is one which has a direct effect on the environment, as the right reverend Prelate said. Therefore I shall not comment on the noble Lord's speech at this stage. I shall leave that until the next amendment, tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Caithness.
Baroness Byford: I rise to support my noble friend's two amendments. If it does not seem impertinent, perhaps I should remind all present that we are now in Committee and not on Second Reading.
I believe that the purpose of my noble friend's amendments is to bring to the Government's attention the need to restore public support and understanding. With these two amendments, my noble friend merely seeks to provide adequate research time before the final approval to go ahead is given, and to put an end date on the research time. With those few remarks I should like to support my noble friend.
Lord Carter: The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said that her experiences on the GLA Bill and the number of government amendments to that Bill have persuaded her to introduce all these amendments. The government amendments to the GLA Bill are in response to points which were made in the other place. The noble Baroness is now seeking to amend her own Bill in Committee. Perhaps that says something about the drafting of the Bill in the first place.
All the points included in these amendments are already within the power of the Secretary of State under the existing Act and regulations. I reiterate that under the current legislation, no genetically modified organism or plant may be released for any purpose without the express approval of the Secretary of State. All approver's research is already under time limit. Reports of research, including effects on human health and the environment, already must be submitted during and after release. The Secretary of State already has powers for acquiring all the information necessary to reach a decision before a commercial release is authorised. Under the current provisions, applications for both research releases and commercialisation of GM crops are in the public domain, together with all the supporting evidence submitted by the companies. It would now be quite inappropriate for that information also to be laid before both Houses of Parliament.
As regards the disposal of the crop material which may be produced during a research programme, the fate of such produce is already stipulated in the consent granted by the Secretary of State. If it does not already have clearance for human consumption or animal feed, its use for that purpose will be prohibited in the consent. Procedures for termination and research release are already stipulated in the consent.
All consents and the supporting documents are held on a public register, available for viewing at the Department of the Environment, Transport and the

1179
Regions. Copies may be obtained by post on request. The Committee will not be surprised to hear me say after that that it is therefore quite unnecessary to lay that information before Parliament. If the noble Baroness wants to amend her own Bill, that is of course entirely up to her.
Lord Skelmersdale: Before my noble friend replies, is the noble Lord the Chief Whip telling us that no Bill produced by this Government has ever been amended by the same Government in Committee?
Lord Carter: The introduction of amendments in Committee to the GLA Bill has obviously had an effect on the noble Baroness, which I can understand. They were tabled after considerable debate in the other place and in response to points made there. I was interested to learn that that Bill required so much amendment only yesterday. In the kindest possible way, I wondered if that had the slightest relationship to the original drafting of the Bill.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: Before I respond to specific points, I should like to respond to the noble Lord the Chief Whip who is responding to my amendments on behalf of the Government. In the first instance, when one introduces a Private Member's Bill, one does not have the galaxy of all the officials to help with its drafting. It may well be that one has not finished drafting it until six o'clock the night before, or five o'clock, or whenever. These amendments were in fact tabled by lunchtime yesterday. I should just like to remind the noble Lord of that point. In fact, the Greater London Authority Bill has not been amended solely because the Government were responding to points raised. They themselves admitted that many of the clauses were not clear and that the amendments were there to clarify them.
Lord Carter: Will the noble Baroness agree that that is the last time that we should mention the GLA Bill?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: Yes, provided that the noble Lord does not mind if I mention the Employment Relations Bill.
I understand the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, and where he is coming from, but I remind him that at Second Reading he was grateful for the way in which I introduced the Bill. He said that there was no great objection to the Bill, although he was not certain that it was needed. He made the point today that he does not think that the amendments which I have tabled are needed because of the scientific experience and advice which he has received. I must remind the noble Lord that there have been conflicting learned and high-level scientific opinions. That is one of the points of the Bill. It is for that reason that I believe that the public are concerned about this issue.
I should say to the Minister that I was expecting him to say that these amendments are not necessary. But if they are not necessary, it will not be harmful to include them. The advantage would be that the description of what the Secretary of State will do car be found in one
1180
place in the Bill, whereas normally one has to look to other Bills to find where the Secretary of State's powers are described.
With regard to the point made by my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale, when I come to speak to Amendment No. 9 it will probably help to clarify that position a little. I am grateful for the comments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 16, at end insert ("and has undertaken consultations on the research with such expert bodies as are concerned with the preservation of the natural environment that he considers appropriate")
The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 1, with the leave of the Committee, I should like to speak to Amendment No. 2 also.
At Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said that when addressed by my noble friend Lady Miller a shudder went through his spine. I am sorry that he is in Brussels today, but I am delighted that the Government Chief Whip is to reply because this concerns a purely farming point. With myself and the Government Chief Whip being two of the agriculturists in the House, I hope that I shall receive a satisfactory response.
Before the Secretary of State grants permission for the release of GM organisms, I believe it is absolutely right that he should consult widely, not just the scientists, from whom one has differing and conflicting opinions, but also the environmental and farming communities. That is why in Amendment No. I have mentioned those concerned with "the natural environment" and in Amendment No. 2,
"the consulted representatives of the farming industry".
It is quite normal for Secretaries of State to consult members of the farming industry. It has happened for many years. That is not an onerous task and it can probably be included in other meetings that the Secretary of State holds. I hope that my noble friend will warmly accept these amendments. I beg to move.
1 p.m.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: No doubt the Minister will expect me to speak on this subject. I thank my noble friend Lord Caithness for introducing the subject of organic farming. As Members of the Committee know, I am patron of the Soil Association, which has asked for a cordon sanitaire of six miles around areas where genetically modified crops are grown. That may be considered a rather large requirement. Scientists from Cornell University have suggested that a two-kilometre cordon sanitaire should be available because they understand that bees can carry disease across such a distance.
In this country we have a densely farmed agricultural community, unlike America where vast area: of land can happily and easily be converted to genetic modification without interfering with anything else.

1181
Therefore, it is important that in this country we should have sufficient controls. For that reason, I warmly support the amendment tabled by my noble friend.
Lord Carter: I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, for his kind words about my farming experience. I should point out to him that I used to be a farmer, but now I speak for the Government!
The effects of these amendments is to require that the results of research on the effect of the use of genetically modified crops are considered by expert bodies concerned with preservation of the natural environment before consent is issued. The current legislation already requires the applicant to have carried out research to demonstrate that the crop will not cause harm to the environment and that the Secretary of State must consult expert advice, such as the relevant committees, including the statutory nature conservation bodies, before granting a consent, so both the provisions of the Bill and the amendment are unnecessary.
The second amendment seeks consultation with the farming industry, including organic farmers, before consent is granted. Again the current legislation allows for the views of the farming industry and other interested parties to be taken into account before a decision is taken to grant a consent. As I have said, we feel that the amendment is unnecessary. If the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, wants to accept the amendment, we shall follow the usual convention and not object from these Benches.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: The two amendments tabled by my noble friend at line 16 call for the Secretary of State to consult with environmentalists and the farming industry. I do not see how anyone could possibly object to such a procedure in the interests of ensuring that any decision that is made about the release of GM crops is as fully informed as possible.
Although the Minister has said that he would not object if I accepted the amendments, he has said once again that they are not necessary because the power is already there. But the power is not in the Bill and I strongly feel that the Bill is of help to everybody. I believe that putting the power in the Bill would strengthen it. If the power is there already, the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, are in a sense also unnecessary, because it would seem that those powers are somewhere else.
The amendment would also ensure that when ministerial guidelines are approved by Parliament, as required by subsection (4)(d) of Clause 1, Parliament would have the fullest possible picture. I am sure that the Government will say that they will consult—I am sure they will—but if they are to do that, there is no reason not to have it on the face of the Bill.
The Earl of Caithness: I am extremely grateful for the support of my noble friends. To the Government Chief Whip I say, once a farmer always a farmer! I know that beneath that tough Chief Whip's exterior
1182
there beats a heart that is sympathetic to the countryside. Given different circumstances, I am sure that he would move the amendment as happily as I do.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 16, at end insert—
("() he has consulted representatives of the farming industry, including organic farmers,").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Kimball Lord Kimball moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 22, at end insert ("; and
(e) after 31st December 2001 in respect of herbicide tolerant crops.")
The noble Lord said: I move Amendment No. 3 and, with the leave of the House, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 4. These two amendments reflect what has been said by the right reverend Prelate. They put some dates into the Bill. Specific dates are important. I do not know whether your Lordships have had an opportunity of seeing an article in the Royal Horticultural Society's journal for July on the subject of plant breeders' rights. We cannot deny to the rural community the fruits of agricultural research. I am conscious of the fact that in another place, representing as I did a large chunk of North Lincolnshire, I had one of the foremost plant breeders in my constituency. We cannot deny for too long the research and the contribution to prosperity that those companies have made in increased yields and disease-resistant stock, particularly in the case of herbicide tolerant crops.
The article in the journal of the Royal Horticultural Society went on to point out that in the present plant breeding programmes, we shall shortly see, on a large scale, "spoiler" genes being incorporated. When you buy a seed, you will be able to use it only for the purpose for which it was grown. In no way will you be able to siphon off some of it and hope to plant it again, because it just will not grow. That will increase the monopoly power of the large American corporations. If we have further restrictions, Monsanto and Dupont will be laughing all the way to the bank because of the restrictions on plant breeding in this country.
Of course, my noble friend Lady Miller is right. She wants to meet the genuine concerns of many people. Please let us have a date to which the plant breeders can work with a chance of some commercial release in the not-too-distant future. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: My noble friend has sought to group Amendments No. 3 and 4 together. That slightly surprises me. Why has he chosen the date of 31st December 2001 in respect of herbicide tolerant crops and 31st December 2003 in respect of insect tolerant crops? My noble friend did not refer to that point.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: Perhaps I can help my noble friend. When SCIMAC, which stands for the Supply Chain Initiative on Modified Agricultural Crops, reported, it said that it would be ready to produce

1183
herbicide tolerant crops in the year 2000 and insect tolerant crops by the year 2002. SCIMAC thought that that difference was necessary in the production of those crops.
Lord Taverne: I am sorry to speak against the principle I announced that I should speak only once, but a number of questions have been raised that I want to answer. Once again, the question of delay arises. I want to stress, once more, the disadvantages of putting dates in the Bill, thus causing particular delays.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford said that he totally disagreed with my view that what mattered was not the process but the product. Scientists have different opinions, but I would certainly argue that most of them would take the view that it is the product which has to be addressed, not the process. After all, as the report of the Royal Society pointed out, the transfer of genes from one species to another takes place now—the constant transfer of genes which takes place by old-fashioned traditional bio-technology without genetic modification. I entirely agree that we need to know a great deal more about this. Many mistakes have been made in the past.
Many years ago I read a most interesting analysis by the Office of Technology Assessment, which gave very good advice to the US Congress. It no longer exists, but it actually listed some 850,000 cases, believe, of new organisms which had been released into a different environment. It traced the cases where this had had harmful effects and where it had not. Some consequences were extremely serious, though not disastrous, as result of the random transfer which took place. It has been happening all the time. One has to think of the product. There is nothing specially dangerous about the process; indeed, that is one of the things that was pointed out by the Royal Society in its recent report on the issue.
I should point out to the right reverend Prelate that one must hear in mind the very serious consequences of a slow-down which gravely disadvantages and, indeed, may ruin this industry. It is an industry which has enormous benefits to contribute to mankind. If one is really concerned about intensive agriculture and about the spread of chemicals, one should encourage the most rapid form of field trials which would actually reduce the intensive use of chemicals.
The noble Earl, Lord Clanwilliam, said that you cannot trust scientists too much because they have made mistakes in the past. Of course, that is true. However, what is uppermost of most people's minds is the advice given by some scientists that BSE was safe. That is the most signal example and one which has undermined public confidence in the verdict of scientists. Having recently read the history if BSE, it is interesting to note—
Lord Carter: I should point out to the noble Lord that scientists said that beef was safe, and not that BSE was safe.
Lord Taverne: I accept the correction. Indeed, certain scientists said that beef was safe and that we need not worry about the chances of contracting BSE too much.
1184
It is interesting to note that this was a very difficult issue where the actual science—for example, the history of Kuru—was known by very few. The committee which looked at this was, at first, totally ignorant of the case of Kuru and of the transfers in the case of minx and, indeed, of the recent history of spongiform encephalopathy. However, the scientists who had the expert knowledge were desperately worried about it. GM food and crops is a case where the people who know most about it are the least worried and where those who are causing all the scares are people who are mostly neglectful of the scientific evidence.
The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, said that we do not know about the science but we are worried about public opinion. I am sorry to see that she is no longer in the Chamber. Nevertheless, I wonder which kind of opinion is more worth while—that of the Royal Society or that of the Sun newspaper. I know which one I would choose because newpaper reports distort the facts all the time. Indeed, a recent report carried big headlines stating that the value of GM crops had been totally disproved. Why? The story was based on a study by the US Department of Agriculture. I took the trouble to look up the original source and traced it on the Internet. The conclusions of the study were the direct opposite of what was reported in the press. It concluded that the evidence was limited, that it should be treated at this stage with suspicion; but that, on balance, the evidence showed that there was a reduction in the use of insecticides and the use of herbicides and that greater productivity resulted from the introduction of GM crops. I give way.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: I am obliged. The scientists have produced all sorts of other things besides the BSE scare. What about DDT, deldrin and aldrin? They were very serious introductions which did an enormous amount of damage to the whole world.
Lord Taverne: Of course mistakes have been made in the past. However, if one does not have regard to the best scientific evidence, what other test can one have? Does one really go to the newpapers, like the Sun, and ask them to advise us? Personally, I would prefer the advice of the Royal Society.
One should not ignore the seriousness of continual delay and rendering this no longer a viable industry. The benefits it can produce are enormous. I hope that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford will read the article in Nature by Florence Wambugu because it is very important and shows the enormous importance of this technology to Africa. The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, denounced the multi-nationals. Ms Wambugu previously worked for the Kenya Institute and was getting nowhere with conventional science. She was helped by the multi-nationals to do work on GM crops, which was enormously productive and of great potential value to Africa. One should have regard to the great benefits and not promote amendments or modifications which make field trials slower and less effective.
Baroness Byford: I rise to express my support for my noble friend's two amendments. I am slightly confused by the remarks made by the noble Lord. Lord Taverne,

1185
especially as regards the contribution made by my noble friend Lady Wilcox. She correctly reminded us that, at the end of day, it is the people—that is, all of us—who actually buy the food. It is most important that we should have confidence in what we buy. Therefore, I should like to support my noble friend's two amendments. They will give a special date by which one can start. Indeed, I have looked through much of the paperwork on this issue and studied the interviews that have been given. That reminded me of the interview which the right honourable Michael Meacher gave recently when he spoke on a Radio 4 programme. He said that the commercial planting of the herbicide resistant crops may start in the spring of the year 2000. So my noble friend is not asking for much of a delay.
In fact, with all the uncertainty and discussions that has gone on both in and outside the House, I think it would be very sensible for the Government to accept that we can work to a set date. In that way, those in the farming profession and general consumers will be much happier than they are at present with the phrase "it may", which is going around. That is why I support my noble friend.
Lord Carter: The effect of the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, would be a complete moratorium on research or marketing of certain types of genetically modified crops until 2001, in respect of herbicide tolerant crops, and 2003 in respect of insect tolerant crops. The Government are not prepared to see the development of GM crops stifled in this way. The current UK and EU legislation already closely controls research releases of GM crops. The applicant must be able to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Expert Advisory Committee and the Secretary of State that the proposed release will not cause damage to the environment. There is, therefore, no justification for a complete halt to such research. Similarly, there is no need for a moratorium on the granting of marketing consents. Such consents are only granted at European level and only after member states are satisfied that the growing of the GM plants, or the use of the seeds, will not cause harm to human health or the environment.
Perhaps I may raise one point with the noble Lord that has always puzzled me. He mentioned the seed which cannot be grown on. However, if there is a terminator gene—I believe that that is the correct term—in the seed, which means that there will not be a second generation, presumably there is no danger of the spread of the organism. I believe that I am correct in that assumption, as the noble Lord seems to be in agreement with me.
In addition, such unilateral action by the United Kingdom would be completely contrary to European law. I wonder whether the noble Lord might find that particular argument persuasive.
Lord Kimball: I shall incur the wrath of my noble friend Lady Miller because, in view of what the Captain of the Gentleman at Arms, said, I do not intend to press my amendments. Therefore, with noble Lords' permission, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 4A:
Page 1, line 22, at end insert—
("However, the Secretary of State shall under no circumstances grant consent for the commercial release of genetically modified organisms containing genes for antibiotic resistance present in the organism as the direct result of genetic modification or as a by-product of it.")
The noble Baroness said: I am sure the Committee will agree that the standards of good health that we enjoy today depend in large part upon the availability of effective antibiotics. There is now growing concern in medical circles that this effectiveness is being undermined.
Inevitably, as time goes on, strains of micro-organisms develop resistance to antibiotics to which they are exposed. Therefore any process that raises the level of antibiotics in the environment accelerates the rate at which resistance is developed. With good reason, health campaigners have called for an end to the unnecessary use of antibiotics, whether for human or animal applications.
However, the development of GM crops poses a new threat, that of directly introducing genes for antibiotic resistance into the environment. It is a fact that many forms of genetic modification involve the use of genes coding for antibiotic resistance as so-called "marker genes." The genes, though introduced in the laboratory, persist in the released crop with the risk that they may be passed on to various micro-organisms present in the environment. Such a risk is unacceptable, as is any dependence on voluntary agreements to phase out the use of antibiotic resistance marker genes. Only an unambiguous legislative ban on the release of crops genetically modified in this way can provide an acceptable guarantee on this most crucial of public health issues. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: The Government recognise that there are genuine concerns about the inclusion of antibiotic resistance markers in certain genetically modified organisms. The risks such markers may pose are assessed thoroughly during the approvals process and under the current legislation. The Secretary of State would not grant a consent if inclusion of such markers would pose a risk to human health and the environment. This was highlighted at the Environment Ministers' Council last month where all member states endorsed this view.
There are some antibiotic resistance marker genes whose inclusion in GMOs has no consequence at all for human health or the environment as the antibiotics in question are not used for therapeutic or other purposes. Therefore there is no need for this amendment as the current legislation already deals adequately with the issue. However, we on these Benches have no objection if the noble Baroness wishes to add otiose amendments to her own Bill.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 22, at end insert—
("(8B) Any consent granted by the Secretary of State pursuant to subsection (8A) during the first twenty years after the first release of a genetically modified organism shall not extend for more than three years but may be extended by up to the same period from time to time.
(8C) For the purposes of this section, an organism which is materially different from one already released shall be deemed to be one requiring consent under subsection (8A) and the consent required under subsection (8B) shall be time limited and require renewal as provided it that subsection.
(8D) Any consent granted by the Secretary of State pursuant to subsection (8A) may be revoked at any time without notice during the first twenty years after the first release of a genetically modified organism.
(8E) If any consent is revoked as aforesaid, the Secretary of State may also order the destruction of any growing organisms and the sterilisation of the soil in which they were growing in whatever way he deems appropriate.
(8F) No compensation shall be payable as a consequence of the revocation of a consent or an order for sterilisation.")
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 5 I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 6. Pollen and seeds carried by birds know nothing of national borders. On, I believe, 1st June the Minister, in a Written Answer to the honourable Member for Lewisham Deptford, stated that,
"the Government welcomes the European plans to develop harmonised GMO risk assessment for cosmetic products and will push in Europe for their adoption.
If the Government are concerned about the implications for cosmetic products, how much more concerned should they be for crops? We have seen the presentation by the Supply Chain Initiative on Modified Agricultural Crops (SCIMAC). Prior to that presentation a spokesman for Monsanto—a leading member of SCIMAC—said:
"Consumer response is dictating the agenda, when it should be the science".
I believe that that was breathtaking arrogance, as I mentioned on Second Reading. It is as if consumers are to have no say about what is crammed down their throats in the interests of the recovery of research costs and profits by the biotechnology industry.
I truly believe that in the end it will be found that properly licensed GM foods, derived from properly licensed and controlled GM crops, will be of immense benefit to mankind, not only because of improvements in taste and preservation time, but also because of the increasing demands of an escalating world population with increasing ambitions to enjoy more than the figurative bowl of rice. However, just that one misguided remark by Monsanto made me look closely at what is happening currently and the pressures that are being exerted by the biotechnology industry. That made me ask myself one simple question: what is the hurry?
At its presentation last month SCIMAC announced its guidelines for growing herbicide tolerant crops, its code of practice, its measures to ensure compliance with both of these, and a programme for administration of independent audit. That is all good stuff and all highly commendable. However, self-interested self-regulation
1188
is no substitute for government regulation on a subject as vital as this aspect of the environment, which could be damaged beyond repair for ever by just one accident in just one growing season. As I say, self-regulation is no substitute for government regulation or, at the least, strict rules on labelling—health warnings, if you wish—before the resulting products are put on the supermarket shelves.
Perhaps at this point it is worth my while reminding the Committee that on Second Reading I made it quite clear that I was not talking about genetically modified foods but about genetically modified crops. There is a difference. The New Scientist is not the Sun. The noble Lord may find some evidence in the New Scientist.
Lord Taverne: With respect, I have read the New Scientist version but I have also looked at the original which is much fuller. The New Scientist report is not entirely balanced, but it is still a long way away from the newspaper reports.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I thank the noble Lord for those comments. However, anxiety arises when one sees comments such as "Frankenstein foods" because one assumes that everyone is against everything, whereas my Bill seeks to address those matters which are important to everyone.
However, the good intentions of SCIMAC's objective to support what it calls in its own words,
"the responsible and effective introduction of GM crops in the UK".
—note the word "responsible"—were in my view damaged by two claims made at the presentation. One was that the first GM crops are available for planting in the year 2000. I mention that in response to comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, who is not present at the moment. The year 2000 is now only about 175 days away. The second claim was that no insect-tolerant GM crops are expected in the UK before 2002. What is the hurry? This programme was prepared before there were wholesale desertions from the proposed farm-scale trials. The trials that are left constitute a mere rump of the already inadequate plans. There were 309 trials in 1998. That is reduced to 149 this year, and desertions are still taking place. What is left is no basis for a proper scientific evaluation of the ecological impact and the effect on the environment of the planting of these crops.
My proposed new subsection 8A(a) calls for the Secretary of State to receive the results of scientific research before he authorises the release of current research. Because of the recently drastically reduced size of the testing programme, the validity of the current inadequate level of scientific research is not acceptable. In my view this process of testing has to be reconstructed before there can be any confidence in the results.
The third reason that made me consider that an even stronger tug on the reins of regulation was needed was the Government's seemingly headlong dash towards the commercial planting of these crops even before they had been fully evaluated and tested—a dash led by the Prime Minister. It is interesting to note that during

1189
discussion on the Statement concerning the G8 Summit and Kosovo in another place the right honourable gentleman the Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister why he did not wish to accept my modest Bill. The Prime Minister said that the Conservative Party was somewhat hypocritical on this matter as we had been involved in the matter of GM foods. However, my Bill does not touch GM foods. The Prime Minister may not understand my Bill.
I ask the Prime Minister the same question I have asked twice already; namely, what is the hurry? BSE has nothing whatsoever to do with GM food or crops. That matter arose from feeding herbivorous animals meat protein, turning them into cannibals if you like. In addition, the animal protein was contaminated. Therefore although that problem has nothing to do with GM crops, it is understandable that the public distrust the protestations of the agricultural supply industry unless they are supported by clear evidence. If BSE has nothing to do with GM crops, why am I mentioning it at all? It is because the party opposite constantly blames the previous government for it, ignoring the fact that we relied on the scientific evidence that we received.
The Government claim that the justification for their beef-on-the-bone ban is still based on the scientific evidence they received. A few days ago scientific advice reported a remote chance—so remote that it has never happened—that the new variant CJD might be contracted from contact lenses. This kind of advice is non-stop. It seems extraordinary that the Prime Minister—whose degree is in law and not in biology or in botany—and his Ministers should insist upon cherry-picking from the advice that is given.
That is the purpose of my two amendments. Amendment No. 5 requires the monitoring of any GMO's that are authorised. This entails not merely the passive continuance, in effect, of a licence until something happens but for its renewal and reappraisal every three years for 20 years. That includes substantially new variations of existing approved products. It empowers the Secretary of State to revoke any licence at any time if the circumstances warrant it. It empowers the Secretary of State to order such sterilisation procedures as he deems fit. This could entail the burning or other destruction of grain crops and stores of seeds, as well as the sterilisation or chemical treatment of the land.
The amendment provides for no compensation to be paid. The person who plants the GMO for his own commercial profit should bear the cost of providing redress for his neighbour and seek compensation from his supplier. An innocent neighbour will have a claim against the person who planted the crop which in some way has damaged his land.
Amendment No. 6 provides for constant monitoring of the areas where the crops are planted, perhaps in co-operation with the various environmental pressure groups, which will doubtless be prepared to provide the necessary personnel. One of the organisations which certify organic vegetables and fruit insists that any land
1190
that is used for growing organic crops must lie fallow for six years before it will again certify it. That is the point of subsection (8E) in the amendment.
I would remind the Committee that the Government's manifesto stated that no government could afford to take risks. I believe that these two amendments would prevent them doing so.
1.30 p.m.
Baroness Byford: I support my noble friend's two amendments. At the same time, perhaps I may ask the Government Chief Whip whether he can specify the Government's thinking about revoking permission without notice and the time scale. A Written Answer of 20th April in the other place stated that if the Advisory Committee on Novel Food and Processes considered that the risk was greater than originally thought, the Government would consider taking action under the safeguard clauses in the EC Deliberate Releases Directive 90/220 to restrict the use of raw maize in animal feed and press for an urgent reappraisal of the situation by the EC scientific committees and the Council. In view of my noble friend's amendment, will the Government Chief Whip be kind enough to comment on that aspect?
Lord Carter: Before I deal with the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, perhaps I may deal first with the amendments.
On Amendment No. 5, and the suggested subsection (8B), there are already provisions in the existing legislation to limit the period of a consent. There is no justification for a statutory limit of three years. A decision on the length of a consent is taken on a case by case basis. As to subsection (8C), the legislation already requires that any genetically modified organism which is materially different from one already released, shall require a separate authorisation.
As regards subsection (8D), the Environmental Protection Act already gives the Secretary of State powers to revoke consent at any time without notice. As to subsection (8E), the Environmental Protection Act 1990—an Act which I am sure the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, will remember because he was the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment when it was being planned and I wonder whether he raised all these points then—already gives the Secretary of State powers to order the destruction of any growing organisms and to take remedial action to protect the environment as necessary. We therefore feel that subsections (8B), (8C), (8D) and (8E) are not necessary.
On subsection (8F), the question of disallowing claims for compensation is a matter which would have important implications and the Government would wish to take this issue forward in the context of environmental liability generally.
Moving to Amendment No. 6, the Government agree that there should be careful monitoring of both research trials and GM crops should they be entered into commercial production. The current legislation has provisions for such monitoring to be carried out and the revision of the EU directive agreed at the Environment

1191
Ministers' Council last month makes explicit provision for post market monitoring to be included in every consent. Furthermore, Environment Ministers have agreed that the new protocols on monitoring should be implemented immediately using the powers in the existing legislation. Therefore, again, this amendment is unnecessary.
The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, referred to EC directive 90/220. I will write to the noble Baroness with details but perhaps I may quickly refer to my background brief.
The directive is currently being amended. This will give us the opportunity to clarify and extend a number of the key provisions. We want to see a fairer weighting of the views in these procedures; of key importance are changes in the committee procedures for resolving objections lodged by one or more member states. That is from my background brief: it would better if I wrote to the noble Baroness in respect of the technical details.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: The Minister has answered all of my amendments with his usual courtesy, which he shows both inside and outside the Chamber I am glad to see that he does not disagree with my amendments; he simply feels they are not necessary. However, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 1, line 22, at end insert—
("() The Secretary of State shall, after the granting of any consent pursuant to subsection (8A), ensure that there is for the first twenty years after the first release of a genetically modified organism, monitoring of the area in which such crops are planted, at frequent and adequate intervals by his Department or by a Government Agency designated by him for that purpose, in either case in co-operation with such expert bodies w are concerned with the preservation of animals, birds, flora, insects and the natural environment that he considers appropriate.")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 6A:
Page 1, line 22, at end insert—
("(8G) The Secretary of State shall not authorise the release of genetically modified organisms for the research purposes cited in subsection (8A) until—

(a) he has stipulated minimum requirements for each research programme, which shall include criteria by which it can be judged to have been completed,

(b) he has stipulated an expiry date for each authorisation, after which he may either extend the expiry date or order the termination of the research programme, with only a completed research programme providing grounds, for a decision to authorise commercial release,

(c) a survey has been conducted over the area in which the genetically modified organisms are to be released, in order to gather ecological baseline data that pertain to the site prior to release,

(d) he has stipulated a schedule for the full disclosure of the results of the research to each House of Parliament and before such members of the public that have an interest,

(e) he has stipulated conditions for the disposal of crop material that may be produced during the research programme, such conditions specifically excluding the
1192
sale of the crop material, its consumption by humans, its use as an animal feedstuff or its use in any production and manufacturing process unless and until the research programme results in an authorisation for commercial release,

(f) he has stipulated other procedures for the termination of a research programme, and

(g) he has laid before both Houses of Parliament a report setting out the stipulations he is required to make under this subsection.")

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 6B:
Page 1, line 22, at end insert—
("(8B) Any research into environmental impact required by the provisions of subsection (8A) shall encompass the below ground soil environment of the sites under investigation.")
The noble Baroness said: This amendment applies to all research programmes required under the provisions of this Bill, whether at testing stage prior to the authorisation of commercial release or for the on-going monitoring of GM crops following commercial release.
Current research into the effects of GM crops is typically concerned with the above-ground environment of the test site. While research of this kind is essential and has brought to light such disturbing findings as the effect of GM maize pollen on Monarch butterflies, it is to be remembered that a significant part of almost any GM crop lies underground. Recent research in Germany has shown how DNA from GM sugar beets can persist in the soil for up to two years and can be transferred into soil bacteria. Such phenomena have potentially serious implications for the agricultural land which relies heavily on the balanced activity of soil micro-organisms to maintain the soil fertility.
I accept that that is just one study, but it underlines how little we know about the below-ground effects of GM crops. It is essential that all required research programmes test for these effects. "Out of sight, out of mind" is not an option. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: Should it be required in order to judge whether a release can be carried out safely, the Secretary of State already has powers to require this information. It is unnecessary and inappropriate to include such provisions in primary legislation.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: The noble Lord has introduced a new word. Previously it was "unnecessary"; now it is also "inappropriate". Nevertheless, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 1, line 22, at end insert—
("(8B) It shall not be a defence to any claim for compensation or damages by the owner of any land which may have been affected by any genetically modified organism which is a plant or seed that the planting or cultivation of any crop shall have been consented to by the Secretary of State pursuant to this Act.")
The noble Earl said: This amendment is designed to make absolutely clear that it will not be a defence in the case of damage to rely on a consent granted by the

1193
Secretary of State. The noble Lord the Chief Whip will have been brought up on the ruling by Mr Justice Blackburn in 1868. He will remember it as well as I do. For the benefit of other Members of the Committee, Mr Justice Blackburn said:
"Any person who for his own purposes brings onto his land and collects and keeps there anything which is liable to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it at his peril and … is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape".
The noble Lord the Chief Whip will have implemented that ruling when he was a farming adviser, just as I have done. It is right that this provision should be on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Byford: I support my noble friend's amendment. Perhaps I may draw the noble Lord's attention to the debate in February in the other place on genetically modified foods. In that debate, Mr Rooker stated that civil liability for damage caused by genetically modified organisms is governed by common law developed in the courts. On the basis of common law principles, the firm holding the market consent for a GM crop can be held liable in law for any damages arising from ill-effects attributed to that crop. That was also made clear before the scrutiny committee in this House. I am sure that the Chief Whip will confirm that.
Lord Carter: It was like old times hearing the reference to the Blackburn judgment. This is a complicated area. I have already touched on it in replying to a question from the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, regarding directive 90/220. I should have said that when I write to the noble Baroness I will place a copy of the letter in the Library.
The Government are mindful of concerns about biotechnology and the calls for secure liability measures. That was emphasised in the response from my honourable friend Mr Jeff Rooker which was cited. While the European Parliament, in its opinion on the Commission's proposal to revise directive 90/220, called for the establishment of a liability regime to cover the release and marketing of GMOs, that was not accepted by the Commission in view of its intention to publish a comprehensive White Paper on environmental liability which is likely to cover damage arising from GMOs.
Environment Ministers reached political agreement on the revision of directive 90/220 at the June Council. Noting the delays in the preparation of the Commission paper on environmental liability, at the Council the UK supported the inclusion of a recital recalling that member states may put into place appropriate liability measures at national level. In addition, the UK submitted a minutes statement calling on the Commission, as a matter of priority, to consider, outside the framework of directive 90/220, the feasibility of and possible criteria for a liability regime or regimes to cover the release and marketing of GMOs.
1194
I believe I am right in thinking that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, intends to accept this amendment, which I suspect is probably correct in the terms of her Bill.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I am grateful for the Minister's support for my noble friend's amendment. I am grateful to my noble friend for bringing forward the amendment, which, if it is the will of the Committee, I accept.
The Earl of Caithness: Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord the Chief Whip when he expects the Commission to start to produce some sensible paperwork on the White Paper?
Lord Carter: I do not have that information in front of me. I will write to the noble Earl.
The Earl of Caithness: I am most grateful. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
1.45 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 1, line 25, at end insert—
("(6) In section 113 of that Act (fees and charges), after subsection (3) insert—
"(3A) All costs incurred by the Secretary of State in implementing the provisions of section 111(8A) above shall be offset by means of a fee, payable by the licensee, for the granting of licenses for the commercial release of genetically modified crops, which shall include fees for such research programmes as are required for the application for commercial release authorisations."").
The noble Baroness said: In principle, a minimum of government regulation is always to be preferred. However, there are circumstances in which the state must act robustly to protect the interests of the country, its people and the environment. Few would begrudge the large sums devoted to the prevention of nuclear contamination, even if they begrudge the existence of the potential source of that contamination.
The consequences of genetic contamination from GM crops are potentially as serious as those of nuclear contamination. Indeed, it could be argued that they are even more serious, as even plutonium has a half life, while DNA has a life all of its own and is able to propagate itself indefinitely. I therefore believe that it is incumbent on government to set up the systems required to reduce the risk of a genetic disaster to as close to zero as can reasonably be expected.
Inevitably, such systems will be both comprehensive and complex. They will therefore be costly. The question is: who should ultimately bear that cost? To return to the example of nuclear power, it is the nuclear industry that pays to safeguard the public from the dangers of its product. Of course, the situation with GM crops is very different, not least because production is largely in private hands and the product is distributed

1195
among many more producers. Yet the basic principle is the same. Those who introduce risk into a system should pay the price of reducing that risk to acceptable levels.
The amendment proposes that the Government's costs—that is, the costs that would otherwise be borne by the taxpayer—should be recovered by the GM producer in the form of licence fees charged upon the authorisation of crop releases for research or commercial purposes. How licensees wish to pass on those costs is a matter for them to decide. Their costs may even be reflected in the price of their products. However, as long as the supply of GM-free products is guaranteed, the individual need not have to pay the price of GM safety, whether as a taxpayer or as a consumer. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: As I understand it, the effect of this amendment is to increase the Government's income. Therefore, I wholeheartedly support it. Anyone applying for authorisation to market a genetically modified organism already has to pay a fee to cover the Secretary of State's costs in considering the application. It is therefore entirely reasonable, given the amendments that have already been accepted, that a fee provision should be extended to include research undertaken by the Secretary of State.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 9:
After Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—
("After section 11.5 of that Act, insert—
"Map-based register.
MAP-BASED REGISTER
.—(1) Such bodies as are deemed appropriate by the Secretary of State shall be responsible for the keeping of a detailed map-based register of all land on which genetically modified crops are known to be present.
(2) The register shall include land on which genetically modified crops are known to have been present at some point in the past or are likely to be present at some point in the future.
(3) The requirement for inclusion of land on the register shall apply irrespectively of the circumstances in Which the genetically modified organisms were released, that is whether legally or illegally, deliberately or accidentally.
(4) The register maintained under this section shall also include instances of contamination by genetically modified DNA and other genetically modified material."").
The noble Baroness said: The effect of regulation of GM crops demands that effective records are kept of the release of such organisms and that the record is available and understandable to all interested parties. This amendment makes provision for a detailed map-based register of all land used for GM crops. Such a register would allow a person to check on whether GM crops had previously been grown on a particular piece of land or in the vicinity of that land. In particular, prospective purchasers would be able to check on land use histories. The register should be publicly available free of charge, perhaps through the Internet.
Within the context of a properly constituted regulatory framework, the maintenance of a register system would certainly be feasible. Indeed, such a scheme has been proposed by the European Society of Chartered Surveyors; and it has also been endorsed by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. A geographically based information source of this nature would be integral to a robust system of traceability of GM crops and foods, which would be necessary to address any environmental and health problems arising from GM crops after their approval, and to protect farmers, food processors and retailers wishing to supply GM-free products. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: This is where I must move into admonitory mode. After introducing this new clause at such a late stage, the noble Baroness cannot expect the Government to have a firm view on the matter. However, as she is aware, there is a public register of information relating to research releases of GMOs, which includes details of the exact location, the area and nature of the release, the date on which the release was made, and so on.
As regards commercial releases, there are no provisions to record the locations in which GM crops will be grown. Given that such crops will not be approved for placing on the market until it can be shown that they will not cause damage to the environment or human health, the Government see no justifiable grounds relating to why such records should be kept. If the noble Baroness believes it will improve her Bill to have the amendment in it, she is free to amend it.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I note the admonition from the Minister. Although I agreed with him that we would not mention the Greater London Authority Bill, I excluded from that the Employment Relations Bill when, on the day before the Bill arrived, we received a completely new schedule. I am grateful to the noble Lord.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Road Traffic (Enforcement Powers) Bill [H.L.]
1.51 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl Attlee.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Strabolgi) in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Power to prohibit driving of vehicle]:
[Amendment No. 1 not moved.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Increase of fine for breach of obligation to hold operator's licence]:
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
Viscount Simon Viscount Simon moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 3, line 27, at end insert—
("() After subsection (5) of that section, there shall be inserted—
"(6) An operators licence issued under this Act shall not be valid if a person driving a United Kingdom registered goods vehicle under that licence does not hold a valid European Union recognised driving licence."")
The noble Viscount said: The intention of this amendment is simple. It is already an offence under the Motor Vehicles (International) Order 1975 for someone to drive a UK-registered HGV without an EU-recognised driving licence. This is enforced under Section 87 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. This amendment would invalidate an operator's licence when it is found that the driver of a UK-registered vehicle does not hold an EU-recognised driving licence. The wording on the Marshalled List spells that out. The effect would be to allow the impounding powers set out in the schedule to be effective in such a circumstance. Therefore, if there were no EU-recognised driving licence, that would lead to the operator's licence being invalidated which leads to the vehicle being impounded. I beg to move.
Earl Attlee: As the noble Viscount intimated, his amendment is somewhat redundant because there are already suitable provisions in the law. I am sure that the Minister will also say that.
However, this touches on an important problem in the road haulage industry: the difference in operating costs between UK operators on the one hand and operators coming from the Continent on the other, and the problems of flagging out. Those problems of flagging out will not disappear and I expect that in the next. Session I shall be paying even closer attention to them.
I believe that the amendment is unnecessary and that it slightly widens the scope of the Bill. I hope that the noble Viscount will, in due course, withdraw it.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I understand that at present a foreign resident in Great Britain may not drive an HGV here on a non-European Union driving licence. However, the Bill relates to bringing all hauliers into the operator licensing system. The amendment could have the effect of invalidating operator licences and thus could encourage more hauliers to operate illegally. Therefore, I hope that the noble Viscount will withdraw his amendment.
Viscount Simon: I thank my noble friend for her reply to my amendment and beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood Baroness Thomas of Walliswood moved Amendment No. 4:
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause—
OPERATORS LICENCES: GOOD REPUTE
(" . In Schedule 3 of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 (Qualifications for Standard Licence), after paragraph 2(b) there is inserted—
"(c) has within the last two years employed one or more drivers that he knew or suspected were illegally claiming unemployment benefits; or
(d) has within the last two years employed one or more drivers that were illegally claiming unemployment benefits and having failed to take suitable measures to ascertain whether or not they were claiming benefits or to remit National Insurance deductions to the Contributions Agency."")
The noble Baroness said: This part of the Bill deals with operators' licences. As the noble Earl explained when he introduced the Bill on Second Reading, the question of good repute is essential to an operator who wants to have a licence to operate. Under Schedule 3 to the Goods Vehicle (Licensing of Operators) Act, there are already various ways in which an operator can lose his good repute. Some are discretionary, but under paragraph 2, the traffic commissioners have no discretion if the applicant has more than one conviction for a serious offence or has repeated convictions for road traffic offences.
The amendment seeks to add two other cases in which the operator would automatically lose his good repute. The first is if he has within the past two years employed one or more drivers he knew or suspected of illegally claiming unemployment benefit. The second is that he has not taken suitable measures to ascertain whether they were claiming benefits and has not remitted national insurance reductions to the Contributions Agency.
Obviously, the employment of people who claim unemployment benefit reduces the cost to the operator but increases the cost to the taxpayer of that person's operation. Anything illegal which increases the possibility of unfair competition among operators is to be deplored. I beg to move.
Earl Attlee: The last amendment went so fast that I forgot to remind the Committee that I have an interest. I am president of the Heavy Transport Association. I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness for introducing her important amendment. It covers a most immoral form of illegal competition. She moved it ably and it is important to remember that this type of illegal operation forces the driver to be a criminal.
I fully accept the need for the amendment, but, as I am sure the Minister will say, the Bill provides for the impounding of illegally operated goods vehicles. This might not be the correct vehicle for introducing such an amendment. However, given an opportunity in the transport Bill which I hope we shall see in the next Session, I shall pursue the matter from the Front Bench.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The requirements of good repute that an operator has to meet and continue to satisfy to hold an operator's licence are set out in

1199
Schedule 3 to the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995. A traffic commissioner may use his discretion in deciding whether an operator is no longer of good repute, but an operator loses his good repute if he has been convicted of more than one serious criminal offence or has been repeatedly convicted of road traffic offences. These rules allow traffic commissioners to take action against an operator who is not of good repute. If a traffic commissioner has proof that an employer has actively colluded with an employee to commit any fraud, not just claiming unemployment benefit (jobseeker's allowance) illegally, I hope that he will consider this when determining the operator's good repute.
This Bill is about people who completely ignore those and the other rules that are part of the operator licensing system, which means that they are not subject to the disciplinary authority of traffic commissioners. We must be careful that we do not weaken the message that all hauliers must work within the operator licensing regime by widening the scope of the Bill. I hope, therefore, that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I thank the noble Earl for supporting the intention behind my amendment, but I recognise the aptness of the Minister's response. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 5 to 7 agreed to.
2 p.m.
In the Schedule:
Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 5, line 13, at end insert—
(""engineering plant" means a vehicle permanently mounted with plant or machinery and which carries no load other than loose tools, accumulators, fuel and material to be used in connection with the plant.")
The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 5 it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendment. No. 6. It is easy to fall into the trap of believing that all heavy vehicles are subject to operator licensing and require plating and testing; in other words, MoT certificates. However, there are many classes of vehicle that are exempt; for example, those that are used privately, mobile cranes and recovery and road construction vehicles. Nevertheless, those vehicles must be roadworthy and can be prohibited from moving if they are not.
Sometimes an inexperienced policeman or traffic examiner believes that he has detected an offence. These problems are usually quickly ironed out when a more experienced officer becomes involved. However, problem areas remain. I shall be drawing those matters to the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, after the Summer Recess—if I am still here to do so. For the purposes of this Bill, I seek assurances that special care will be taken before impounding a vehicle that does not
1200
appear to be an ordinary lorry. It would be wrong if operators of exempt vehicles found that those vehicles were being unnecessarily detained. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: The Question is that the amendment be agreed to.
Earl Attlee: Surprisingly, the Minister has not responded. I had hoped that she would give me some assurances in this matter. I know that we want to proceed quickly and efficiently in dealing with this Bill. One must hope that officials exercise suitable discretion and judgment when deciding whether a vehicle should be impounded. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 6, line 30, leave out from ("informing") to ("that") in line 31 and insert ("the registered keeper or other persons who may be entitled to the goods vehicle")
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 7 I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 8. These amendments arise out of long debate at Second Reading. I apologise to my noble friend and the Committee that I was not able to be present then. I should like to focus on one point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, who said,
"the road haulage industry has a relatively low level of entry".—[Official Report, 25/6/99; col. 1208.]
Operator licence-holders tend to rent rather than buy vehicles outright. Thus, the question of impoundment bears not only on the licence-holder but, more importantly, the owner of the vehicle.
When a heavy goods vehicle is rented it is important to distinguish between the owner (the rental company) and the user (the operator licence-holder). It is the user who must have the licence and who may be guilty of infringing the regulations. It follows that the rental company is an innocent party in any operator licence infringement and should not suffer unreasonably as a result of the vehicle being impounded. He must be informed quickly if impounding takes place and given a fast track recovery process by which the vehicle can be restored. The schedule to the Bill is not sufficiently specific to give rental companies the right to immediate notification when one of their vehicles is impounded through no fault of their own. For this reason I have tabled the amendment to make it abundantly clear where responsibility lies. I beg to move.
Earl Attlee: I am extremely grateful to my noble friend for moving this amendment in his usually efficient way. The amendment raises important issues. Recently, I hired a small goods vehicle but did not need an operator's licence because I used that vehicle privately. However, I noticed that the hire company did not ask me the right questions to determine whether I needed such a licence. Therefore, I believe that in future when the Bill becomes law the vehicle hire industry will have to be a good deal more careful' in determining whether or not an operator needs a licence.

1201
This matter also touches on the need for the Government to improve the IT systems available to the traffic commissioners. I hope that the Minister can make some helpful comments about the rate of progress on IT developments in relation to the traffic commissioners.
When operators take on goods vehicles they need to be able to notify the traffic commissioners via the Internet because of the speed and efficiency with which that can be done. Progress in the IT world is very rapid. If the Government do not address this matter very carefully they may find that, whereas commerce routinely uses the Internet for practically everything, they will be left behind. Can the Minister assure me that she will not make an order to put the Bill into force until the IT systems have been improved?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I apologise for any apparent discourtesy—it was unintended—to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, when he spoke to Amendments Nos. 5 and 6. I misunderstood. I thought that he was aware that we did not believe that the proposed amendments were necessary.
On Amendments Nos. 7 and 8, one of the benefits of this Bill will be to encourage vehicle hire companies, as well as consignors and insurers, to act more responsibly in ensuring the use of legitimate hauliers. It is true that users of hired vehicles are required to have operator licences, not the rental company. But rental companies which do not check that the person hiring their vehicle has an operator's licence will run the risk of having that vehicle detained.
I do not, however, suggest that a hire company which has had a vehicle impounded in this way should have no means of recovering it. My department has held discussions with the British Vehicle Rental and Leasing Association. The Bill provides for an appeal for the return of the vehicle to a traffic commissioner if the vehicle is being operated illegally without the owner's knowledge. Clearly, for an appeal to be made on that ground the owner must be aware that the vehicle has been detained. The Bill provides for detailed arrangements for circulating information of a vehicle which has been detained to be set out in the regulations to be made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. I envisage that the bodies to be notified under those regulations would include the police and the traffic commissioner in whose area the vehicle is detained and could also refer to the registered vehicle keeper and the British Vehicle Rental and Leasing Association. That is a matter of detail which is best left for the regulations. There would be wide consultation before those regulations were laid before Parliament.
The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, asked about the commencement of IT systems. A new computer system is currently being developed for the traffic area network. We would not bring the scheme into effect until adequate systems were in place to ensure that
1202
impounding worked effectively. I do not therefore believe that it is necessary to amend the Bill as proposed and I do not support the amendment.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Attlee and to the Minister. I am glad to hear the Minister say that the rental company must take a more dynamic approach to its responsibilities before it rents vehicles out. The whole business is so competitive that sometimes short-cuts are taken, but that is not helpful to either rental companies or to the passage of the Bill.
I accept the point made by my noble friend Lord Attlee about IT systems. I understand the Minister's point about regulations and I am glad to have her confirmation that before regulations are put in place the Government will undertake adequate consultation with rental companies and with the association that represents most of them. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]
The Schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty Bill [H.L.]
2.14 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Purposes of designation of areas of outstanding natural beauty]:
The Deputy Speaker (Viscount St. Davids): My Lords, in calling Amendment No. 1, I should point out that if the amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 2 and 3.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry Lord Renton of Mount Harry moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, leave out lines 11 to 17 and insert ("of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the areas specified in subsection (1A).")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I thought it might make sense to attempt to redraft the purpose of the designation of areas of outstanding natural beauty. However, the point has been made to me—in Committee 10 days ago there was considerable discussion about this wording—that it might be better to stick to the original wording that was used to describe areas of outstanding natural beauty, the only difference being that after the 1949 Act the word "conserving" was put in the place of "preserving" by the subsequent Act. Having listened to the argument and to the points made by noble Lords in Committee, I have tabled this amendment, which I hope will win the support of the whole House. The amendment brings together in one place a clear statement of the purposes of designating

1203
AONBs. It merely restates statutory purposes. It does not seek to amend the existing definition of AONBs' purposes, but it provides a clear statement.
It is now 50 years since the 1949 Act was passed. When the Government bring forward their proposals on areas of outstanding natural beauty, which I hope they will do soon, they may consider at that stage that 50 years have passed and that perhaps it is time to reformulate the purposes of an AONB. I hope that the Minister, who is kindly listening to the debate on a Friday afternoon, will take this point back to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.
One example that might be considered is the whole question of encouraging biodiversity and, in the case of the South Downs, the return of chalk grassland, which falls within the bailiwick of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. That is a matter of substantial interest to us. Perhaps that kind of biodiversity should be one of the objectives of an AONB.
Mention of the South Downs reminds me that I think it is appropriate for me to remind the House of my interest in this matter. I have often declared in the past that I have an interest as chairman of the Sussex Downs Conservation Board. In that context, I am delighted to see my predecessor in that post, the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, sitting in his customary place opposite.
It would be wrong to let this stage pass without reiterating that it is disappointing to many of us that so far the Government have not yet managed to make clear their intentions about. AONBs. I shall not go over the sequence of "soon'', "very soon" and "pretty soon" that we have been offered. However, last week I noted a strong contrast when, on the one hand, I attended the launch of the Countryside Agency, which had, as its slogan put out by Ministers, "Everyone's a Winner". A few days later I read in our local paper the words of the new chairman of CPRE, Sir David Ford. He said:
"I believe the countryside is threatened as never before. Outward migration from our major towns and cities is fuelling urban sprawl; the crisis of farming and changes in farming practices are damaging the landscape and the relentless rise in traffic on rural roads leaves people intimidated and fearful".
In answer to a debate initiated in another place last week by Martin Caton, the Member of Parliament for Gower, on the subject of the future of areas of outstanding natural beauty, the junior Minister at the Department of the Environment Transport and the Regions, Mr Meale, said:
"I can assure hon. Members that the subject of the advice—which related to the future status of the New Forest and the south downs, as well as making recommendations for AONBs generally—is never far from my mind or that of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State".—[Official Report, Commons, 30/6/99; col. 302.]
If that is the case, it would be good to hear quickly what are the results of the prolonged thinking on the part of Ministers at the DETR.
I realise that this is not easy, and that there are complexities as regards planning and conservation issues, and about where the money will come from.
1204
However, I beg the Minister to take away that all of us involved with AONBs need a decision from the Government shortly. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, first, I give the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, an absolute assurance that we shall read and consider carefully his comments today and those of other noble Lords, as we have during the progress of the Bill.
Secondly, I assure the noble Lord that I do not intend to repeat all the disclaimers and caveats that I placed on record in Committee. That would detain Members of your Lordships' House unnecessarily. We are aware of noble Lords' concern about the need for a decision, but the decision must be made after all the circumstances have been carefully evaluated.
Finally, the Government are likely to prefer to maintain the words,
"conserving and enhancing the natural beauty",
in the event of any legislation for which it would be appropriate.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Renton, I, too, declare an interest. I am a landowner and one who lives within an AONB. Having said that, I thank my noble friend for his sympathetic view on the debates that we had in Grand Committee. In particular, I thank my noble friend for trying to accommodate us as regards these two well debated clauses. However, as with other noble Lords, we are concerned that we should be unable to debate Amendments Nos. 2 and 3. We wish to articulate more carefully the description. Therefore, I agree with the Minister, although from a different angle, and cannot accept the amendment at this time.
Lord Kimball: My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Rotherwick, I find myself not entirely happy with my noble friend's amendment.
Clause 1 sets the whole tone of the Bill. The amendment does not give adequate recognition to those people affected by the legislation. The amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Rotherwick and myself are designed specifically to meet that problem. I do not believe that Amendment No. 1 is entirely satisfactory.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I feel that I should repeat what If said because I may have been misunderstood.
On Amendment No. 1, I said that the Government are likely to prefer to maintain the words,
"conserving and enhancing the natural beauty",
should there be any eventual legislation.
Lord Chorley: My Lords, from the Cross Benches, I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry. In one sense, I do not mind either way. However, in a Private Member's Bill it probably makes

1205
good sense to stick to what we are used to, and to note what the Minister has now said twice. I support the amendment.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, the amendment has the general support of the Government. I listened carefully to what my noble friends Lord Rotherwick and Lord Kimball said. There are other amendments tabled in their names which will be discussed. Those amendments go a long way towards meeting the points they made in Committee. I hope, therefore, that they will not press their resistance to the amendment which restates the status quo as regards the definition of AONBs. I commend the amendment.
2.24 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, the Question is that Amendment No. 1 shall be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion shall say "Content"; to the contrary "Not-Content". I think the "Not-Contents" have it. Clear the Bar.
Division called.
Tellers for the "Not-Contents" have not been appointed pursuant to Standing Order No. 51. A Division, therefore, cannot take place, and I declare that the "Contents" have it.
Amendment agreed to.
2.28 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 not moved.]
Clause 2 [Duty of certain bodies and persons to have regard to conservation and enhancement of areas of outstanding natural beauty]:
Lord Rotherwick Lord Rotherwick moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2. line 3, at end insert—
("(e) any person owning or occupying the land in association with those other public bodies charged with the care of the area of outstanding natural beauty")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 8 and 12. The fact that this amendment needs to be moved shows that the Bill as it currently stands does not take account of the people. I cannot reiterate often enough that the countryside is its people; they have made it what it is in the face of enormous external pressure. The preservation of areas of natural beauty, like the future of the countryside as a whole, relies on the co-operation and good will of those who live in the countryside and who depend on it for their livelihoods.
The insertion of the amendment will ensure that in the provision for, and the running of, AONBs, the term "public body" in this clause will include:
"any person owning or occupying the land in association with those other public bodies charged with the care of the area of outstanding natural beauty".
That is the recognition that when it comes to the day-to-day care of AONBs and their management, it is the owners and occupiers of the land who are the key element. It should be abundantly clear that without their inclusion and participation in the
1206
management, protection and development of AONBs, the Bill would be frustrated. Worse still, it would risk becoming a source of resentment and conflict. That is precisely the opposite of what we should be trying to achieve, which is partnership and consensus. It would be tragic if an arrogant attitude prevailed and the rights and the need of the owners and occupiers working with other relevant organisations were not recognised and protected by the inclusion of the amendment.
The aim of Amendment No. 8 is also to protect the owners and occupiers from the dangers of arbitrary interference into their land and livelihoods. It is an important consideration that while special designated areas are subject to greater restrictions on use, access and so forth, arbitrary interference is always minimised and, so far as possible, the rights of owners and occupiers are protected. We must ensure that those rights are respected by the Bill.
Moreover, it is simply a question of natural justice that owners and occupiers should be formally involved in the planning and care of AONBs. The amendment recognises that the involvement of the owners and occupiers in the management and protection of AONBs is of central importance in ensuring the success of, and strategy or plan established for, an AONB. Moreover, it will ensure that AONBs continue to be an integral part of the broader rural scene. If their natural link to rural communities is broken, they are in danger of becoming frozen at some arbitrary point in time and, far from being an asset to the local community, they could become a burden.
Let us not forget that it has been the hand of man with nature that has created most AONBs. One of the elements that has created and sustained that beauty is the living dynamic quality. Destroy that and something essential will be lost. Indeed, I should go so far as to say that the loss of local involvement at the formal as well as the informal level could sound the death knell of AONBs in the long term.
The key mutual relationship between man and his environment, in which different needs must be balanced and in which man must play an active, responsible role, is increasingly being lost, abdicated or impinged upon by political correctness and those who, while making decisions which impact upon the countryside, neither understand it nor rely on it for their livelihoods. That symbiotic relationship to which I referred, and the experience that goes with it, will be invaluable in planning AONBs and ensuring their future.
This amendment would protect the rights of individuals while ensuring that that invaluable source of wisdom is formally incorporated into the management structure of AONBs. We also avoid, by the amendment, further alienating rural people, something we cannot afford to do particularly at this difficult time for those in the rural economy, especially those involved in the farming crisis at present. I beg to move.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, in the past few years the attitude towards areas of outstanding national beauty has changed. Like my party, I have always been a supporter of preserving areas of outstanding natural beauty. Indeed, I declare an interest, as vice-president of the Council for National Parks.
The real menace to the countryside comes from the threat to farming, small farms and the businesses that depend on them. That is what we must fight against. There is not much sign of anyone doing anything about it. If the present situation continues, we shall, over the next few years, lose our English countryside. We might then become like America, where conservation areas such as national parks seem to be plucked out of nowhere, and are not part of the living countryside, as they are now in Britain. That is why I am inclined to support the amendments, and hope that they will be accepted.
Lord Chorley: My Lords, I understand and support the aspirations of the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick. However, I wonder whether the amendments are technically the right way to proceed. I have some difficulty in equating a private person, even though he is in association with other public bodies, with the beginning of what will be new Section 87(A)(2), which states:
"For the purposes of this section "relevant authority' means".
The various bodies are then listed, to which will be added "any person". That seems rather strange, and I wondered whether the Minister could advise us whether this is the right way to achieve the end sought.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I rise to support these amendments, and I bear in mind the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley. I shall be interested in the Minister's reply. It is crucial that whatever management structure is set up under the terms of the Bill, it should encompass those who live and work in the countryside and have done so for years. The amendments specify that they should be consulted.
My noble friend Lord Beaumont of Whitley has highlighted the problem that we face. Many of us are involved in farming, and most of us know the dreadful times suffered by farmers. These amendments would reassure farmers who may feel that they are being bypassed or having imposed on them management structures over which they have little say, interpretive power or support.
With those few comments, I feel that it is important that we include all the knowledge, past wisdom and practical expertise which we have. It is important that we include young people involved in agriculture today, and indeed, those on tenanted land as opposed to owned land or land farmed as a family farm. Economic activity within AONBs is crucial for their future success. It is the balance of structures which leads my noble friend to move these amendments. I hope that the Minister will feel able to support them.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, it is my understanding that in moving Amendment No. 4, the noble Lord spoke to Amendments Nos. 4, 8, 11 and 12, and he has confirmed that. We are not sure what Amendment No. 4, as drafted, is trying to achieve. We can see the attraction of placing a duty towards AONB care on private citizens, but doubt whether that is a practical suggestion. It was not done in the 1995 legislation on national parks and would need careful scrutiny.
With regard to Amendment No. 8, the Government would want such bodies as the NFU and the CLA to be consulted, along with other interested groups. We should need to decide whether that needs to be stated on the face of any eventual government Bill. We would not accept that organisations, however important, should have an effective veto on setting up a conservation board. That is our understanding of the effect of Amendments Nos. 9 or 10 being taken together with Amendment No. 8.
Speaking to Amendments Nos. 11 and 12, in making his appointments to a conservation board., the Secretary of State would wish to ensure that a wide range of interests were represented. It is almost inconceivable that that would not include people making their living within the AONB, including the management of land. Equally, we should expect conservation boards or local planning authorities to consult widely on the review of management plans. The precise way in which those issues were reflected in the text of the Brill would require further government consideration.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their sympathetic comments. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. I think that it is important that we do not lose sight of the balance of the Bill. It is rather too heavy on landscape and not balanced enough towards those who live in the landscape. I accept some of the points made by other noble Lords, but on the whole, I believe that the arguments which I made at the beginning are strong enough to convince me of the need for this amendment, which I commend to the House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Chorley Lord Chorley moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 24, at end insert—
("(1A) Subject to subsection (2) and in pursuance of its duty under subsection (1), every local planning authority whose area consists of or includes the whole or part of an area of outstanding natural beauty shall also seek to foster the economic and social well-being of communities within the area of outstanding natural beauty, but without incurring significant expenditure in doing so.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 which are consequential on it.
At Second Reading, a good deal of reference was made on all sides to the need for a socio-economic clause. That was introduced in Committee and was supported from all sides. The Minister was supportive in principle, although as she said, she wished to

1209
abstain. Reading Hansard, it emerged that the Government felt that the phraseology used in the 1995 Act—I refer to the key words, "without incurring significant expenditure" in regard to furthering socio-economic issues—was the point of substance. We have tried to include that in the new version which is extremely close to the 1995 Act. I do not think that I need to go over the arguments again because there was wide support for the rationale behind the socio-economic case. I beg to move.
2.45 p.m.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, I want to speak in support of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley. During our debate in Committee, it was clear from all sides that there was a wish that there should be a socio-economic objective within the general objectives of areas of outstanding natural beauty. I certainly accept that.
Today, that is relevant in the case of the South Downs in which I am involved. We do not yet know what will be the effects of the South-East England Development Agency, a new body formed by the Government. Clearly that body has a strong idea of developing the economic success of the south-east of England. Our job, within the South Downs, is to see the economic success that we want to see reflected in the lives of those living and working on the Downs, be they farmers, foresters or craftsmen, working together with conservation.
The South Downs have a particular interest in this provision. The new chairman of the South-East England Development Agency, whom I have met—I was very interested in what he had to say—has said that his avowed intent is to put the south-east region of Britain into the 10 top regions of Europe. That is not a bad idea. In economic, employment and social terms and for those who live, work and farm on the Downs, that is very important. However, if we are to become like the silicon valley, we have to be certain that conservation and socio-economic development go hand in hand. There is a lot to be said for the development of light industry in and around a large part of south-east England, given its access to airports and to transport generally.
I know that my noble friend—if I may call him that—Lord Chorley, in tabling this amendment, listened carefully to the arguments raised in Committee. Therefore, I hope that the amendment, supported by everyone in principle in Committee, will receive the support of the House today.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, perhaps it would be helpful if I carefully repeat the Government's position. All advice that we have offered has been offered on the basis of what the Government believe would need to be considered were the policy outlined in the Bill one that the Government
1210
in the fullness of time wished to follow. That may be grammatically incorrect, but I believe the meaning is absolutely clear.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. From my point of view, as the prime mover of the Bill, I fully understand what she says. Her sentence was full of a marvellous amount of conditions. I congratulate her on it. We all appreciate that this, in many ways, is a trial balloon. We are setting down a template that we hope the Government will follow in due course.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the position of the Government on the Bill remains as stated in Committee.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, I wish to support the amendment, as it goes a long way towards what we would like to see when trying to obtain the proper balance between landscapes.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Perhaps I may point out that no one should speak after the Minister on Report with the exception of the mover of the amendment.
Lord Chorley: My Lords, I think it falls to me to conclude this short, but interesting, discussion. Even though he was, apparently, somewhat out of order, I am glad that I had the support of the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick. He got his word in anyway. I simply commend my amendment to the House.
2.50 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 5) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 15; Not-Contents, 2.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Rees, L.

Carlisle, E.

Renton of Mount Harry, L

Chorley, L.

Rotherwick, L. [Teller.]

Elton, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Hereford, Bp.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Lyell, L. [Teller.]

Weatherill, L.

Montrose, D.

Williams of Elvel. L.

Nathan, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Kimball, L. [Teller.]

Kintore, E [Teller.]

2.59 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, as it appears that fewer than 30 Lords have voted, in accordance with Standing Order No. 55 I declare the Question is not decided, and that further proceedings on the Bill stand adjourned.
House adjourned at three o'clock.