HL Deb 09 July 1999 vol 603 cc1173-96

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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. 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 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 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 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 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.

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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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—

  1. (a) he has stipulated minimum requirements for each research programme, which shall include criteria by which it can be judged to have been completed,
  2. (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,
  3. (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,
  4. (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,
  5. (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,
  6. (f) he has stipulated other procedures for the termination of a research programme, and
  7. (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 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 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 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.

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 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 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 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.