Sitting of 21 May 1999

Preamble
The House met at half-past Nine o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PETITION

  Kosovo
  9.33 am
  Mr. David Lepper: I have been asked to present a petition about the situation in Kosovo by my constituent, Mrs. Ann Dean. She was moved to initiate it by what she had read and heard about the tragic plight of people who, having lost their livelihood, home and, in many cases, close members of their families, had in effect become refugees in their own land. I believe that the desire to see help go to those people, as expressed by 67 of my constituents who signed the petition, is shared by many others throughout this country.
  It is a matter of profound sorrow for me that such a petition is necessary, but it is made necessary by the Serbian Government's continued persecution, destruction and murder in pursuit of their despicable policy of ethnic cleansing.
  The petition states:
  The Petition of residents of the United Kingdom,
  Declares that in early May 1999 the refugees fleeing from Kosovo started, for the first time, to give hunger as their reason for leaving Kosovo, according to journalists who had spoken to them, like two reporters from the Washington Post, whose article was reprinted in The Guardian Weekly on 9 May 1999.
  The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for International Development to take urgent steps to ensure that food and medical supplies are able to reach the starving and hungry inside Kosovo, including those in the mountains, in order to reduce the numbers forced to leave Kosovo, to reduce further deaths from hunger and to show the world that NATO's aims are primarily humanitarian.
  The Petitioners further request that the House of Commons establish an all-party Committee to monitor the needs of refugees both inside and outside Kosovo.
  And the Petitioners remain, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day
  Road Traffic (Vehicle Testing) Bill
  Not amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
  Road Traffic (Vehicle Testing) Bill
    New Clause 1

      INFORMATION ON ACCIDENTS INVOLVING UNCERTIFICATED VEHICLES
      '. The Secretary of State shall authorise the use of information in the records maintained under section 45(6B) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 for the purposes of any inquiry into a road traffic accident in which death or serious injury occurs, and shall maintain a record of all such incidents concerning vehicles for which an appropriate test certificate has not been issued.'.—[Mr. Miller.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      9.35 am
      Mr. Andrew Miller: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 4, in clause 1, page 2, line 6, at end insert
      '; and
      (c) the registered keeper of the vehicle.'.
      Mr. Miller: I congratulate the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) on an excellent idea. Through our deliberations this morning, we should ensure that the Bill reaches the statute book in an appropriate form to fulfil the purpose for which it was designed.
      I have been involved in the issue of road traffic incidents ever since I have been in the House. I declare an indirect interest as a patron of RoadPeace, the charity that looks after the needs of road traffic victims and their families, who are let down badly by the way in which we as a society treat road death and injury. We regard that as something that might have happened to any of us, but we do not treat the matter with the seriousness that it deserves.
      About 3,000 people a year die on our roads. If that happened in one incident—for example, several jumbo jets crashing simultaneously—it would be regarded as a major disaster. The fact that the deaths occur sporadically on roads throughout the country seems to militate against the seriousness of the issue. There are a number of measures that we can take to assist.
      My hon. Friend the Minister is aware that Lord Whitty is taking seriously representations made about driver training, the design of roads, speed enforcement and law enforcement. An amazing amount of work is going on in the Department. My hon. Friends in the Home Office are also examining carefully some of the issues relating to the appalling waste of life that occurs each year on our roads.
      During my research one thing that became consistently clear was the lack of data to enable us to identify where responsibility lies. We know that some responsibility lies with drivers, but we as a society must improve the situation and reduce the likelihood of such drivers emerging in future.
      I find it astonishing that no central records are kept on any subject relating to road deaths. No information emerges from the magistrates court, for example, partly

      1353
      because, as the House knows, very few road deaths become the subject of an inquiry by that court. If a magistrate were dealing with a case in which it was alleged that a driver had exceeded the speed limit, had a bald tyre and did not have an MOT certificate, under current law—regrettably, in my view—the fact that that driver had caused a death might not be the subject of inquiries by the magistrates court. Surely that important information should be collected.
      I have argued—I shall touch on this briefly because I realise that the matter is tangential to the clause—that a different approach should be taken to death on the road by making the death central to the charge that is brought against the driver. I shall be publishing some information in the next few weeks, following the research that has been undertaken by my office into international comparisons. It would be extremely helpful at magistrates court level if there was some recording of information to go on to a central database. The connections that are present—at least anecdotally, from conversations that I have had with magistrates—could be put together so that serious scientific analysis could take place.
      We all read in the local press of drivers—they are usually males under 25 years of age driving a vehicle that is not properly licensed, not insured and without an MOT certificate—being convicted of various motoring offences. However, there is no collection of that data and I would argue that there should be.
      Coroners courts, of course, deal with deaths that result from road incidents. The consequence of such a death on the family is obvious; it results in an amazing amount of trauma. However, the connection between such a death and the non-existence of an MOT certificate—anecdotally, this appears to be the position in a significant number of cases—is not recorded. The purpose of my new clause is to make a small addition to the excellent proposition that has been brought before us by the hon. Member for Basingstoke.
      I realise that the Under-Secretary may say that my new clause would have significant resource implications. I appreciate that. Literally—that is how we are supposed to read clauses—it could have resource implications for magistrates, the police, coroners, my hon. Friend and the Home Office. That point will have to be considered. However, I hope that my hon. Friend will respond in the spirit of the clause. Such considerations need to be balanced against the extraordinarily high cost of death on the road each year.
      It has been estimated that the cost throughout Europe is an amazing £40 billion. That is the calculation following a serious piece of research undertaken by the European Federation of Traffic Victims. The federation has observer status at the United Nations so it is a respectable organisation. The Government should consider carefully how to balance that huge cost to the public purse against expenditure implications.
      I would argue, if it came to the point of argument with my hon. Friend the Minister, that the balance must be in favour of the victims and their families. Modest expenditure could bring about massive savings consequentially.
      9.45 am
      Mr. Desmond Browne: I have considerable sympathy with the objective that lies behind the new clause. I have some experience in the courts in Scotland in dealing with road traffic prosecutions. I am aware that there are sometimes difficulties in obtaining the information that is available about the roadworthiness of vehicles. I am also concerned about the narrowness of the new clause. My experience is that the correlation of information about serious injury or death in road traffic accidents is sometimes a matter of chance.
      I have been involved in many road traffic accident cases where there was no serious injury or death, but where the outcome was contributed to by the significant unroadworthiness of vehicles. I suspect that that is the position in the majority of cases. Has my hon. Friend given any consideration to the possibility of extending the new clause so that we might focus on the roadworthiness or otherwise of vehicles involved in accidents, which perhaps is what the Bill is about, rather than the consequences of accidents?
      Mr. Miller: My hon. Friend raises an important point. It is right that our primary focus should be on unroadworthy vehicles, the competence of drivers, the proper design of roads and the reinforcement of the message to drivers—it has been given by this Government and previous Governments—of the consequences of drinking and driving, especially over Christmas. That focus and that message are critical.
      I, as a Back-Bench Member, drafted the new clause. There may be arguments for broadening its scope. However, you would not allow me to do that today, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are stuck, perhaps regrettably in view of my hon. Friend's intervention, with the words on the amendment paper. None the less, I hope that I can satisfy his concerns.
      Mr. Jonathan Shaw: I take up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne). If we were able to widen the new clause, would that not act as a deterrent for the appalling people who weld together cars that have been involved in accidents? A friend of mine purchased such a vehicle. She did not have a great deal of expertise and, six months later, she found that the vehicle was a death trap. It was extremely worrying because my friend was a foster parent and was transporting children in her care.
      Mr. Miller rose—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. Perhaps the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) should take his own advice of a few minutes ago.
      Mr. Miller: I cannot remember what that was, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw) raises a point that is incorporated in the new clause. I am saying that, with the technology that is now available to the Government, proper cross-referencing of information relating to vehicles and

      1355
      drivers—information that is sitting in court rooms throughout the country, in the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and in MOT records—will help us, first, and most importantly, to understand whether there is any substance in the anecdotal information that suggests that there is a link between drivers who persistently abuse the law and unroadworthy vehicles. Secondly, it will provide the Government with an opportunity to examine the information and to determine the best way forward.
      Mr. Browne: Before my hon. Friend moves off cost implications, and the effect of his new clause and the rest of this brief Bill, I point out that one of the advantages of the database that would be created would be that the police, through the police national computer, could access relevant information instantaneously at accidents. He may be undermining his new clause to some degree in that respect. The information ought to be collated through the police, without the involvement of magistrates or anyone else.
      Mr. Miller: The Bill permits the collection of some information through the police national computer, but, for the sake of brevity, I shall not rustle through my papers to find the relevant clause. The police could be empowered for the purposes of existing road traffic legislation to utilise information collected under the Bill, but, in its present form, it does not authorise the Secretary of State to use that information for purposes of inquiry.
      I want to ensure that information flows both ways between those who collect MOT data and those who are responsible for overseeing the provisions of legislation dealing with death and serious injury on the road. If we achieve that modest objective, we shall have taken one step along the road of dealing with some of the issues on which I, a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House and organisations such as Brake and RoadPeace have been campaigning for a long time. That is not a perfect solution, but it is part of a complex solution.
      Dr. George Turner: I am not clear about whether the information to be exchanged would include information about failure of the MOT test. Two classes of people do not have MOT certificates for perhaps a week or more: some people may simply have been careless or forgetful, but the worst incidents involve people who deliberately use their vehicle even though it has failed an MOT. It is important that knowledge of failure should be available, but I am not clear about whether that would be included in the information to which my hon. Friend is referring.
      Mr. Miller: I think that the correct answer to my hon. Friend is that such examples would fall outside the scope of the new clause. I am not entirely certain of what happens to records of failures collected by MOT testing stations, and perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister may be able to deal with that issue when she responds. The individual is given a copy of the certificate, but I do not know what happens subsequently to the original information about the vehicle.
      With today's technology, it would certainly be possible to include on a database information about a vehicle that failed the MOT test today, and then passed and gained a certificate a week later after having the appropriate work
      1356
      carried out. I think that such a provision comes within the scope of the Bill, but it may not fall specifically within the scope of the new clause.
      Mr. Andrew Dismore: Perhaps my hon. Friend and I can help each other on that point. If a registration number is not on the computer, the police know that the vehicle has no MOT and must therefore be an MOT failure by definition. That is the short-circuit way round the problem identified by my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner).
      Mr. Miller: If the police stop a vehicle today because they suspect the driver of committing a road traffic offence or, specifically in the context of the new clause, of being involved in a death or the causing of serious injury, I and 99 per cent. of the public would expect them to have the ability to check not only whether the driver's licence is in order, using the police national computer, but whether the vehicle's paperwork is in order. That resource could be made available to the police, beneficially and within the scope of the Bill, and would be a massive advantage.
      It could be argued that civil liberties would be breached, but I shall take that argument head on: the real breach of civil liberties is the death and maiming of people on our roads every year. In respect of every issue on which the Government introduce strengthened computerised databases, we must be mindful of privacy and ensure that proper data protection and privacy legislation is developed to reinforce such changes. At the same time, we must be prepared to tackle that argument absolutely head on and say that the real civil liberties issue is the injuring of people on the roads.
      Dr. George Turner: Will my hon. Friend clarify the meaning of the words "any inquiry" in his new clause? I am not sure whether they would have legal definition, or whether I or a member of the public could decide to inquire into something. I should have thought that he would want to be restrictive and would have used those words in a more technical sense. Can he explain to the House whether his new clause would restrict those who are entitled to inquire and to get that information?
      Mr. Miller: I do not claim to be an expert parliamentary draftsman, but the provision, through its use of the word "any", was intended to be broad brush. As I have said, I would include magistrates courts, coroners courts and the police. There is even a legitimate argument for such information to be made available to insurance companies, because it would be a material fact in respect of whether a policy was valid. We will have to look at that issue as time goes on. I intended the wording to affect not members of the public or the press, but any public authority legitimately engaged in an inquiry relating to death or serious injury. However, I can see arguments for extending it beyond that.
      This is a modest new clause, the spirit of which I hope my hon. Friend the Minister will accept. I appreciate that she may have difficulty with the precise wording, because we have not had the opportunity to discuss it, but the intention is as I have described. I hope that, as part of the House's determination to help to reduce the number of deaths and serious injuries on the roads, the Government will consider incorporating at least the spirit of the new clause into the Bill.
      10 am
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson): May I begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) for the warm tribute that he paid to our noble Friend Lord Whitty for his dedication to all the road safety issues that my hon. Friend mentioned, such as ensuring better driver training and better road design. As he knows, the Government are engaged in a review of speed, and we have already given a clear estimate of targets for the reduction of deaths and injuries. This country's record is extremely good, but that is no argument for complacency. As the whole House knows, my hon. Friend is a patron of RoadPeace and is assiduous in arguing from the perspective of those who are grievously hurt by the loss of members of their families as a result of pointless and often preventable road accidents.
      As I am sure my hon. Friend is also aware, the Government have reduced the necessity for local authorities to apply to the Secretary of State before introducing 20 mph zones or limits on local roads. I assure my hon. Friend, and all members of RoadPeace and other organisations dedicated to reducing deaths and injuries on the roads, that the Government are committed to that aim. As my hon. Friend said, if the number of deaths on our roads occurred as a result of aeroplanes falling from the sky, the reaction would be vociferous. We are concerned to ensure that the number of deaths on the roads is not considered an issue about which nothing can or should be done. We are committed to reducing the number of deaths and injuries on the roads.
      I presume that the new clause is intended to serve two purposes. First, it would require the Secretary of State to authorise the use of information in the database of MOT records for the purposes of any inquiry into a road traffic accident. Secondly, it would require the Secretary of State to maintain a record of all such incidents where the vehicle involved did not have a valid test certificate at the time of the accident.
      On the first part of the new clause, it seems that the principal party likely to be interested in obtaining such information is the police. However, the police already have access to all relevant information under the provisions of new section 46(5) of the Road Traffic Act 1988—a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne).
      My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner) was concerned about whether the information would show that a vehicle had failed an MOT. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) pointed out to him, the whole point of computerisation is to enable the police easily to access whether the vehicle in question has a valid certificate. It is illegal for people to use a vehicle without a valid MOT certificate. They are liable to be stopped by the police and prosecuted if they cannot produce a valid certificate, which they need to produce in order to obtain a vehicle excise duty disc. If there is no valid disc, it could be because of a possible MOT offence.
      Dr. George Turner: Will the Minister clarify whether the records will contain information about failure of the test? I should have thought that, if a vehicle failed its MOT because it did not have adequate brakes, that
      1358
      information should be available to the police because it would be a much more significant offence than simply forgetting to get an MOT certificate. Will that information be on the computer?
      Ms Jackson: I repeat to my hon. Friend that it is an offence to drive a vehicle on the roads without a valid MOT certificate, for the reasons that I have already given. In many instances, when a car is submitted for an MOT and is deemed to fail in one or two areas, the whole vehicle has to be retested for technical reasons. However, the purpose of the Bill is to ensure that the computerisation process in which the Government are engaged should be capable of detailing, for those who would most need the information, not least the police, whether a vehicle had a valid MOT certificate. That is central and essential to the proposals in the Bill.
      Mr. Miller: I understood the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner) more clearly when I was sitting down and not under pressure to respond. He made an important point. Will my hon. Friend the Minister look at the possibility of including in the design of the central MOT record system information relating to vehicles that fail the test? Magistrates courts would quite reasonably take different views of someone who omitted to get his vehicle tested within three years and a day, and someone who had driven a vehicle knowing it to be unroadworthy because it had failed the MOT.
      Ms Jackson: I thank my hon. Friend for that question because it helps to clarify the position. There will be, within the proposed database, records of passes and failures of vehicles. That is one of the valuable pieces of information that can be made available in certain circumstances to individuals but, more importantly, to the Vehicle Inspectorate because it would enable it to ensure that the testing centres were efficient and were testing adequately and properly, and to highlight areas where it might be necessary to make improvements.
      Mr. Shaw: May I press the Minister on this point? Will the information contained in the records say why a vehicle failed? As my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner) said, if it has failed because of dodgy brakes, the magistrates court would want to take that into account.
      Ms Jackson: With respect to my hon. Friend, I think that there is slight confusion about the information required in order to proceed with a prosecution. As I said, the information that I should imagine is required by the police is available to the police. The issue of defining on the database what particular faults caused a vehicle to fail the test is interesting. I hope that it would be possible to include that information within the programming of the computer base, because those issues are important not only to people who buy cars, but to those who manufacture them.
      As I said, the police will already have access to all relevant information under the provisions of new section 46(5). In other cases, the Secretary of State could be obliged by law to provide information from the proposed record of MOT results—for example, where a court action was pending and evidence was required to be put before

      1359
      a court relating to information from the record of MOT results. That situation is already contemplated by clause 4, which makes it possible for an authenticated person, on behalf of the Secretary of State, to give evidence from the records maintained under section 45(6B) in written form.
      It is also possible that the Secretary of State may face other requests for information and those would have to be considered on their merits, within the context of the regulation-making powers under new section 45(6) of the Road Traffic Act 1988. I trust that my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston would agree that those powers are already part of the Bill, so the first part of his new clause is not necessary.
      Dr. George Turner: My hon. Friend said that the Bill covered the key people who would want to get at the information. I am not completely clear whether it covers all those who may have a reasonable case to ask for the information, such as insurance companies or people who have also been involved in the incident. Would they be able to request the information, or would it have to come through the police or some official mechanism?
      Ms Jackson: As I said, if a case is being prosecuted in a court, the Bill ensures that the police have automatic access to such information. A requirement is placed on the Secretary of State to furnish such information as the court may require. Our courts are open and public places, so any information that is presented to a court would be open to anyone who is in the court to hear it or who reads the report of the court proceedings.
      On the wider question of information available to others under the Bill, the Secretary of State will define in regulations the classes of person for whom information will be available. They would have to prove that they had a justifiable reason for making such inquiries about an individual vehicle.
      The second part of my hon. Friend's new clause is concerned with maintaining a record of all road traffic accidents involving death or serious injury in which the vehicle involved did not have a valid test certificate. The proposed database would not show whether the fact that a vehicle did not have a valid test certificate was relevant to the accident. It may or may not be relevant—the database would not provide that answer, and at worst it could lead to misleading assumptions being made on the basis of spurious statistics. That is my overriding concern, rather than, as my hon. Friend averred, the perception of vastly increased costs. The point about misleading assumptions was made, in his own individual way, by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun.
      Mr. Miller: The fact that there is a lot of spurious information is precisely what concerns me. There is no scientifically collected data that help us to understand whether there is a correlation between drivers driving without proper paperwork and the consequences of their actions. Academic research may be undertaken, perhaps supported by the Department, but the new clause would create the database that would supply the information to be analysed.
      Ms Jackson: The Department intends to engage in research. As I have had occasion to say, the Government are concerned to do everything possible to reduce road
      1360
      casualties. I am not suggesting for one moment that ensuring adequate vehicle maintenance has no bearing on that objective.
      My hon. Friend suggested that some vehicle owners take a somewhat casual approach to their responsibilities, and that some drivers are perfectly happy to drive without the valid and necessary paperwork. I think that he was implying that that shows their lack of responsibility for maintaining their vehicle, quite apart from ensuring that it is adequately licensed.
      Mr. Browne: As my hon. Friend the Minister said, the existing road traffic legislation provides for the prosecution of the offence of driving vehicles without MOT certificates. Those who have practised in the courts know what small penalties are imposed for that transgression of the law. Unless the prosecution also includes individual breaches of regulations relating to individual parts of the vehicle, the court often does not know the reason for the failure and the reason why the vehicle does not have an MOT.
      That long preamble leads me to the general point that I think my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) is making. There could be an increase in the penalty for failure to have an MOT certificate and the greater prosecution of individual breaches of regulations if it were known that there is, as many of us suspect, a significant correlation between the roadworthiness of vehicles and their involvement in accidents. I took it from what the Minister said that such research was being undertaken. Will she expand on that for the benefit of the House, and explain the objectives of that research?
      10.15 am
      Ms Jackson: I thank my hon. Friend for raising an issue that, as I have said, I shall touch on later. We are discussing a vehicle owner's responsibility to ensure that he is legally entitled to drive on our roads by virtue of the relevant paperwork. Vehicle owners also have a responsibility to themselves and to other road users to ensure that, when they put their vehicle on the road, it is roadworthy.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun referred to penalties. However, there is, is there not, a deterrent element in the Bill? The modernisation and computerisation of records on MOT testing would affect the ease and speed with which the police would be able to check, in any incident that was brought to their attention, whether the vehicle involved was adequately, properly and legally licensed and had the relevant MOT certificate. The issue of penalties is outside the remit of the Bill.
      It is precisely because we are concerned that vehicles on our roads should be roadworthy that we have MOT testing to ensure that vehicles are adequately maintained. We believe that, in the main, the MOT testing scheme serves that objective well. In practice, very few accidents are caused or contributed to by vehicle roadworthiness defects. The vast majority of accidents are caused by driver error, excess speed, or incapacity of the driver through the effects of alcohol or drugs. That is why the Government are working hard to crack down on those problems.

      1361
      Research has been carried out over the years to find out what proportion of accidents are caused or contributed to by vehicle roadworthiness defects. Only a small proportion of accidents arise because of such problems. Further research is in the pipeline. An on-the-spot accident study is ready to run for the next three years to provide the Government with up-to-date information on accident causation.
      Mr. Dismore: Will my hon. Friend clarify the research? My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) was making the point that the lack of an MOT certificate is symptomatic of a much greater disregard for road safety generally. Will the research cover not only the correlation between the lack of an MOT certificate, irrespective of its causative effect on the accident, and the nature of the offence committed by the driver, but the disregard of the need for motor insurance, which often goes hand in hand with the lack of an MOT certificate and a vehicle excise duty licence?
      Ms Jackson: I should be happy to furnish my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon with that detailed information. He reiterated the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston and I have made. What we are talking about, in respect of a failure to maintain a vehicle in a roadworthy state, is a lack of responsibility on the part of the individual vehicle owner. The requirements of the Bill, and those of existing legislation, are part and parcel of a wish to encourage all vehicle owners to meet those requirements in full.
      As I have said, the information that will result from the research to which I have referred, and research of which we already have knowledge, will enable us to make informed decisions about what more can be done to improve safety on our roads. I appreciate that new clause 1 stems from the deep compassion felt by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston for the hapless victims of road accidents, which I am sure that all hon. Members share. The Government certainly share it, which is why we have committed ourselves to a wide range of policies and to enabling research to take place. We are taking a number of steps to ensure that our roads become infinitely safer.
      I hope that, for the reasons that I have given, my hon. Friend will accept that, in the instances that I have specified, the new clause is unnecessary. The requirements that it mentions are already in the Bill. I trust that he will be willing to withdraw the motion.
      Mr. Andrew Hunter: It would be presumptuous of me to try to add to what the Minister has said, but I should like to make a few brief points about new clause 1.
      I appreciated the kind remarks made by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) about the Bill, and pay tribute to his commitment to the cause of promoting road safety and related matters. I disagree only with the detail of the new clause, not with the principle.
      I agree with the Minister that the Bill as it stands will effectively deliver what the hon. Gentleman seeks. Under the Bill, the police have access to all the information on
      1362
      the database of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and that on the proposed new MOT database. Clauses 2 and 4 enable information to be made available to any inquiry if the Secretary of State considers that to be necessary.
      Dr. George Turner: May I pursue the point about who has a legitimate interest in the information? If I were a solicitor representing someone who had been involved in an accident, I would want to know some facts so that I could advise my client. The information might be available, but I assume that I would have to ask the Secretary of State for permission to have access to it. Does the Bill make it clear that it will be easy for people with a legitimate interest in the information to gain access to it, and that the police would not have to gain access to it first because a court case was involved?
      Mr. Hunter: "Easy" is a relative word. Certainly the Bill allows information on the MOT database to be made available to people who have an interest in a particular vehicle. I am afraid that I do not know the precise details of the mechanism whereby the information would become available, but the Bill empowers the Secretary of State, by regulation, to make it available to those who can show an interest in a particular vehicle.
      Dr. Turner: I appreciate that the regulations have yet to be drafted, but could the hon. Gentleman give us some idea of how he imagines that the regulations might make the information available, and to whom it would be available? I approve of the principle, but I should like to know more about the practicalities.
      Mr. Hunter: The hon. Gentleman must not lose sight of the fact that the regulations will essentially constitute a rerun of those created by the Road Traffic Act 1988. There are points of difference because of the computerisation programme, but they are relatively minor.
      I am sorry that I cannot help the hon. Gentleman more. When I was considering tabling the Bill, I went to the Vehicle Inspectorate and was told how the public-private initiative—the new private finance initiative—was working, and what else would be in the programme. I do not know the details, but I willingly accept the principle that the information should be made available as specified in the Bill.
      I am afraid that, in my wish to help the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner), I have strayed from the subject of new clause 1. The new clause suggests that the record could be useful for research purposes. I confess that I had not considered that possibility, but records of road traffic accidents are currently kept, and the police are obliged to submit completed accident report forms, which are collated and summarised. I understand that they are called "Stats 19 records". That mechanism may not be perfect for providing the information that the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston wants to be available, but, through discussion with the Government, the Stats 19 records could provide the sort of information that he wants more readily than the MOT database.
      Mr. Browne: May I return to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw)? My understanding is that clause 2 allows access to information, and that new section 46(6)

      1363
      empowers the Secretary of State to make regulations to allow access on a commercial basis; but the new subsection restricts access to that which excludes information about the particulars of the premises on which an MOT examination is carried out, or about the person who carries it out—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's interventions are becoming longer and longer. May I ask him to be a little more brief or, perhaps, to make a speech later?
      Mr. Browne: I will try to conform to your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The simple point that I wish to make is this. A person with an interest may want access to the information for legitimate reasons, perhaps in order to sue a garage or individual tester. Does the new clause provide for that?
      Mr. Hunter: I appreciate your leniency, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in allowing the debate to wander from the subject of new clause 1.
      New section 46(6) facilitates the commercial sale of information on a database, but excludes means of identifying car owners and MOT testers. New subsection (5) allows the Secretary of State to facilitate access for prescribed persons, such as the police.
      10.30 am
      Mr. Dismore: There is much to be said for new clause 1. It tries to deal with two different issues: first, the problem that often occurs at the scene of an accident; secondly, the problems that occur later. Perhaps at this stage, I should declare an interest. For some 20 years, I practised as a solicitor specialising in personal injury law, although I have not taken any cases since being elected to this place.
      My hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London dealt with a number of the problems that may arise through references to other parts of the Bill, but one or two key factors are still not being addressed there. At the moment, if someone is involved in a road accident and cannot produce their documents there and then, all the police can do is issue them with a document—I think that it is called a HORT/1—asking them to produce their insurance certificate, MOT certificate and driving licence.
      Effectively, the driver can then move off with impunity, irrespective of whether the vehicle is roadworthy. The police will obviously do a check there and then, but, in practice, whether the vehicle has an MOT certificate is not taken into account because the police simply cannot check that.
      I hope that, as a result of the Bill—I think that the new clause would go some way towards contributing to solving the problem—the police may be able to dial up and check there and then whether the vehicle has an MOT certificate. However, that begs the question: what do the police do if it turns out that the vehicle does not have an MOT certificate? Do they have the power, for example,
      1364
      to say that the vehicle cannot be moved except on the back of tow truck? Effectively, even though the vehicle does not have an MOT certificate—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The new clause is not about the powers of the police.
      Mr. Dismore: The point that I make arises out of the inquiry that is permitted at the scene of a road traffic accident in relation to the MOT certificate. My concern is whether the police can stop that vehicle being used.
      The measure is also helpful for inquiries into the causes of accidents. The Minister mentioned that the vast bulk of road accidents is caused not by the condition of the vehicle, but by the carelessness or wilfulness of the driver concerned. Given my experience of 20 years in practice, I concur with that view, but problems arise concerning the condition of the vehicle, which sometimes may be detected by an MOT certificate and sometimes not.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw) made the telling point that, sometimes, a vehicle has been cut in half and welded together. Sometimes, it may have an MOT certificate and sometimes not. I can illustrate the point from personal experience. A few years ago, I had a car stolen. I was very sad to see it go. It was a bit of a boy racer car—a racing green Ford Capri 2.8, the last of the line and utterly irreplaceable. When it was stolen, I was heartbroken. Ultimately, the police found it, but it had been completely stripped of everything.
      Mr. Shaw: Even the furry dice?
      Mr. Dismore: There were no furry dice, but the sunroof and speedy wheels had gone. The vehicle was written off by the insurers because to replace the spare parts alone would have cost £6,000.
      A year or two later, the DVLA asked me the circumstances in which the vehicle had been written off because someone had bought the shell, somehow reconstructed it and applied to re-register the vehicle. When I lost it, the vehicle had an MOT certificate. That person could have reconstructed the vehicle and, for all we know, it could have been driven around in an unsafe condition. In fact, the vehicle was still structurally sound. The thieves had taken only the bits off, so I was able to reassure the DVLA, but that is the sort of problem that could be dealt with by the new clause.
      Another problem that often arises in investigating road accidents is determining whether a defect on the vehicle is a latent or patent defect. Sometimes, it may be detected by an MOT inspection and sometimes not. I remember a case that I dealt with in practice where the driver's seat suddenly shifted as the driver came up to a T-junction, propelling him forward and, he said, pushing his foot firmly on to the accelerator. Needless to say, the vehicle shot across the T-junction and into the path of an oncoming vehicle. As people say in such matters, a collision ensued.
      The big problem that we had in the investigation was whether the accident was a result of a defect in the vehicle, or whether the driver was making up a story. The new clause would go some way towards helping to resolve that problem.

      1365
      We had grave difficulty in tracking down whether the vehicle had an MOT certificate because court proceedings at that time meant that we could not ask the other party to produce the certificate until after proceedings had commenced. Therefore, during most of the preparations for the case, we had no idea one way or the other about the vehicle's condition, other than what we could detect by inspection. We could not check whether the vehicle had an MOT certificate. The recent rules of court changes that came in a couple of weeks ago may go some way towards dealing with that problem through pre-action protocols, but it was a serious problem at the time.
      One of my concerns about the new clause is that it does not necessarily deal with the position where there is a defect in a vehicle that may not require an MOT certificate. I pray in aid of that argument an accident that occurred to a councillor in my constituency only a few weeks ago. A wheel came off his brand new car—it was only a couple of weeks old—as he driving on the motorway. He had no way of knowing about the problem. Luckily, no one else was hurt, but one of the problems in those circumstances would be to determine the cause of the accident. The MOT certificate would not really help much there.
      My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner) raised an important point—the extent to which the information will be made available beyond the police and the enforcing authorities and, in particular, whether it will be made available to the victim of a road accident, or that person's lawyers.
      At the moment, if a road accident occurs, the normal procedure at the scene of the accident is to exchange details of insurance. As I understand it, there is no obligation in road traffic legislation to exchange MOT details as well. It may be that, through the new clause, that could become part of the standard procedure at road accidents. The new clause may help those investigating road accidents and those at the scene of the accidents—the victims—to deal with that problem.
      Ms Glenda Jackson: I appreciate the arguments that my hon. Friend advances but, under new section 46(6) of the Act, anonymised particulars and information would be sold

      "(a) to such persons as the Secretary of State thinks fit, and

      (b) for such price and on such other terms, and subject to such restrictions, as he thinks fit".

      Therefore, as I said earlier, the new clause is not necessary. The requisite powers will be in the Bill.
      Mr. Dismore: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point.
      Fees will be levied. In parenthesis, I hope that those are reasonable because the charges that are levied by the police in relation to their reports are sometimes excessive. My concern is that the Bill creates quite a bureaucratic process by which to obtain the information. How much easier it would be if the parties could simply exchange the details there and then, on the spot, at the time of an accident, as they do with insurance details.
      The new clause contains the word "inquiry" as opposed to "enquiry". They have, I think, different grammatical and syntax effects. "Inquiry" effectively means inquiries
      1366
      by public authorities, the police and so forth. "Enquiries" would include those made by, for example, solicitors investigating the cause of an accident, or the victim of accident who is trying to find out whether the MOT certificate had any relevance to the case.
      For that reason, although I share the sentiments behind it, I cannot support the new clause as it stands, although if the word had an "e" instead of an "i" I would be much more supportive.
      Dr. George Turner: New clause 1 might be a helpful tool to allow us to explore the principle of freedom of information. I was elected on a manifesto that said that we, as a party, supported freedom of information.
      I congratulate the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) on his Bill. I am pleased that some progress is being made in terms of the data that is collected and the use of computers to store, and to help in the analysis of, the data.
      I was shocked when, as a police authority member, I found that incidents records were still being kept, in long-hand, in a book—making analysis of the incidents next to impossible. As a result of my experience of a police authority, I believe that the failure of police to adopt information technology must seriously hamper their ability not only to investigate crime, but to analyse incidents. I am absolutely certain that greater knowledge about what causes accidents will help us to reduce the problems that they cause so many people.
      I was interested in the Bill also because, as someone with an information technology background, I believe that, in introducing information technology, it is a mistake merely to make minor amendments to previous practice. A common mistake when finally involving computers in our work is simply to record what we have done before. I am concerned that the Bill may have a weakness in that it does not change enough regulation sufficiently to effect current practice.
      I should be grateful if the Minister would help me to understand the basis on which information will be made available, as I am not sure whether large sums will be involved in operating the provisions. If large sums will have to be paid to gain information, the Exchequer's point of view on the matter would be understandable. However, I hold the prejudice that information should be readily available to those who want to use it, and that the people best placed to judge whether they should have it are those who will take the time and make the effort to use it.
      I accept that personal details—possession of which might be deemed to be an intrusion into an individual's privacy—should be protected. However, we should not extend the concept of privacy to motor vehicles.
      Mr. Shaw: I appreciate the point that my hon. Friend is making. On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London gave as an example the fact that
      "prospective purchases of second-hand vehicles might be interested to see evidence of the recorded mileage of vehicles submitted for MOT test."—[Official Report, 5 March 1999; Vol.326.c.1406.]
      Does he think that such information would be very welcome to people wishing to buy a second-hand car?
      Dr. Turner: Indeed; and I shall deal with that very point after developing my argument a little.

      1367
      I hold the prejudice that, unless large sums are involved, Government should adhere to the principle of freedom of information, and not censor information unless there is good cause to do so.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is now going rather wide of the mark, which is new clause 1. I should be grateful if he would come back to dealing with the specifics of new clause 1.
      Dr. Turner: I shall, of course, take your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am essentially coming back to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) on the difference between an "inquiry" and an "enquiry".
      We should certainly be considering the possibility of making information available on the basis of an "enquiry". We are talking about information that should, quite reasonably, be available largely on the internet. I do not know why there should be a bureaucratic procedure—in which civil servants process forms claims according to rules drawn up by Ministers, and regulations that took up parliamentary time—to gain that information. We should not create further bureaucracy to handle public information that should be available on the internet. It should take only a few clicks of the mouse to discover the history of the car that one wishes to buy.
      10.45 am
      Computerisation and other modern technology could revolutionise the way in which consumers are informed. I simply cannot understand why, when they are deciding on a car purchase, people should not be able to analyse the relevant information stored on the internet—such as whether a particular car model made in 1996 had a good repair record. MOT information on why a car or model of car failed its test is very useful for the individual.
      Why should access to such information entail a bureaucratic process? Why should we require permission to gain that information? Should not the public have a right of access to information, unless there is a good reason why they should not have it?
      Mr. Dismore: My hon. Friend is making a very interesting point. Let us suppose that someone was considering buying a specific vehicle or make of vehicle and paid a fee for information on it, but then decided not to purchase that vehicle or make of vehicle. Under the provisions of the Bill, he would have to pay a fee each time that he wanted information on a vehicle—perhaps several times—whereas, as my hon. Friend said, vehicle information on the internet could be gained at minimal cost.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner) responds to that intervention, I remind the House that the new clause is not about purchasing vehicles, but relates specifically to accidents.
      Dr. Turner: I understand your point, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I am generalising from the specific point—to which I shall return.
      I really should be grateful if, before the new clause is withdrawn or pressed to a Division, the Minister or the hon. Member for Basingstoke would make it clear why
      1368
      there should be any restriction on such information, and why it could not be gained with a simple "enquiry". I appreciate that some information is more personal, involving the privacy of the citizen, and should not be made available without a formal procedure. However, it is entirely legitimate to allow people making a simple "enquiry" access to the type of information that we are discussing—such as whether a vehicle had had an MOT or recently failed one. Members of the public should be able to access that information if they feel that they should have it. We do not need a bureaucracy to give us permission to have access to it.
      Ms Glenda Jackson: As I have already had occasion to say, the Bill provides that such information would be available if the "enquirer"—I think that I am right in that; not "inquirer"—could show that he or she had a legitimate interest in a particular vehicle. My hon. Friend spoke of someone wishing to purchase a second-hand vehicle.
      Under the regulations, which are to be defined, it will be possible for organisations and businesses dealing specifically in the matter to buy information about a wide range of vehicles. I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware of the Data Protection Acts, and that he joins all hon. Members in wishing to ensure that machines and other individuals are not able to intrude ever more greatly in our lives by making "enquiries", the origin of which we would not know.
      Dr. Turner: I thank the Minister for making that point, although I am not sure that I entirely agree with it. I have absolutely no concern about some information about my life being available on computer. Although I should like some of it to be protected, that certainly does not include information about vehicles.
      I am simply suggesting that the information should be available on the internet—which is in the spirit in which the Labour party is proposing freedom of information for the citizen. I believe that—generally, if it does not involve real cost—information held by the Government should be available to the public. The real cost of the information that we are discussing would be incurred by creating bureaucracy.
      Mr. Shaw: I take my hon. Friend's point, and I am being convinced by his argument. However, does he agree that information should be available not only about a car's history and MOT, but about the garage's history and the quality of—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not want to have to remind the hon. Gentleman again—we are now straying very wide of the mark.
      Dr. Turner: On your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall ignore that intervention.
      I conclude with a straight question. If the provision involves a bureaucratic procedure, why is that necessary? If the information is stored on computer and government computers are already linked, why should the information not be available on the internet? Information that is held by the Government and is not personal is public information and should therefore be accessible to the public at a realistic charge. If the information were on the internet, the charge would need to be only some tenths of a penny.
      Mr. Tony McNulty: I congratulate the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) on introducing

      1369
      the Bill, which goes a long way towards precisely what my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner) suggested that it did not do—using computerisation to provide much more than paper records.
      Although we have had a useful and interesting debate on new clause 1, the underlying confusion demonstrates the flaws of the proposal, which attempts to do four different things in 10 different directions on the premise of two underlying themes. The notion that there should be, in our legislative body, greater recognition, or analysis, of vehicles involved in road traffic accidents in which death or serious injury occurs is beyond doubt. I could explore why it is shameful that people get away with murder in respect of deaths on the road, but I am sure that I would be admonished. The new clause is not the vehicle to redress the imbalance in our criminal law in respect of those who cause death or serious injury. Although it is well meaning to hook it on to this commendable Bill, it is not necessarily appropriate. Nor is it appropriate to talk at length about 20 mph zones, which reduce the incidence of traffic accidents—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is anxious not to be admonished, so I should be grateful if he would return to new clause 1.
      Mr. McNulty: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Although it expresses the important concern about death and serious injury, new clause 1 is inherently flawed in trying to tag it to the Bill. Its aim is commendable, but this is not the place for it.
      Unlike my hon. Friends, I have serious difficulties with the flippant phrase, "any inquiry". The new clause might as well have said, "any old inquiry". The notion expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk that the information should be accessible to anyone at public cost and that it should be on the internet is nonsense. It is one of the most absurd reasons that I have heard for freedom of information. Frankly, it undermines genuine, serious arguments in support of that.
      I also have difficulty with the notion that, somehow, we should narrow the scope of new clause 1 to vehicles for which appropriate test certificates have not been issued. There are fundamental reasons why it should not be in the Bill, not least because its aims are already incorporated in this and other measures. People make spurious links between the absence of a test certificate and the responsibility or otherwise of the keepers of vehicles,
      1370
      not least those involved in accidents, and new clause 1 would formalise that in legislation. It says nothing about the link between road traffic accidents in which death or serious injury occurs and whether or not the vehicle has an MOT and it does not make a case for obtaining the records of the vehicles involved in such accidents. Neither aspect of what is fundamentally a well-meaning new clause would achieve its objective, so it is flawed.
      In respect of whether the new clause should refer to an "inquiry" or an "enquiry", the Bill makes it quite clear what is required from any legitimate source seeking to access the information. It is both flexible and permissive. I can only assume that my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) was touting for trade for his colleagues in the personal injury field by seeking to broaden it further than necessary.
      Although the hon. Member for Basingstoke accepted the thrust of new clause 1, which certainly has broad support on both sides of the House, this is not the place to incorporate provisions in respect of death and serious injury in road traffic accidents. New clause 1 is a nice try; it covers many serious issues, but I urge my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) to withdraw it, as it does not add much to a Bill that does a great deal in respect of moving MOT records from a paper trail to computerisation. We would do the country a disservice if we did not utilise that opportunity for modernisation. New clause 1 is flawed and I urge the House to sling it out.
      Mr. Miller: We have had a fascinating debate on an important issue. If I am allowed, I join you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in admonishing my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), who missed the spirit of my new clause. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) revealed that he is not only a scholar, but a boy racer. Perhaps another time he will give me a lesson in the use of English. The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) made an interesting speech and I am grateful for his contribution. We are on the same side in respect of this important issue. My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner) made some important points about privacy. I hope that the Government recognise that we should not design computerised systems simply to replicate the existing paper-based systems. If the regulations are at fault, they should be amended accordingly—
      It being Eleven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER interrupted the proceedings, pursuant to Standing Order No. 11 (Friday sittings).

      Biotechnology
      Mr. John Suffern11: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not an abuse of the House that the Government bring forward such an important statement on a Friday, when very few Members are here? Is it not even more of an abuse that the Government have consistently done that on five Fridays when there is legislation that they wish to filibuster—notably the Referendums Bill today?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Madam Speaker has no discretion over the making of Government statements at customary times. The Standing Order relating to Friday sittings makes specific provision for statements to be made at 11 o'clock. That is not a matter in which the Chair can intervene. As far as the Chair is concerned, Friday is a proper working day.
      Mr. Eric Forth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Of course we accept what you have said, but perhaps you and Madam Speaker and others could look to see whether it is a coincidence that, over the past few months, when the Government have wished for whatever reason to prolong business, a statement has appeared, while on other days, when that has not been their wish, there has been no statement. Is it beyond possibility or probability that something else might lie behind that coincidence? Perhaps there is a case for looking again at our Standing Orders to see whether such an abuse is avoidable.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: If it is not convenient to Members, I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman takes the matter up through the usual channels or proposes that it be looked at by the Procedure Committee.
      11.1 am
      The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Dr. Jack Cunningham): Biotechnology is an important and exciting area of scientific advance that offers enormous opportunities for improving our quality of life. In health care, biotechnology has already helped to develop better treatments for diseases, including multiple sclerosis, heart disease and diabetes. It is also helping the environment through techniques such as bioremediation, which assisted the clean-up of beaches following the Sea Empress oil spill in 1996. In agriculture, genetic modification has the potential to ensure the more efficient production of food that is more nutritious, tastes better and requires fewer pesticides. That is just the start.
      There are many real and exciting benefits and potential benefits, but the technology is new and the risks must be rigorously assessed. The Government recognise the considerable public concern about the safety of genetically modified food and crops. Our overriding duty is to protect the public and the environment. We must continue to ensure that the controls that we have in place are sound and command public confidence.
      That is why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister established a new Cabinet committee on biotechnology last autumn. It is why the first decision of the Committee in December was to carry out a review of the regulatory framework to ensure that it was rigorous, as transparent as possible and able to cope with so fast-moving a
      1372
      technology. We invited a wide range of interested bodies to give us their views, including the Select Committees of this House. It is also why we thought it essential to seek the views of the public through the consultation on the biosciences. It is why we commissioned a report from the chief medical officer and chief scientific adviser on the public health implications of genetically modified food. All three reports are published today.
      My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who is responsible for food safety, have also been in discussion with the industry over the past year to ensure the effective management of the cultivation of genetically modified crops in this country. Today, we are endorsing guidelines for the cultivation of those crops.
      The review has found that the existing system of careful case-by-case assessment of new biotechnology products and processes is an essential component of our regulatory system. However, there are persuasive arguments for strengthening the system by adding new strategic commissions to take a broader long-term view of developments in the technology.
      We shall set up two new advisory bodies. The Human Genetics Commission will advise us on applications of biotechnology in health care and the impact of human genetics on our lives. The Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission will cover the use of biotechnology in agriculture and its environmental effects. Working alongside the Food Standards Agency, which will soon take on responsibility for genetically modified foods, the new bodies will have wide-ranging remits, advising Ministers on likely future developments in the technology and addressing broader issues, such as ethical considerations.
      The members of the new commissions will be drawn from a broad range of interests. Those with expertise of consumer issues and ethics, for example, will sit alongside scientists. The commissions will also consult widely with the public and stakeholders when carrying out their work.
      One of the main findings of our consultation exercises was that the regulatory system should be made more transparent. We agree, and our report published today includes guidelines on transparency that all committees involved in biotechnology, including the new commissions, will be required to follow. We are confident that, with those changes, we will have a rigorous and open system for regulating biotechnology that will safeguard the public interest.
      In their report on genetically modified foods and public health, the chief medical officer, Professor Liam Donaldson, and the chief scientific adviser, Sir Robert May, conclude:
      "Many of the issues raised by foods resulting from genetic modification are equally applicable to foods produced by conventional means."
      They go on:
      "There is no current evidence to suggest that the genetically modified technologies used to produce food are inherently harmful."
      They further report:
      "We are reassured by the precautionary nature and rigour of the current procedures used to assess the safety of individual genetically modified foods."
      They emphasise the need to keep a close watch on developments and to continue to fund research to improve scientific understanding in this area. The Government and our advisory committees will continue to do that.

      1373
      Their report encourages us to improve the openness of the regulatory procedures to public scrutiny. We are doing that today. The report also recommends that consideration should be given to the establishment of a national surveillance unit to monitor population health aspects of genetically modified and other types of novel foods. The Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes is already discussing how that might be done. The ministerial Committee will review progress in the autumn.
      The Government have been working with environmentalists and the biotechnology industry to ensure that the first farm-scale plantings of genetically modified crops in Britain are carefully managed. That is why we have embarked on a programme of evaluations, which are being rigorously undertaken to secure thorough and reliable evidence on whether they cause damage to the environment. Unrestricted commercial cultivation of any crop will not proceed until we are satisfied that it does not harm the environment.
      Today, the industry group SCIMAC—the supply chain initiative on modified agricultural crops—has published a package of measures that will ensure that proper care is taken when the crops are grown on farms. We welcome that important step forward. The tough rules are underpinned by legally binding contracts. There will be an independent system of enforcement and audit. Some have said that we should have legislated on the issue. That would inevitably have taken much longer than our voluntary approach. However, we think that the guidelines could well form the basis of future legislation. We shall work with the industry and our European partners to take that forward.
      The Science and Technology Committee said this week that we need an informed public debate in this area. It condemned some media treatment of the subject and called for more openness and transparency, and for more information to be provided to the public which is accurate and objective.
      We agree. The measures that we have announced today are intended to achieve that, but we need to establish the debate on a firm base. The chief medical officer and the chief scientific adviser firmly believe that there is no current evidence to suggest that genetic modification technologies used to produce food are inherently harmful. The Committee came to the same view. The Royal Society this week convincingly dismissed as wholly misleading the results of some recent research into potatoes, and the misinterpretation of it. There is no evidence to suggest that any GM foods on sale in this country are harmful.
      The Government welcome open, rational and well-informed debate. That is the best way to safeguard the public interest. We regret that some political, some media and other treatment of the issues has not served the public well.
      Biotechnology undoubtedly has the potential to improve our quality of life in many ways. It is the Government's responsibility to encourage this potential, but we will not do so at the risk to public health and the environment. This duty is at the heart of today's announcement.
      Mr. Tim Yeo: We warmly welcome the statement, and I am grateful to the Minister for making
      1374
      it available to me in good time—about three quarters of an hour ago. However, I fully endorse the points of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) about the disadvantage of interrupting a debate on an important private Member's Bill by, yet again, having a statement on an issue of prime concern to the whole country on a day when the House is inevitably almost empty. I welcome also the reports published with the statement, which we will want to study carefully.
      What the Minister has said today will be judged by three criteria. Will it protect the British environment against possible damage from GM crops? Will it protect the British people against the possible risks to human health? Will it restore confidence in the integrity of the Government and guarantee that future decisions are taken more openly, with the environmental and health considerations put before political and commercial considerations?
      Does the Minister realise that the last five months of evasions, distortions and muddle have destroyed public confidence in the safety of GM crops and food with GM ingredients? Does he agree that the Government's confusion has dealt a near-fatal blow to the prospects in Britain of a potentially beneficial and important technology? Does he recognise that the Government's failure to distinguish sufficiently clearly between the environmental and health risks has needlessly increased public anxiety?
      Does the Minister realise that the Prime Minister himself made the matter worse when he said last February that he thought that it was
      "important to proceed on the basis of sound science"
      only to be contradicted within hours by the statutory adviser to the Government, English Nature, which said:
      "We cannot assure the public that decisions are being made on the basis of good environmental science."?
      Those of us, such as the Conservative party, who want the benefits of biotechnology available to Britain can only deplore the Government's handling of the issue so far.
      Does the Minister accept that there is a risk that certain genetically modified crops could upset or even destroy the balance of nature? Does he realise that there is now an overwhelming case for an absolute ban on all commercial planting of herbicide-tolerant and insect-resistant GM crops until research into their environmental impact has been completed?
      Does the Minister recognise that completing this research will take at least three years—and possibly longer, depending on the results of trials now under way? Does he realise that the need for this approach is supported by English Nature, the chief scientific adviser, the Science and Technology Committee, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and many other non-governmental organisations?
      Does today's statement mean that some commercial planting of GM crops, as opposed to planting for research purposes, will now take place with Government approval? Will the Minister explain how such planting is to be regulated? Are adequate resources available to monitor it, in light of the rapid increase in the scale of planting expected over the next year?
      Does the Minister agree that, as breaches of trial conditions have led already to convictions in court of a leading company, self-regulation by the industry is not

      1375
      acceptable? The Government must take responsibility for regulation. What protection is proposed for organic farmers from the risk of contamination from GM crops? What protection is available for conventional farmers? Will there be compensation for any farmer whose business is compromised?
      Is the Minister satisfied that the SCIMAC guidelines take account of the latest evidence about the greater distance over which pollination can occur? Does he agree with the Minister for the Environment, who is sitting beside him—who said yesterday that, if evidence were available in Britain of threats to biodiversity, such as that posed by BT maize to the monarch butterfly in America, certain GM crops might have to be banned outright?
      On health issues, I warmly welcome the publication of the report from the chief medical officer and the chief scientific adviser. I stress that the Opposition accept that the food on sale in Britain today containing GM ingredients passed all the tests thought necessary at the time that it was approved.
      Will the Minister confirm that, last year, the Government were sufficiently worried about the long-term health consequences of food with genetically modified ingredients to approve a scheme to collect data from supermarkets about patterns of consumption and monitor them against health trends? Now that the scheme has been dropped, what alternative scheme is being prepared to obtain such data if it is thought necessary?
      Does the Minister recognise that, even after today's assurances, some consumers will want to avoid eating food with GM ingredients? Will he therefore introduce simple, clear and accurate labelling requirements? What plans do the Government have to improve the labelling of animal feedstuffs which may contain GM ingredients? Does the Minister accept that, for the purpose of approving novel foods in future, the concept of substantial equivalence is seriously flawed? Will the Minister explain what steps the chief medical officer and the chief scientific adviser will take to watch future developments?
      On the integrity of Government decision making, does the Minister realise that the publication yesterday of a letter giving details of discussions of the so-called biotechnology presentation group has raised serious questions about the Government's approach? Will he now publish the minutes of all the meetings of the group? Does he realise that people now suspect that the Government are more concerned with manipulating the media and public opinion than with protecting the environment and the health of the British people? Does he consider it a proper use of civil servants' time to try to control which scientists are interviewed on "Today"?
      Will the Minister state whether any changes were made by the group to the draft report submitted by the chief medical officer and the chief scientific adviser before its publication today? If so, what were they and why were they made? Since the same letter states that Departments were
      "working to line up third parties to author articles in the media before the announcement"
      does he consider, in light of the newspapers of the past two days, that it has been successful in that aim?
      How will the proposed "central co-ordinated rebuttals strategy" work? What is its aim? Is it to prevent alternative views to those of the Government from being
      1376
      expressed? Will the Minister confirm that, in future, all advice from the chief medical officer and the chief scientific adviser will be published without having to be
      "cleared by the biotechnology presentation group"?
      Does he agree that the very idea of subjecting advice that is supposed to be delivered by objective and expert independent advisers to a group of politicians whose aim is to massage public opinion is utterly disgraceful?

      Will the Minister consider making the chief medical officer and the chief scientific adviser more directly accountable to Parliament, perhaps through the relevant Select Committees, so that the integrity of their advice can be guaranteed in future?
      The Opposition welcome the publication of today's reports as one step towards rebuilding public confidence, but the Minister must understand that the Government will be judged on whether the measures really place the protection of the British environment and the health of the British people higher up the Government's agenda than hitherto.
      Dr. Cunningham: Let me take the hon. Gentleman's last point head on. From the outset, following the election of the new Labour Government in May 1997, we put the health and well-being of people and the environment at the top of our agenda; unlike the Conservative Government, we made it our overriding priority and it has remained so ever since. [Interruption.].
      I am bound to say, if the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) will shut up for a moment, that the long list of questions that the Opposition spokesman put to me today could well have been put to the previous Government, but not one of them was. At the very time when the Opposition spokesman was himself a Minister in the Department of the Environment, none of those questions was asked. No, that is wrong: one question was asked, about animal feedstuffs. The Lamming committee advised that the Conservative Government should take action, but Ministers ignored the recommendation and did nothing.
      The hon. Gentleman mentioned labelling. [Interruption.] When we came to office in May 1997, Government officials in Brussels had instructions from the Conservative Administration to oppose proposals for labelling food—to oppose consumer choice on genetically modified food—so I suspect that he may regret having asked that question. [Interruption.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There are too many interruptions from a sedentary position. The Minister must be allowed to respond.
      Dr. Cunningham: As well as lacking ideas and policies, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Conservative Front Benchers lack courtesy and manners.
      The hon. Gentleman began by welcoming the reports. I accept that they contain a large amount of information that he and his colleagues will need time to consider. At least they welcome them in principle, which is helpful. He set out three criteria. Will the proposals more effectively safeguard the environment? Yes, they will. Will they more effectively safeguard the health of the people of this country? Yes, they will. Will they begin to restore public confidence in the safeguards and processes? Yes, they will.

      1377
      The thorough and wide-ranging consultations that we have undertaken have produced very positive responses in respect of the main parts of the regulatory and advisory system that we inherited from the Conservative Administration. The Science and Technology Committee was robust in its support of the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment and of the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes.
      We also got a strong message from the consultations that there should be more openness, transparency and public involvement, to improve public understanding of how the system works in the public interest. We have accepted that criticism and we are putting in place measures to improve matters. We have also accepted that there should be new super advisory commissions, to engage the wider interests of stakeholders—people with legitimate interests—and the public, so people can not only see but be involved in the process that is there to safeguard the public interest.
      The hon. Gentleman asked about the integrity of the Government decision-making process. The process is such that we see no evidence at all to support his repeated call for a blanket moratorium on the growing of genetically modified crops. That call is almost devoid of support except from the well-known environmentalist groups.
      Mr. Peter Lilley: English Nature.
      Dr. Cunningham: English Nature has never called for a blanket moratorium on the growing of genetically modified crops, so the right hon. Gentleman would be better advised to shut up and give up his sedentary interventions, because they are all mistaken, wrong and ill-informed, as is all too easy to illustrate.
      The integrity of the Government decision-making process is strengthened by the measures announced today. As for the hon. Gentleman's playful teasing about the way in which the system works, we are criticised by him and by other hon. Members for not co-ordinating the Government's response, and when Ministers get together to do just that, he criticises that, too. He cannot have it both ways. I greatly applaud the excellent work being done by my ministerial colleagues in the inter-ministerial committee. We shall certainly continue to co-ordinate the Government's response effectively, exactly as the public would expect.
      Joan Ruddock: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. I look forward, as must others, to reading in detail the reports to which he has referred. He mentioned guidelines for the cultivation of crops. Is he aware of the concern of the Soil Association and of our organic farmers about the difficulty that they think that they face in preventing contamination of their crops and protecting the integrity of organic food, which we know the public are keen to buy, if the buffer zones are not extended? Is there new provision in the guidelines for extending the zones? If not, will my right hon. Friend make it possible to extend them in future, if contamination occurs from the farm test sites?
      Dr. Cunningham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her welcome for the statement. As a member of the Soil
      1378
      Association, I am very much aware of its views. Yes, the guidelines for cultivation will cover matters such as crop separation. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment are in consultation with the association about those issues. One of the arguments in favour of the field and farm-scale trials is exactly to allow us rigorously to assess the implications for the environment and then make whatever decisions are necessary in the light of the evidence that accrues.
      Mr. Norman Baker: I welcome the fact that we have had a statement, but I am also concerned about its being on a Friday. There was no statement yesterday, although one could have been made at 12.30 pm. I suggest that the Government took that decision because the statement is largely content-free.
      We welcome the overarching bodies proposed in the statement, and especially the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission, and we support the idea of a national surveillance unit. Will those with pecuniary interests in the biotechnology industry be eligible for places on those bodies?
      This is a GM dog that does not bark. There is a whole range of questions that the statement does not address in any way. Once again, the Government are running behind the GM juggernaut and are not in the driving seat. I want to ask some of those questions. I can do no better than to ask the questions that the Government themselves have asked.
      I refer to a leaked Cabinet paper—not the one that we saw yesterday, but another leaked Cabinet Office document dating from 19 February, entitled "GM Foods—Policy and Presentational Issues". As the Government have had the questions in it before them for three months, presumably the Minister will be able to answer them.
      These are the Government's own questions:
      "In respect of the voluntary deal with the industry, how can we be sure that the deal will not unravel? What can we do if it begins to do so? Do we have any statutory power to impose in-use conditions?"
      "Are we 100 per cent. sure that the voluntary deal will allow us to capture all the necessary data to come to a sensible evaluation?"
      "What about long-term monitoring? Even after five years, the real environmental effects may not be known. Will we have the means to identify longer-term effects?"
      In terms of labelling, the Government ask:
      "is our labelling line on soya oil tenable?"
      The questions continue:
      "If people have ethical objections to GM processing, should they not have a real choice informed through labelling?"
      As for the impact of GMOs on health, the Government asked themselves:
      "Why don't we require a pharmaceutical-type analysis of the safety of these foods with proper trials? What if it"—
      that is, the study—
      "says that there is evidence of long-term effects? This will look like we are not sure about their safety—we do not monitor consumption of other foods."
      In respect of animal feeds, the Government ask
      "how can we be sure of the safety of products derived from animals which eat GM animal feeds?"

      1379
      Those are just some of the questions in the Cabinet Office paper that demonstrate that the Government have the questions but no answers. Rather than bringing us a vacuous statement about an overarching body—although I welcome that—which does not answer any of the questions—[Horn. MEMBERS: "You just said you welcomed it."] 1 welcome one part of it, but there is a lot missing.
      I ask the Minister to be rather less gung-ho about genetic modification and rather more assiduous in answering the questions he himself asked on 19 February.
      Dr. Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman is, as so often, confused. He is referring not to a Cabinet Paper but to a paper for the working meeting of interdepartmental officials. He is wrong to present that to the House as a Cabinet paper. His lukewarm welcome of my announcement is typical of the hon. Gentleman, whose sole parroted cry is either to call for a blanket moratorium on the growing of GM crops, which would mean that we would get no evidence to answer his questions—
      Mr. Baker indicated dissent.
      Dr. Cunningham: That shows the stupidity of his position. His other tactic, which fortunately he has not repeated in the Chamber, although he used it on the radio this morning, is deliberately to misrepresent the views of the Government chief scientific adviser. He is wholly wrong in that regard, too.
      Of course, nobody can ever guarantee that a deal will never unravel, especially now when the biosciences are moving so rapidly. However, there are strong provisions in the agreement. There are obligations that have to be met, to which the companies involved have agreed. All our evidence is that the companies want an agreement that will work in practice.
      The hon. Gentleman read out a question about the availability of data. I repeat that we can get data on environmental impact only if we have field and farm-scale trials. Perhaps he will go away and reflect on whether he still supports a moratorium on those, at the same time as asking for data to evaluate. That is a contradictory position.
      Of course, as the Minister for the Environment and my other colleagues and I have made clear many times, we shall go on examining the trials for as long as is necessary to satisfy ourselves that there are no serious harmful effects on biodiversity. If we find harmful effects of the kind reported by Cornell university in Nature this week, albeit from a laboratory experiment, not from field trials, we shall take action similar to that which the European Union has already taken in respect of that evidence from Cornell, and stop licensing processes until we are satisfied that the situation is fully understood.
      Several hon. Members rose—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I appreciate that this is an important subject, and the Minister made an important statement that invites longer questions, but I remind hon. Members that this is a private Members' day, so perhaps we can now have shorter questions and answers.
      Dr. Phyllis Starkey: I welcome my right hon. Friend's sensible proposals for
      1380
      reforming the advisory system to produce a more holistic way of considering the effects of biotechnology. Will he confirm that the deliberations of the advisory bodies will be based on rigorous scientific research validated by peer review? Does he agree that that will be doubly necessary after the unfortunate public confusion caused by the bypassing of the peer review system by the media release of Dr. Pusztai's now discredited experiments—the accounts of which have been enthusiastically taken up and repeated by some rather credulous Opposition Members?
      Dr. Cunningham: I agree with my hon. Friend. All the decisions that we make have been, and will continue to be, taken on the basis of the best and most rigorous scientific evidence available. As my hon. Friend says, that evidence will always be subject to proper peer group review. It is absurd to imagine that the Government, like Opposition Members, including some Opposition Front-Bench spokespeople and those from the Liberal Democrats, could take decisions on the basis of the hysteria surrounding what we now see as the fatally flawed and misrepresented science in the research of Dr. Pusztai. It reflects no credit on Opposition Members that they and their spokespeople participated in the media hysteria, because it damaged the public interest.
      Mr. Peter Atkinson: I welcome the Minister's assurances from the chief medical officer and the chief scientific adviser that the GM foods currently on the market are safe. That is reassuring. Genetic modification is of importance, because it brings great benefit to the countryside and helps British agriculture to compete in the global market. The hysterical campaign that has been launched against it is in danger of damaging an important British industry.
      I believe that the Minister announced two or three—I could not work out how many—
      Mr. Eric Forth: Quangos.
      Mr. Atkinson: Quangos, if my right hon. Friend will have it so.
      Will the Minister tell me whether those bodies will be set up quickly? Will they be able to delay the current field and farm trials? Today's announcement will, of course, cause some uncertainty for the companies currently involved in the experiments.
      Dr. Cunningham: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's measured response, and his rational conduct of his involvement with such important matters. As he said, there is a great danger that we could seriously damage important United Kingdom industrial and commercial interests. We are one of the world leaders in the biosciences, and it would be a terrible error to allow that to be damaged or undermined in any way.
      As for the two new commissions that I announced today—the Human Genetics Commission and the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission, they will not have any impact on the plans for the farm and field-scale trials. As I said, responsibility for the safety of genetically modified food will eventually pass to the Food Standards Agency. We hope that both the new commissions will be up and active by the end of the year.
      Dr. Lynne Jones: I, too, welcome the setting up of the new biotechnology

      1381
      commission, although I had understood that we already had a Human Genetics Advisory Commission. The commitment to transparency is important. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the commission and the relevant committees sit in public, and have sufficient resources to carry out their work effectively?
      Professor Beringer, the outgoing chairman of the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment, told the Science and Technology Committee that his committee had been seriously under-resourced. That problem should be addressed, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will give a commitment that it will.
      Does my right hon. Friend agree that our experience shows that, when there is the slightest suspicion on the part of the public that health and environmental considerations, and their right to choice in the food that they eat, are not given overriding priority, above commercial considerations, potentially beneficial technology has no chance of getting off the ground? Is it not in the interests of the commercial companies involved to recognise that fact and to support—indeed, to press for—proper national and international regulation and the segregation of crops so that genuine choice can be provided?
      Dr. Cunningham: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support for the announcements that I have made today. The difference between the commissions that I have announced today and existing committees is that the former will be overarching bodies with a wide remit to consider all aspects of the fast-moving developments in the sciences and technology. My hon. Friend mentioned resources for ACRE, and Professor Beringer. I take the opportunity to place on record our appreciation of the work that Professor Beringer and his colleagues have done, and of the work that all the other scientists and members of the other advisory committees do in the public interest for the Government. My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment has taken up the point raised by Professor Beringer and increased, within the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, resource support for the work of ACRE.
      The Government have made their position on labelling clear. We believe that consumers should have a clear choice—in contradistinction to the attitude of the previous Conservative Government—and we shall work with the industry and our European partners to improve regulatory control wherever we think necessary.
      Mr. Andrew Robathan: This is a matter that gravely concerns constituents of every Member of the House. Can the right hon. Gentleman, with his customary courtesy, reassure my constituents and others who are very worried by the reports of butterflies and bees whose immune systems have been destroyed? If that is happening, it must be stopped, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would acknowledge. He is a scientist, but my constituents and I do not have his scientific knowledge.
      The right hon. Gentleman talked about an open and well-informed debate. Can he categorically reassure the House that the desire to prevent discussion of the Referendums Bill and the Fur Farming (Prohibition)
      1382
      Bill—over which the Minister responsible for animal welfare has been shedding crocodile tears—has not been a factor in the making of the announcement today?
      Dr. Cunningham: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman might consider what he has said and do something himself to reassure his constituents, instead of taking an alarmist attitude and undermining possibly already fragile public confidence. I repeat that we shall take notice of any scientific and environmental development as the policies are implemented. If it is necessary to take further action, we will. I emphasise again that our overriding priority is the health and well-being of people and the environment.
      Mr. Geraint Davies: I very much welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. Will he confirm, first, that the preservation of indigenous species of plants and birds will be a fundamental consideration—including species in those countries that might receive exported GM crops; secondly, that the interests of consumers will be paramount and that, if a product contains GM ingredients on the inside we will start to label GM on the outside; and thirdly, that, while considering the prospective benefits of third-world development, we will also consider the prospective power relationship between multinational countries and third-world development, in the interests of future trade profitability of third-world countries?
      Dr. Cunningham: I thank my hon. Friend for his support. We shall do whatever is necessary to protect biodiversity in this country. We want to have farm and field-scale trials so that we can assess the impact on biodiversity. The labelling issue is a question for the biosafety protocol. As for development in third-world countries and in fragile environments, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development will shortly publish a paper on those issues.
      Mr. Andrew Lansley: I am sure that the Minister will be aware that some of the leading biotechnology companies in this country are based in my constituency. What further work is he publishing today to follow up the White Paper on competitiveness in the knowledge-based industries that was published last year? Many biotechnology companies wish to know what will be done on that issue and the Minister made no specific mention of it in his statement.
      The Minister mentioned a Human Genetics Commission. How will the work of that commission relate to, and be co-ordinated with, the work of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority? Will the commission take on the work of the xenotransplantation interim regulatory authority and give it the regulatory teeth that it demands if successful progress is to be made with the technology, including by a company in my constituency?
      Will the Minister confirm that, even though a precautionary attitude will be taken to the planting of GM crops that will lead to a delay in any commercial planting in this country, if another European Union member state were to license the commercial planting of GM crops, there would be no legal bar to a company proceeding with commercial planting in other member states, including here? What have the Government done about that?
      Dr. Cunningham: It was not my purpose to deal with the competitiveness White Paper today, but the

      1383
      development of biotechnology is important for the competitiveness of our industries. That is why the Government have been concerned to try to ensure that we regulate the developments properly and, at the same time, provide a climate in which those important industries can flourish and prosper in the British economy. The hon. Gentleman is right: the way that the system works is that a proposer can seek approvals in any member state and obtain a crop licence, but each member state has to give consent. We inherited that system from the previous Conservative Administration.
      Mr. Andrew Miller: May I follow the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) when she referred to the existing Human Genetics Advisory Commission? Will my right hon. Friend publish soon the details of the bodies that will be incorporated in the new commission? Have the Government considered the evidence collected by the Select Committee on Science and Technology on whether the Human Genetics Advisory Commission should have some statutory powers given to it?
      Dr. Cunningham: All the information that my hon. Friend requires is published in the documents that we are making available today. I should have responded on the same point to the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley). The Human Genetics Commission, which I have announced today, will advise us on the applications of biotechnology in health care and the impact of human genetics on our lives. It will not be a regulatory body.
      Mr. Eric Forth: The Minister must be aware that, although many people are worried about the direct effects on people and their diet, they are even more worried about the possible collateral effects of the field trials and the way in which the processes used in the experimentation could spread out of control by being transmitted by insects, in the air, through the soil or in the water. Can the Minister give us an absolute assurance that every step will be taken to ensure that, during those crucial and—I accept—necessary experimental stages, there will be no accidental collateral effects that we might all soon live to regret bitterly?
      Dr. Cunningham: Yes.
      Dr. George Turner: Can my right hon. Friend assure me that he recognises that—given that we have seen so much bad and selective science and muddling of the issues—the Government will have to address the knowledge of the public about the issues? The public are now very confused about the health implications of the foods that have been licensed, which seem to be muddled up with the environmental problems that we yet face. At times, there is deliberate confusion between trials and commercial plantings. The language and the selective reporting in some of the media—for example, the term "Frankenstein food"—have been deliberately used to misinform the public, who are not scientifically well educated. The Government must deal with the issue.
      Dr. Cunningham: It is exactly because we understand public concerns, and because in some cases there have been deliberate attempts to mislead, unsettle and scare the
      1384
      public that we have done all that work over the past five months and are announcing our decisions today. Of course there has been some bad science. Happily, that has been thoroughly exposed for what it was. There has been deliberate muddling of the issues. On more than one occasion, we have heard people on radio and television, including the interviewers themselves sometimes, claiming that genetically modified crops "were being let rip". Nothing could be further from the truth.
      My hon. Friend referred to commercial planting. There is no unlimited commercial planting taking place in this country—none at all. Controlled planting is taking place, under rigorous supervision, and it will go on in that way until we are satisfied that it is safe for any single plant or product to go on to the next stage.
      Dr. Peter Brand: May I put the record straight? No Liberal Democrat has called for a total ban on growing any genetically modified food—[Horn. MEMBERS: "You have.] No, no; we have welcomed trials so that we can get the science right. We are asking for a ban on commercial production involving GM food.
      Will the new commissions, which sound as though they will be extremely useful bodies, bring together representatives of the industry, academics and representatives of other regulatory bodies? If the commissions are to have members from the industries involved, is it not vital that the regulatory body, the Food Standards Agency, should be made up entirely of people without commercial or financial interest in the industry?
      Dr. Cunningham: As ever, the Liberal Democrats seem to want to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds, depending on the audience that they are addressing. Many of the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends have deliberately given the impression that they wanted a total stop to all the work on GM foods. It is not good enough for the hon. Gentleman to come into the Chamber this morning and pretend that that has not been the case.
      As for people from industry serving on Government advisory bodies, there is no bar to anyone from any walk of life serving voluntarily on Government bodies. We want Government advisory and regulatory bodies made up of the best membership that we can achieve. That always has been the case, and it remains so.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must now return to the Bill.
      Mr. Robathan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance on behalf of the many people outside the House who are concerned about the constitutional issues regarding fair rules for referendums, and the prohibition of fur farming. How can we explain to them that the Government are determined that the Referendums Bill nor the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill will reach the statute book, and are deliberately getting craven toadies on their Back Bench to talk the measures out?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows full well how the House works. That is not a matter for the Chair. We must return to the Bill before the House.

  ROAD TRAFFIC (VEHICLE TESTING) BILL
  Not amended in the Standing Committee, again considered.
  ROAD TRAFFIC (VEHICLE TESTING) BILL
    New Clause 1

      INFORMATION ON ACCIDENTS INVOLVING UNCERTIFICATED VEHICLES
      '. The Secretary of State shall authorise the use of information in the records maintained under section 45(6B) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 for the purposes of any inquiry into a road traffic accident in which death or serious injury occurs, and shall maintain a record of all such incidents concerning vehicles for which an appropriate test certificate has not been issued:.—[Mr. Miller.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Question proposed [this day], That the clause be read a Second time.
      11.54 am
      Question again proposed.
      Mr. Miller: I am convinced that the public at large would disagree entirely with the point just made by the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan). Surely to goodness the House regards the deaths of 3,000 people each year as somewhat more important than his trivial little Bill.
      Mr. Andrew Robathan: I watched the hon. Gentleman on the monitor, presenting his argument in a very slow, turgid manner. He showed no interest in the subject on Second Reading. Many people have written to me about referendums and about fur farming. They will know where to lay the blame for the fact that fur farming will not be prohibited in this country.
      Mr. Miller: On the Conservative party.
      Before the statement, I was responding to important comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk about matters relating to privacy. I shall not answer his point in full, as that would involve my expressing my personal view of the way in which matters of privacy should be dealt with in society, as the Government and the public service hold more and more co-ordinated data on individuals. I have strong views on that, which I would be prepared to share with my hon. Friend outside the debate.
      We must remember that it is not vehicles with defects that cause death and serious injury; it is drivers. I am grateful for my hon. Friend the Minister's remarks about the research that is going on, and the ideas that that has given me for potential regulation within the scope of the Bill, if the research identifies a correlation which, I suspect, exists, as I said in my opening remarks.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon spoke of the possibility of MOTs being exchanged as part of the showing of particulars when there is a road traffic incident. That is an interesting point which the Minister may want to consider.
      The debate has been helpful, and I hope the issues discussed will be taken on board by my hon. Friend the Minister. Bearing in mind the observations made by the promoter of the Bill, whose efforts I strongly support, and the assurances received from the Minister, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn

    Clause 2

      REGULATIONS UNDER S.45 OF ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1988. 1988 c. 52
      Dr. Nick Palmer: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 36, leave out `application or'.
      I shall address a different aspect of the Bill—the possibility of introducing an element of privatisation to MOT tests. The amendment is quite minor because its purpose is to delete two words. However, it would remove the central determination of fees for testing for the purpose of obtaining an MOT certificate.
      When we consider the privatisation of any activity, I suggest that five tests should be carried out, each of which applies in this instance. The first test is whether there is a clear definition of quality. Rail privatisation is an example of privatising without applying that test. The companies that take over the work will interpret their duties in widely different ways and there is a danger that standards, as perceived by the public, will deteriorate sharply.
      The second criterion is whether there is potentially a large competitive market. The rail industry provides an example where, effectively, there are many local monopolies. The effect of privatisation has been to move from a state monopoly to a set of private monopolies. Most people—even those who have an ideological preference for privatisation—will agree that that is sub-optimal.
      12 noon
      Thirdly, is there a regulatory format? Water privatisation is an example of the difficulty of regulators who are torn between regulating for superior water quality and regulating for lower price. Their job is not enviable and privatisation, where it is not easily possible, is somewhat suspect.
      Fourthly, we will seek always to ensure that, where privatisation is undertaken, there is minimal disruption and hardship for the existing staff, who have loyally administered the service previously. The coal industry is an example of the dangers of privatisation. Effectively, since the coal industry has been denationalised, it is well on the way to being phased out altogether. I admit that there were some tendencies for that to happen before denationalisation.
      Fifthly, we need to see the potential for significant cost savings, either for the Government or for consumers. I think that the privatisation of telecommunications is generally accepted, even by those who are not enthusiastic about privatisation as a concept, to have resulted in substantial benefits for the consumer.
      If we apply these criteria to MOT testing, the House may agree that all five of them are satisfied. The Bill gives us the opportunity, by deleting "application or" to open the door to them. First, let us consider well-defined quality measures. What the MOT test consists of has been laid down for many years. From time to time, the Government may introduce a change, but there is no dispute about what an adequate MOT test is. That is clear to everybody, and it will continue to be so if pricing is left to the individual garage.

      1387
      The second consideration is whether there is a potentially large competitive market. I suppose that there are thousands of small firms throughout the country that offer MOT testing facilities. It seems clear that, if they were allowed to compete on price for the MOT test, they would be interested in doing so. If some of them were to withdraw from the market, others would take their place. There seems every prospect of a vibrant competitive market for MOT testing.
      Mr. Shaw: I am concerned about what my hon. Friend said. The idea that small garages in rural areas will be able to compete with large multinationals by keeping their prices lower is—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. We are straying rather wide of the mark.
      Dr. Palmer: I shall make a general observation. The vibrant competitive market to which I refer is partly ensured by the fact that most people will wish to have an MOT test carried out locally. The likelihood of their going to a large multinational company for an MOT test is not as great as it would be in some other industries.
      Thirdly, there is the question of disruption and hardship for existing staff. My proposal would involve existing establishments continuing, as envisaged by the Bill, with some degree of additional licensing and training. I think that we all welcome the provisions set out in the Bill, and allowing garages to compete with one another on price should not, in principle, produce any problems for them. There may, of course, be cases where an individual garage feels that downward pressure on the price for MOT tests forces them to withdraw from the service. However, that in itself is unlikely to result in disruption or hardship for that garage. Other hon. Members may correct me, but I believe that relatively few garages depend heavily on income from MOT testing for their survival. The impact on businesses should be minimal; I doubt whether even one would cease trading.
      Mr. Shaw: Do not MOT testing and servicing go hand in hand? Garages, therefore, rely on MOTs because the two are carried out together.
      Dr. Palmer: The fee for the MOT test makes up a relatively small component of the bill paid by the typical car owner, but the necessary servicing resulting from it, and the parts involved in that, make up a large component. For that reason, even the smallest garage would find it valuable to continue in the market, simply because of the attraction of the ensuing service work.
      That point brings me to the possibility of significant cost savings, which is the fifth criterion. I suspect that the cost of MOT tests would descend rapidly towards zero. Given the difficulties of attracting customers, of which most of us who have worked in any kind of small business are aware, it would be much cheaper to attract a customer by offering a free MOT than by taking out any amount of advertising for services or repairs, and the consumer might benefit in respect of the entire cost of the MOT.
      Under the Bill, a garage would pay a fee to the Department; I am not suggesting that that fee should be abolished or varied, although it needs to be standardised so that the garage can recoup its costs. In an age in which
      1388
      most of us have declared ourselves to be open minded on matters of state control versus privatisation, I wonder whether it is appropriate for the Government to say precisely what charge should be made, from John o' Groats to Land's End, for work done for the general public. I welcome the Bill as much as have previous speakers. It gives us the opportunity to look again at that assumption and to ask ourselves whether it is time to open up the possibility of a new option.
      Mr. Browne: A feature of clause 2, which my hon. Friend seeks to amend, is that it substantially restates existing law. Indeed, the words that he seeks to delete from the clause already appear in section 46 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. Is it not in the interests of the consumer that such a standard national test has a standard application and a standard fee to ensure that testers do not cut corners?
      Dr. Palmer: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point, which brings me back to the need for a well-defined quality measure, which is the first criterion. It is tempting for any MOT establishment to cut corners, simply because that saves time. They do not—or we suppose that they do not—because a well-defined list of activities has to be carried out under the MOT test. Under the other criteria relating to the Bill, people would be specifically trained in what needs to be done. A more well-defined licensing system for approved assessors would be put at risk if they attempted to cut corners.
      Mr. Dismore: Is not the answer to my hon. Friend's point that the Bill introduces much tougher policing of garages to ensure that they maintain standards?
      Dr. Palmer: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who said what I was trying to say in a much clearer way.
      The Bill offers an opportunity that is worth seizing for the benefit of consumers, and presents no hazards for standards of quality control or for those who have to operate it. I ask the House to accept the amendment.
      Mr. Hunter: I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) and to the interventions that he allowed, and I wonder whether a slight misunderstanding prevails. Under the current regime, there is no standard or fixed fee for the tester to charge the motorist for an MOT test. The downward pressure of market forces, which the hon. Gentleman advocates—and which I warmly advocate, too—is possible under the present regime. The Motor Vehicles (Tests) Regulations 1981, as amended, prescribe a total maximum amount that a tester can charge a motorist. If I recall correctly, the precise figure that the tester is obliged to pay the inspectorate is 58p per blank certificate. That is the cost of implementing the test process. The Department estimates that that sum might rise by £1 to £1.58 or thereabouts, but, as the hon. Gentleman said, it is a very small proportion of the total charge that the motorist pays for his MOT test.
      Dr. Palmer: Does the hon. Gentleman agree, however, that the passage that the amendment seeks to delete appears to suggest that the fee to be paid on an application—by the consumer—will be laid down?
      Mr. Hunter: That is not my understanding. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman—perhaps the Minister can clarify

      1389
      this point in due course. I understand that the principle of payment that currently applies will continue to apply. The tester will buy in advance space on a database, which represents the blank certificates that he now buys. The Secretary of State sets the maximum charge that the tester can then make to the motorist. It is the intention of neither the Bill nor the Department to change that basic principle.
      It is perhaps ironic that, as someone who believes in the open market and privatisation, I support the current regime and want it to continue, as the Bill would allow it to do. I do so, however, because this is not a genuine open market. Where market principles apply in their purest form, the purchaser has the option not to purchase, whereas every car owner is obliged to have his or her vehicle MOT tested. The law requires that, and that causes a distortion of the marketplace. Therefore, the regime of imposing a maximum sum is a consumer protection measure. Although the hon. Gentleman and I support downward pressure of market forces, the reverse could happen—MOT testers could raise their charges because motorists are obliged to undergo the test. I defend the current regime, and I oppose the hon. Gentleman's amendment. He may have misunderstood the situation. We need to protect the motorist—and other consumers—from an unreal market.
      12.15 pm
      Dr. Palmer: As I understand it, the hon. Gentleman is arguing that there is already an open market, but he also likes the fact that there is not one. I should be grateful if he would clarify that. The charges to be paid by the tester are regulated under clause 2(1)(j), whereas the charges to be paid by the consumer are regulated under clause 2(1)(f). Many privatised services are, in effect, compulsory: water supply is an obvious example. Consumers can refuse to take water, but few do so.
      Mr. Hunter: I follow the hon. Gentleman's argument, and I am sorry if I did not make my point entirely clear. I certainly accept the principles of an open market, and in many respects I am sympathetic to what the hon. Gentleman is seeking to achieve by his amendment. However, there is downward pressure of market forces under the present regime, so the amendment is not needed to achieve the objectives that the hon. Gentleman seeks.
      I believe that the experience of the past 10 years has justified a measure of consumer protection to prevent garages from raising the cost of the MOT test above the level prescribed by the Secretary of State. The Bill reflects that view, which is why the hon. Gentleman's amendment is mistaken.
      Dr. George Turner: I represent a rural constituency, and such protection is particularly important in a rural environment. People who live in an urban environment may have many test centres in their immediate vicinity, but people who live in villages in my constituency need the protection that the law currently offers, and we should maintain that.
      Mr. Hunter: I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's point, and with that I conclude my remarks.
      Mr. McNulty: If I were being honest, I would say that, when I first read the amendment tabled my hon. Friend
      1390
      the Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer), I did not understand where it was going or where it was coming from. He has now explained with great eloquence where he is seeking to go. I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) that, if that is where my hon. Friend wants to get to from here, the Bill is the wrong device to use. Moreover, I do not share my hon. Friend's goals.
      My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner) referred to consumer protection and the existing ceiling on the charge. That protection should not be hampered or interfered with. The Bill implies a shift from 58p to £1 per certificate for the database, which is a fair charge and can be recovered subsequently, as we shall see when we come to the next amendment.
      The test is compulsory, consumer protection measures are in place and there is a ceiling on the charge, so the market is already regulated, and that would be disrupted if the amendment were accepted. In my area, garages use the MOT test as an entrée to get people to go back for further services, whether it be petrol, regular car servicing or other services. I fear that, if that maximum charge is lost and we have a less regulated market, or a market that is not regulated at all, small garages with MOT testers in rural areas will go, and there will be a completely distorted market.
      If the amendment were passed, we would have not a pure free market—the hon. Member for Basingstoke will not like this, but such a thing does not exist anyway, except in the psychotic minds of people like Milton Friedman—but a far more distorted market. By definition, large, perhaps multinational, garages will be in a far better position to defray all testing expenses—whether or not a computerised database is involved—than a one-man outfit.
      Moreover, the amendment might well distort the process of dealing with criminal elements in the issue of MOT certificates. By liberalising the market, it might affect one of the key aspects of the Bill, which I firmly support. Computerisation could enable authorities to identify disconcerting patterns of testing—for instance, a disproportionate number of passes for older cars—far more readily, and to police effectively the whole MOT process. That ability would be lost if a broader free-market regime were introduced, leaving consumers unprotected.
      Many garages now say that, if a car fails its test, they will test again free of charge. Many now say that they will incorporate the test in the regular service. It is crucial to consumer choice that smaller garages should retain the freedom to act in that way, within a regulated market. If—I suspect that this will not happen—the amendment were passed, and brought about the pure free market that my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe wants, that would be a disaster. He has not said so thus far, but I hope that his is a probing, even teasing, amendment, intended to air the issues involved.
      I commend many of the Bill's provisions. Computerisation will improve the current regime. Tinkering with the pricing regime and the regulatory framework will not allow us to improve the operation of computerisation, and the amendment should be resisted as strongly as possible.
      Ms Glenda Jackson: The reasons why the Government cannot accept the amendment have been put succinctly by my hon. Friends the Members for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner) and for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), and by the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter). This Government—and, indeed, previous Governments—have felt that it must always be within the powers of Government to set the level of the maximum fee for an MOT test.
      The amendment would delete part of subsection (1)(f) of the proposed new section 46 to the Road Traffic Act 1988, which mirrors, and enlarges, the existing section 46. I have no argument with—indeed, I endorse—the desirability of keeping legislation as simple as possible, and I have little doubt that that was part of the thinking of my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer). However, the Government cannot accept the amendment, because it would remove the Secretary of State's power to prescribe in regulations the fees to be paid by applicants for MOT tests. My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk described the difficulties that would be caused to his constituents, and—in his own way—my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East expressed the Government's concerns.
      Part of new section 46 to the 1988 Act simply repeats what is provided in existing section 46, which has been tried and tested over the years and has been found to work well in practice. Therefore, in principle, there is no reason to disturb the legislation. Existing section 46 of the Act re-appears in the Bill because it is clearly better to consolidate the legislation into a single section of sequential provisions, rather than to amend many isolated parts of the existing provisions. It has clearly been done for ease and clarity of drafting and to make the legislation easier to work with in practice, all of which is commendable and, as I have said, was part of the thinking of my hon. Friend in tabling the amendment.
      Perhaps more fundamentally, the existing wording of the relevant part of the clause is needed because, as I have already said, it is essential for the Secretary of State to be able to prescribe the fees to be paid by applicants for MOT tests. In practice, what is prescribed in subordinate legislation, the Motor Vehicles (Tests) Regulations 1981—the point was made by the hon. Member for Basingstoke—is the maximum amount that can be charged by an MOT testing station for carrying out an MOT test.
      Surely, were the Secretary of State not able to do that, from John o' Groats to Land's End, there would be no control of how much an MOT test might cost. Motorists would be faced with being required by law to have their vehicles MOT tested, but there would be no protection in the law to regulate how much could be charged for those MOT tests. As I have said, successive Governments have felt that control to be necessary. Those points were endorsed by my hon. Friends the Members for North-West Norfolk and for Harrow, East, and the hon. Member for Basingstoke.
      I was somewhat concerned when my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe referred to the possibility of garages—or, indeed, testing stations—cutting corners. I am sure that he is aware that arrangements have been in existence since the inception of the MOT scheme in 1961 for the Vehicle Inspectorate to supervise the conduct of the scheme. Generally, it works very well. However, the computerisation project has been designed to give the
      1392
      inspectorate far better information than it has ever had, so that it can do its job even more effectively. That will enable the inspectorate to concentrate its efforts where they are most needed.
      Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe is not aware that the inspectorate has to supervise the standards of some 55,000 nominated testers at 19,000 MOT testing stations throughout the country to ensure that vehicles are tested to the correct standard and that motorists get a fair test. In practice, the inspectorate does that by ensuring that testers and testing stations are given clear ground rules for carrying out testing when they first join the scheme. Thereafter, inspectorate examiners check on their performance once every 12 to 18 months. Most people would say that that was a bare minimum to ensure fair and proper standards, rather than a case of vexatious regulation. As I say, computerisation will enable the inspectorate to have far better information and to be able to target, if it perceives any lapse of standards in the results of vehicles that have had their MOT.
      In the light of what I have said, and mindful of the reasons—the best of all Possible reasons— why my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe tabled the amendment, I trust that he will withdraw it.
      Dr. Palmer: I am grateful for hon. Members' comments. With regard to the Minister's remarks, I clarify that the suggestion of cutting corners did not come from me. I expressed confidence that the existing arrangements would avoid that.
      The feeling of the House on the point is clear. Rather than pressing it to a vote, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      12.30 pm
      Dr. Palmer: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 4, line 14, leave out subsection (6).
      This is a probing amendment, the aim of which is to explore the extent to which the Government should become involved in the commercial use of MOT data. It may well be that, to defray the costs of the computerised system—which has the benefits to which other hon. Members have very rightly referred—such involvement would make sense. Nevertheless, it is appropriate that the House should have a quick look at the issue, to decide whether we wish to move down that path.
      Subsection (6), which the amendment would delete, would allow the sale of information, for any price,
      "on such terms, and subject to such restrictions"
      as the Secretary of State thought fit, to any persons whom the Secretary of State thought fit.
      The only restriction proposed in the subsection is that information on
      "the premises at which any examination was carried out or any person concerned with the carrying out of the examination"
      should be protected.
      I wonder whether the subsection will provide sufficient protection. It is not instantly clear to me whether information about persons involved in the ownership, or driving, of a vehicle will also be protected—as that information is held in separate DVLA records, and I am not sure of the extent to which those records are open to

      1393
      the general public. If they are open, cross-searches and cross-retrievals would make it possible to undertake a quite massive direct mailing operation, writing to those who have taken an MOT test, drawing on their experience to date and attempting to influence their future buying patterns.
      If information on individual car owners is not available, the issue will be substantially de-fanged. However, I still wonder about the extent to which the Government should market their knowledge of individuals' transactions with the Government. If we accept the principle of the provision without amendment, there are a great many other spheres—tax records, for example—in which we might feel able to market government knowledge. One current and controversial example is the marketing of information from the electoral register.
      I invite the Minister and the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) to give the House their views on whether subsection (6) will offer sufficient protection against misuse of data.
      Mr. Hunter: I wonder whether the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) is aware of the Transport Act 1982–which has not been enforced, but is a paving Act for privatisation of the Vehicle Inspectorate. The previous Government passed it, but never implemented it. Nevertheless, it remains on the statute book. If the current Government, or a future one, wished to enable it, privatisation of the inspectorate would happen, and the core of the hon. Gentleman's arguments would, I suspect, cease to apply. He is concerned about the Government, rather than a private industry, becoming involved in commercialism.
      I think that, in one respect, I may be able completely to reassure the hon. Gentleman. Personally, I do not know about the accessibility of the DVLA database—but I do know that the Bill will not remotely affect it. The Bill is concerned only with establishing the MOT centralised computer database.
      The hon. Gentleman also asked about anonymity, and whether vehicle owners' identity would be contained. The answer lies in clause 1(6B). The only information that would be made available under that provision is that pertaining to vehicles and
      "the carrying out of and the results of the examinations",
      not the names of the registered keepers. I understand that the names of registered keepers are not available from the MOT database.
      We could spend a long time discussing the principle of how much the Government should be involved in commercial activities. I am not sure that it is right to question that in the absolute and general; we should concentrate on the detail. If the Secretary of State were able to become involved in commercial activities and "sell" information, consumer organisations might wish to use that information to advise consumers about the reliability or otherwise of specific motor cars; manufacturers might use it to rectify defects in their models; prospective purchasers would find it valuable, not least in respect of the mileage of second-hand cars; and vehicle insurers might wish to know whether the vehicles of the drivers whom they insured had valid tests. I look at the issue pragmatically: the database contains information
      1394
      which many individuals and organisations would find useful, so it should be made available on a commercial basis.
      Finally, the commercial element would go some way to offset the cost of computerisation and would therefore benefit the motorist.
      Mr. McNulty: The final point made by the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) is extremely important. People should not run away with the notion that we are commercialising and selling the MOT database simply to defray the entire cost of its computerisation. As he suggested, it will go some way towards it, but will not cover it completely. Rather than being in any way sinister or suddenly opening up some huge new opportunity for the ghastly men and women from direct marketing organisations, because of the qualifying statement at the end of clause 2(6)(b), it is of no value to direct marketing, blind-selling organisations.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) said, the only caveat on the sale, or passing on, of information from the database is if those particulars do not identify the premises at which any examination is carried out or any person concerned with carrying out that examination. When that important caveat is included in the equation, it is not some liberalisation-mad free-market measure that will mean that, having got an MOT, one will receive a barrel-load of unsolicited rubbish because the nasty old Government have sold the information. If that is not the case, what is the main motive for selling on, or making accessible, certain elements of the database? I would suggest that, rather than defraying the cost of computerisation, there are fundamental consumer protection reasons. Again, I would depart from what my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner), who is not in his place, said. He seemed to suggest that Governments were good at modernising and computerising various activities that had been done on paper, without producing benefits. The Bill takes us into areas of consumer protection that we would not begin to entertain under the certificate-based system, and that is much to its credit. Those elements will be lost if we accept the amendment, which is why I strongly argue against it.
      The proposal that anybody—that is legitimate organisations and individuals rather than the "inquiry versus enquiry" argument from dodgy solicitors or anyone else—who can show reasonable cause should be able obtain the MOT history of a particular vehicle must make more sense to a potential purchaser. They would not be allowed to do that if we accepted the amendment.
      Anonymous, vehicle-specific information such as recorded mileage will be of use to the purchaser of a second-hand car. Another useful and exciting element of the new database is that commercial organisations will be able to purchase anonymous aggregate data on the MOT performance of particular brands of cars from particular years. Better information on trends in the performance of particular makes and models in MOTs must feed into overall protection for the consumer.
      The existing MOT pricing regime will continue. The elements of consumer protection from the previous testing regime are vital. In relative terms at least, the MOT testing process has been a success. Without discarding the successful elements, we are adding new, interesting and exciting areas of consumer protection afforded by the

      1395
      development of a computerised base. Lord knows, second-hand car salesmen, like solicitors, are not, in some regards at least, one might suggest, necessarily by nature the friends of consumers and always interested in their protection.
      I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe for tabling the amendment, which, like the previous ones, has allowed us to highlight the important areas of consumer protection that the computerisation of the MOT regime affords. The hon. Member for Basingstoke is to be congratulated on the enhanced consumer protection that the Bill provides in an area where it is needed.
      I do not want people to run away with the notion that the proposals represent the wicked commercialisation of another database that would result in anyone who has an MOT getting an avalanche of rubbish through their door. The anonymity of the vehicle keeper and the garage at which the test was carried out are fundamental and are the only caveats needed to render the database worse than useless for direct mail organisations. Those provisions are vital for consumer protection, enhancing, rather than moving away from, the consumer protection elements in the existing MOT structure. I commend subsection (6) strongly to the House, because it is fundamental to the spirit of the Bill. Removing paragraphs (a) and (b) would deeply wound the Bill in a way that I would find unacceptable.
      Ms Glenda JacksonWe strongly agree with the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) about the benefits inherent in the Bill for consumer protection. I am aware of the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) but I trust that, in responding to the amendment, I shall be able to reassure him that the kind of scenario that he has evinced to the House this morning will not be possible, given the strictures within the Bill.
      12.45 pm
      In effect, the purpose of the amendment is to delete a part of the proposed new section 46 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. If the amendment were to succeed, it would—I am sure inadvertently—defeat one of the main objectives of the Bill. That objective is the disclosure of anonymised information in bulk from the computerised records of the results of MOT tests for the benefit of consumers—a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East—and many other interested parties. For that reason, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe will withdraw the amendment.
      Subsection (6) of new section 46 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 would enable the Secretary of State, by regulation, to sell anonymised information in bulk from the MOT database. He would be able to sell such particulars and information to such persons as he thought fit—for such price, on such terms and subject to such restrictions as he thought fit.
      The objective in being able to do that is twofold. First, we would make information available from the database which could be used for all sorts of useful and beneficial purposes. Secondly, there would be the ability to sell such information for a price that reflects its commercial value, so that the proceeds would help to offset the cost of introducing and running computerisation in the MOT scheme. All of those very positive benefits would be lost if the amendment were to succeed.
      1396
      It is the view of the Government that there is an overwhelming desire for better information about the results of MOT testing to be more widely available. The useful opening debate this morning on an amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) showed that, with many hon. Members presenting interesting and detailed contributions. At present, the available information is somewhat limited—primarily because no central record of MOT tests exists at present. That is understandable, given that the MOT scheme relies on paper-based records.
      That will all change with the introduction of computerisation over the next couple of years, and it is therefore absolutely right that information that will be gathered on the database should be put to maximum use. That means making it available for other people to use, other than just the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. That is exactly what new section 46(6) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 is designed to enable the Secretary of State to do.
      It is not possible here to give a full account of all the possible uses to which this information might be put. However, it seems highly likely that consumer organisations, and indeed the motor vehicle manufacturers themselves, will have an interest in being able to find out, for example, which makes and models fail the MOT test at what stage, and for what reasons. Such information would clearly be of interest to prospective purchasers of second-hand vehicles, as would information about recorded vehicle mileage. Vehicle insurers, for example, are also likely to be interested in being able to confirm that vehicles of drivers whom they insure have valid MOT certificates if they need them.
      Under the provisions of new subsection (6), as it stands, no information would be released which identified the registered keeper of the vehicle—because such information would not be on the record of the results of MOT tests anyway. Nor would any information be released about where vehicles were tested or about who tested them, because the provisions of the Bill preclude that information from being supplied. The Government believe that the provisions that would enable the Secretary of State to disclose anonymised particulars and information have clearly been very carefully thought through, and provided for in the Bill.
      The clear objective of the provision is to enable the Secretary of State to reflect the commercial value of the information in the price that is charged for it. The income arising would be used to offset the cost of computerisation. That, we believe, is an equitable arrangement.
      I am aware of the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe about the possible misuse of such information. I am sure that we all share those concerns. As with all legislation, the Bill must accord with the requirements of the Data Protection Acts. My officials have already held preliminary discussions with the assistant Data Protection Registrar about the Bill's provisions and the controls needed to meet those requirements. No significant problems have been encountered or envisaged.
      The regulations enabling the Secretary of State to sell anonymised information in bulk and detailing the particulars as to prices charged and the individuals or groups to whom or which such information may be sold

      1397
      will all be drawn up with the benefit of consultation. We have little, if any, doubt that the information that will be available once the MOT test scheme is computerised will be safe from misuse. No one wants anyone's letter box to bring a daily avalanche of unsolicited junk mail. There are more serious uses to which the information could be put, and we are very clear that everyone must be protected from such misuse.
      In the light of what I have said, I trust that my hon. Friend will withdraw the amendment.
      Dr. Palmer: I am grateful to the Minister and to all who have commented on the amendment. We had a useful discussion, putting on the record exactly what the intentions of the clause are. I accept my hon. Friend's assurances: it is a reasonable package. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Order for Third Reading read.
      12.52pm
      Mr. Hunter: I beg to move, That the will be now read the Third time.
      As hon. Members may be aware, the Bill had the briefest of Second Reading debates and was unchallenged in Committee. I therefore welcomed the fact that amendments were tabled on Report, because that exposed some of its central features to scrutiny. Few things are worse than a Bill being passed unscrutinised.
      Hon. Members will be aware that the Bill's origins lie in a consultation process initiated by the previous Government in the Department of Transport's 1994 review of MOT testing. We would probably have arrived at this point in the evolutionary process set in motion by that review at about this time, regardless of which party won the 1997 general election. The Bill is not contentious from the point of view of party politics.
      The main purpose of the Bill is to provide a statutory framework for the establishment of a central computer database of the MOT test status of vehicles. We believe that the database will help to ensure compliance with the requirement to hold a valid MOT certificate and will aid enforcement. It will help to ensure high and consistent standards of testing and facilitate the introduction of paperless tests should that be deemed desirable at some time in the future. As we have heard, it will also allow the sale of information on the database, to the benefit of consumers and to offset the cost of computerisation.
      I thank the Minister for allowing me access to her officials while the Bill was being prepared and during its passage through the House. I am most grateful to them for their invaluable advice and help. I commend the Bill to the House.
      12.55 pm
      Mr. Miller: The House should express its gratitude to the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) for introducing the Bill. I am especially grateful for what he has just said; this has indeed been a useful exchange on several issues that would not otherwise have received any scrutiny.
      1398
      It is absurd that we still have a paper-based system for MOT certificates. One large vehicle manufacturer put it to me that the average vehicle coming off the production line today has more computer power than the Apollo lunar module that landed on the moon. We have very sophisticated vehicles with extraordinary computing power, yet the regulatory regime that licenses their use on the road does not incorporate the same technology. The House should therefore welcome the Bill, and I urge the Minister to ensure that progress is made rapidly towards bringing it into practice.
      One of the aspects of the Bill is something on which I have done extensive work—the relationship between computerised data and the rights of private citizens, in terms of the Data Protection Acts. The House will be aware that one of the Government's early actions was to introduce a Bill incorporating the European directive on data protection into mainstream legislation; its provisions were absorbed into the 1988 Act, which was passed under the Conservative Government. That was a positive step.
      Bills such as this underline the need for us all to be vigilant on behalf of our constituents about the continued protection of privacy where there is legitimate concern. Anyone who does not meet the legal requirement to have a proper MOT certificate should expect that information quickly to reach the hands of the various authorities, including the police, the prosecuting authorities, magistrates courts and so on. That is right.
      However, when data are sold, it is vital to have proper mechanisms for the anonymising of the information, so as to protect the individual citizen. The state has more and more information about the individual citizen on databases that can be cross-referenced, and I can see that more of that will result from the Bill. Cross-referencing between the police national computer and the MOT database is right, but, as the powers get stronger, we must consider carefully the privacy issues that arise.
      I have consistently argued that, some day, we shall need to consider the role of the Data Protection Commissioner, as she is now called, and that her role should be expanded, to make her commissioner both for data protection and for privacy. That is a powerful argument, and the Bill illustrates the need to consider it. Whether that will happen as a result of this Bill, or of subsequent mergers of databases—the merger, for example, of the databases of the Contributions Agency and the Inland Revenue—is open to discussion.
      I urge the Minister to reflect on that observation in the context of her responsibilities, because there are some important issues that we need to consider.
      As the hon. Member for Basingstoke suggested, the central purpose of the Bill is to create the database. The subsequent issues stemming from that must be to ensure that people abide by the law and that we collect information that may help us in the future with the better design of vehicles. We must not allow the Bill to be used for purposes that might put at risk the privacy of an individual citizen. I commend the Bill to the House.
      1.1 pm
      Mr. Browne: I congratulate the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) on introducing this Bill. It is clear to me from the debate today and from reading the report of the Second Reading and Committee stages that both sides of the House agree that this modest, technical

      1399
      Bill will make an important contribution to the growing body of road traffic legislation. I checked in the Library yesterday and that legislation now takes up the equivalent of five volumes of an encyclopaedia.
      Vehicles of an appropriate age are certified through the MOT test as roadworthy and that has been an important addition to the cause of accident prevention. As my hon. Friend the Minister made clear in the debate on new clause 1, it is probably as a consequence of the MOT requirement that research shows that the lack of roadworthiness of vehicles contributes to comparatively few accidents. However, we must bring the MOT system up to date.
      As the Bill makes clear, there are many advantages in having a centralised computer database of the MOT test status of vehicles. Not only will a computerised system provide a means of control of the issue of the some 22 million MOT tests that are carried out annually, it will make it easier for the Department's Vehicle Inspectorate to monitor the performance of MOT testing stations and, as importantly, the individual testers who will now be effectively licensed.
      Much was said on Second Reading, in Committee and in the debate today about how the database will assist the police to enforce the law on MOTs; how the instant access through the PNC will be a preventative force; how it will facilitate the relicensing of vehicles; and even, through access by prospective purchasers, how it will help to protect consumers. Those positive advantages justify the proposed changes in the Bill.
      On Report, I raised a question with the hon. Member for Basingstoke about the disclosure of information under the new sections 45 and 46 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 that the Bill will introduce. My reading of new section 46(6)(b) is that no information can be disclosed that identifies who tested a particular vehicle or where it was tested. If I have understood that provision correctly, it means that the information can be sold commercially either in bulk or to individuals such as prospective purchasers of vehicles, but information about the premises where the vehicle was tested, or who tested it, cannot be revealed. I believe that that is what the hon. Member for Basingstoke said in response to my intervention on the point.
      I seek reassurance from the hon. Gentleman or from my hon. Friend the Minister that regulations made under subsection (5) will not necessarily restrict access to information about who tested the vehicle or the premises at which it was tested. I can envisage circumstances in which an individual other than the owner or registered keeper of the vehicle could legitimately argue for access. For example, a person injured in an accident may want that information for civil proceedings, so that the testing station or the individual tester may be held responsible. Subject to that clarification, I support the Bill.
      1.10 pm
      Mr. James Cran: I shall be brief. The Opposition support the Bill. That support was expressed on Second Reading and it has not changed. However, we spent almost four hours on Report considering the most fatuous collection of amendments
      1400
      that I have ever seen, illustrated by the fact that the Minister simply swept them all away—very elegantly, if I may say so. The ulterior motive was never to improve the Bill, but to—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order.
      Mr. Cran: The intention was merely to make sure that the next—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat when I stand. He is straying from the Third Reading motion.
      1.12 pm
      Dr. Alan Whitehead: I support the Bill and congratulate the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) on introducing it. I am delighted to be present on Third Reading to make a brief contribution.
      I have a confession to make to the House. I belong to the small but shamefaced club whose members are people who have bought clocked cars. I did so some years ago, having undertaken what I considered to be reasonable checks about the provenance of the car. It appeared to have 30,000 miles on its clock, and I took it home and began driving it.
      The circumstances in which I found out that the car was clocked are pertinent to the Bill. I believe that, in future, when consumers purchase a second-hand car and face the same problem as I had, they will be grateful for the passing of the Bill. After I had driven my car for a while, I was surprised to receive a telephone call from the trading standards officer of Wiltshire county council—not the county where I resided at the time.
      The trading standards officer had been on a "fishing" expedition around car auctions in Wiltshire, and happened to have recorded the mileage of cars that were sold at the car auction at which I had bought mine. He had taken it upon himself to search, by whatever means he could, the destination of the cars sold at that auction and to telephone the registered keeper of the cars whose destination he had traced, to find out whether the mileage that he had recorded was the same as that which the purchaser believed to be the case. The car that I thought was a good purchase at 30,000 miles in fact had more than 80,000 miles on the clock. I was astonished and humbled to find that my checks had been so useless and that I had been sold a thoroughly dodgy car, so I took up the matter with the vendor. When I returned the car to the vendor, I contacted the trading standards officer concerned to thank him for his diligence.
      The organisation that had sold me the car denied all knowledge of the circumstances in which it had been clocked. It claimed to have been taken in as much as I had been when it purchased the car. I was paid back most of my money and, thanks to the trading standards officer, I was spared having a car that was not fit for use.
      The company that had sold me the car escaped any prosecution or any come back for its activity and it is still trading. The trading standards officer could not demonstrate that the vendor had sold the car knowing it to be clocked and was guilty of an offence.
      I hope that the hon. Member for Basingstoke will be able to assure me that a car's mileage as registered at its MOT can be obtained with proper safeguards. That will

      1401
      allow two things to happen that will be a complete response to the calamity that I have set out. First, I will be protected substantially on purchasing a car that appeared subsequently to have been clocked. As importantly, trading standards officers would be assisted in establishing, when a second-hand car dealer bought a car, perhaps at an auction, and passed it on, the point at which the clocking had taken place.
      A genuine purchaser of a car for sale, believing it to show the correct mileage on the clock, would be able to mount a defence. Someone who had taken on the car with a high mileage on the clock and clearly between the point of purchase and resale had clocked it, could be identified. If that is a correct reading of clause 2, it represents a tremendous step forward for consumer protection. It will allow purchasers in future to rest assured that it is possible by reasonable inquiry—there will still be people who purchase cars without undertaking sufficient checks, who will be duped—to have a good chance of knowing what has happened to a car and the circumstances in which it was purchased and sold to them.
      If that is the position, the Bill's progenitor, the hon. Member for Basingstoke, is to be congratulated. Purchasers of cars will have recourse to action whereas I discovered only by chance that my car was clocked.
      1.14 pm
      Mr. Dismore: I congratulate the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) on the progress that his Bill has made. Not many hon. Members have the opportunity to introduce a private Member's Bill, and far fewer have the opportunity of taking it through the House and seeing it, one hopes, make rapid progress in the other place.

      I welcome the Bill for several reasons. First, it will make a great contribution to vehicle safety, not only in the short term for one-off vehicles but in the longer term. The database that the Bill will create will enable the Secretary of State to accumulate comprehensive and authoritative statistical data on the trends of vehicle roadworthiness.
      We often hear about problems with new vehicles. I do not know how many times I have seen recall notices in the press when a design fault has suddenly been found or a manufacturing defect has affected a number of vehicles. Such difficulties are often easily and quickly detected, the vehicles are brought back for repair and the problem is dealt with. The most obvious example was the Ford Pinto case in the United States. The design fault was the positioning of the petrol tank and cars exploded suddenly when they were rear-ended at traffic lights, incinerating the occupants. The Ford Motor Company took some time to accept that there was a design fault on the vehicle and that was one of the issues on which Ralph Nader, the great defender of consumer rights, made his name.
      The Bill goes beyond that and, through the database, will look at the longer-term trends of vehicle safety. That will, first, enable manufacturers to determine whether there is a longer-term design fault in a vehicle, which may not be immediately apparent when it appears on the road—for example, a part may wear out more frequently on one type of vehicle than on another—and, secondly, inform them in their design processes. They will be able to work through the MOT system to check what may be going wrong with a particular vehicle, and that will help them to improve design.
      1402
      Thirdly, the Bill will help consumer choice when people are buying vehicles second hand. If we publish the statistical information on which cars last longer, we will enable people in that market to make a much better choice. For example, we all know that Morris Minors go on for ever. Such information does not come from MOT testing, but from experience gained over many decades, and it could be made available to consumers at a much earlier stage.
      Mr. Miller: My hon. Friend has raised an interesting point about the safety of second-hand vehicles, which is very pertinent to me. My wife suffered whiplash injuries in a crash. Immediately following that, there was a press announcement about the reinstallation of a petrol cap. Had there been a computerised system, she could have got that information far earlier and perhaps avoided the injuries that she sustained.
      Mr. Dismore: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, because it graphically illustrates the point I am making. Design faults are often found early on, but sometimes they are longer term and the MOT system could be a useful early-warning system for consumers who have bought a particular vehicle or as part of the second-hand market.
      I also welcome the Bill because it will enable the inspectorate to monitor garages much more closely. We all agree that most garages do an excellent job when they repair cars and carry out MOT tests, and that they would not be involved in ripping off the consumer in any way, shape or form. Equally, as in every profession, one or two rogues may not test vehicles as they should. Someone may issue an MOT certificate on a dodgy vehicle in return for a back-hander, but the Bill will allow us to monitor statistically the performance of garages. If the same garage issues dodgy MOT certificates time and again, we will be able to clamp down quickly and easily, which is a great consumer benefit.
      I am also pleased that we are putting the training of people involved in MOT testing on a statutory basis. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), who is not in his place, had quite a pot at solicitors. Perhaps I may return the compliment by having a pot at teachers, lecturers and instructors—there are good, bad and indifferent ones. Putting the training mechanisms on a statutory basis, including the charging arrangements for them, will result only in an increase in standards.
      The Bill will also achieve much better supervision of MOT testing stations. Garage chains were mentioned earlier, and the authorised examiner may not be able to be present at every garage for every test. That is inevitable. Therefore, I am pleased that the Bill provides for nominating supervisors at each MOT testing station to ensure that the tests are carried out effectively and competently. That is an excellent improvement that has been made to the Bill.
      We discussed how the Bill will help crime prevention, but many issues that warrant being highlighted were not mentioned. In particular, the Bill will help to remove the incentive to steal and forge MOT certificates. That is one of the problems that often occurs through the dodgy garages that I mentioned earlier—those who, for a back-hander, issue dodgy MOT certificates—which find that blank MOT certificates have disappeared from the

      1403
      garage safe. If, as a result of the Bill, the definitive MOT record is on a database rather than a paper certificate, it will make a great contribution to combating the problem of stolen MOT certificates. It will also mean that we can stop supplying blank MOT certificates and get rid of the whole paper chase.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) mentioned the important benefit of including vehicle mileage on the record. One of the problems is that people rarely keep previous MOT certificates, so a vehicle's long-term history is not available. For example, a company car may cover a vast number of miles in the first year or two, which would take much of the life out of the car. Indeed, it would run it into the ground. It may then be sold on to somebody who uses it very little for two or three years. When it is sold on again, the mileage, averaged out, may look reasonable. However, it is important that the consumer buying that car knows that, in its early years, it had a lot of use, because that may affect the vehicle's life. That is another important protection for consumers.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Test also made a valid point about the Bill avoiding the clocking of vehicles. It is important that we make that information available to consumers. I do not want to rehearse our earlier arguments about who can make inquiries, but I hope that this mechanism will enable consumers and those interested in vehicle safety to obtain MOT histories for the purposes that I have described.
      Another benefit of the Bill is that of renewing the MOT certificate. When my tax disc comes up for renewal, I know that I must buy a new one because I receive a reminder and can trot down to the post office and fill in the relevant form. I doubt whether I am alone in that, the last time that I went to renew my tax disc at the House of Commons post office, I forgot to take my MOT certificate with me. That was a bit of a nuisance, because I then had to return to renew it on another occasion. If we have automatic renewal through a computer database, we will not need to produce our MOT certificates in order to renew our tax disc, so the risk of having to make two trips to the post office will be avoided.
      Moreover, if one receives a reminder, it ensures that one renews the certificate. My hon. Friend the Minister said that, when people have to renew their tax disc, it serves as a reminder that their MOT test may be due at the same time. Although that may be so for people who have an annual tax disc, those who renew periodically during the year may find that their MOT certificate is out of sync with the disc.
      Happily, the garage to which I take my car for repair issues its own reminder to me. Obviously, that is of great commercial benefit to the garage—it not only reminds me that my MOT certificate is due for renewal but suggests that I might like to go back to the garage to have the job done. It is an excellent garage and I have no qualms about taking my car there. I suspect, however, that many people forget to renew their MOT certificate and thus commit an offence along the lines that we discussed earlier. The Bill will therefore benefit consumers in that way.
      For the reasons that I and my hon. Friends have given, I commend the Bill to the House and congratulate the hon. Member for Basingstoke on making such progress with it.
      1.25 pm
      Ms Glenda Jackson: I add my voice to those that have already been heard in the Chamber thanking the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) for introducing the Bill. As he is aware, the Government welcome its introduction. I also thank him for his gracious comments about the help afforded to him by my officials.
      I should also like to thank hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. As the hon. Member for Basingstoke said, the Second Reading debate was comparatively short. The contributions that we have heard this morning from my hon. Friends the Members for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller), for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne) for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner) and for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) have been fascinating to listen to, because they have been informed and particularly detailed. I should also like to thank hon. Members not only for their good-natured approach to the debate, but, although it was brief, for the way in which the Committee stage was conducted.
      I must exclude from that list the contribution of the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr. Cran), who is the official spokesperson for the Conservative Opposition on this issue. He had the temerity to dub as fatuous amendments tabled by my hon. Friends that sought to improve the Bill and to ensure a reduction in deaths and injuries on our roads. Their amendments were concerned with data protection to safeguard the individual, given the computerisation of information proposed in the Bill.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady knows that I brought the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr. Cran) to order because a discussion of the amendments takes us away from the motion, which is that the Bill should be read a Third Time.
      Ms Jackson: I am grateful for your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and for the fact that we share a view about the contribution of the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness.
      I shall deal with the issues that have been raised by my hon. Friends on Third Reading. My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston was rightly concerned—as I am sure that all hon. Members are—about how we ensure data protection, given the requirements of the Bill, and about individual privacy.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun asked to whom information on the computerised database will be available and what information the database will contain. I trust that I shall reassure him by saying that new section 45(6B) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 covers all details of the tests—not only the results, but where and by whom the vehicle was tested. New section 46(5) allows, by regulation, disclosure of full details under new section 45(6B) to people who can show reasonable cause for wanting such information, such as for an investigation into a car accident. New section 46(6), however, provides bulk disclosure of information to anyone, but that precludes the selling of information on where, and by whom, a vehicle was tested.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Test gave us painful and personal details of what had happened to him and his vehicle. He rightly highlighted the fact that a computerised central database will help to ensure that such situations do not arise in the future.

      1405
      My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon brought together the central themes of this important debate. He referred to the co-ordination and dissemination of information, which can bring only benefits in the important areas of crime reduction; ensuring that testing and test centres are the best that they can be; and consumer protection. As he most tellingly pointed out, such information can also assist in the better design of motor vehicles. All that is part and parcel of what I regard as one of the central conclusions of today's debate: that the dissemination of information can play a major part in reducing the number of deaths and injuries on our roads. That was the opening theme of the debate, when we discussed new clause 1.
      As I have said, the Government welcome the Bill. We believe that computerisation will bring significant benefits to MOT testing. We are proceeding with the modernisation of the existing scheme, but, as I am sure that all hon. Members know, the current legislation would impose constraints that would prevent us from achieving all our objectives. The Bill will ensure that modernisation takes place as cost-effectively as possible, and with the maximum benefits.
      One of the Bill's main purposes is to amend provisions in part II of the Road Traffic Act 1988 relating to MOT testing. None of the Bill's provisions will relax or remove any of our existing controls over the scheme; on the contrary, the Bill will preserve and enhance those controls.
      The main objective of MOT computerisation is to enable the Secretary of State to establish and maintain a central record of the MOT status of vehicles, and the project will ensure that the Secretary of State has better information. The need for better information has been a recurring theme today, and not only in the context of how tests are carried out. Computerisation will clearly enable testing standards to be controlled more effectively; what the Secretary of State would not be able to do without the Bill is to enable the police to check easily and quickly whether a vehicle has a valid MOT certificate. The Bill will also help to facilitate paperless vehicle relicensing transactions, and will enable information from the proposed MOT database to be used for the benefit of others. For instance, the information could be used to help to meet the cost of introducing computerisation.
      As has been pointed out, the Bill provides the potential for us to reduce the amount of crime, and to make it easier for consumers to meet requirements in legislation specifying that vehicles on the road should be properly licensed and roadworthy. It will make better enforcement
      1406
      possible, and may enable vehicles to be relicensed over the telephone. As I have said, we are aiming for paperless vehicle relicensing transactions.
      We welcome the provisions enabling information to be made available to prescribed persons in certain cases. Hon. Members were rightly concerned about that issue, but, as I was at pains to point out, it will be for the Secretary of State to define what information may be disseminated to whom and for what amount. The Government have no intention of selling information from the database about the identity of registered keepers of vehicles; indeed, such particulars will never be recorded there. Particulars in database records, such as where and by whom an MOT test was carried out, will not be disclosed except in cases prescribed by regulations. I have responded in detail to my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun, who was rightly worried about that.
      We want to ensure that disclosures of information will be permitted only when the person requesting the information can demonstrate the existence of reasonable cause for requesting it. For example, the regulations would require it to be demonstrated that an inquirer had a legitimate connection with the state of the vehicle involved. That could be achieved by the quoting of the 17-character alpha-numeric identification number that is unique to individual vehicles.
      The Bill enables the Government to obtain maximum benefit from a central computer record of the MOT test results of approximately 22 million vehicles, tested every year at 19,000 MOT testing stations. A full regulatory impact assessment has been carried out. It is estimated that the cost of computerising the MOT testing scheme will be approximately £22 million per annum. That cost will be borne initially by the Vehicle Inspectorate at the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, but passed on to motorists through an increase in the MOT test fee, amounting, we expect, to no more than around £1.
      If anonymised information from the proposed MOT database is sold for commercial benefit, as we hope that it will be, the Vehicle Inspectorate will have a share in the income generated and, in turn, will use that income to help to reduce the extra £1 burden of the test fee, so the Bill will benefit consumers not only by making additional information available to them, but by helping to reduce the cost of obtaining an MOT test.
      I am pleased to reiterate that the Government welcome the Bill, which will greatly assist in achieving the maximum benefits from introducing computerisation into the MOT scheme. For all those reasons, and for all the reasons that have been put forward by hon. Members, I commend the Bill.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  Referendums Bill
  As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
  Referendums Bill
    New Clause 3

      COMMENCEMENT (No. 2)
      `.—This Act shall come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by order appoint:—[Mr. Miller.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      1.37 pm
      Mr. Andrew Miller: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      We have spent the morning dealing with dodgy MOT certificates. We now deal with a dodgy insurance policy, as proposed by the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan). On Second Reading and throughout Committee, he described the Bill as an insurance policy. I have sought to amend the Bill extensively to turn it from a dodgy insurance policy into one that will work, but the hon. Gentleman does not want to take any advice on the matter.
      Mr. Andrew Robathan: As regards advice, has the hon. Gentleman taken any advice from the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), or from anyone in the Whips Office, on the new clause that he has tabled?
      Mr. Miller: I will be frank. I tabled a considerable number of the amendments after my own research, and some were tabled after discussions with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. I make no bones about it. I seek to improve what was perhaps intended to be helpful legislation. It seems that the hon. Gentleman was not open to advice because the Under-Secretary has, I understand, offered to embrace the spirit of the Bill within the electoral commission that is proposed by the Government. That was described on Second Reading at great length.
      Mr. Oliver Letwin: In that case, will the hon. Gentleman call on the Government to guarantee what we have repeatedly asked for: no referendum will be held until rules similar to those proposed are in place?
      Mr. Miller: I do not need to call on the Government to make such commitments. I know my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary extremely well. I trust him absolutely. I know the Home Secretary extremely well and I trust him as well. I also trust the Government. Clearly, the weakness of the hon. Gentleman's position is that he does not trust anyone. That is indicative of the problems that face the Tory party: Conservative Members do not trust even each other.
      Mr. Letwin: Of course I understand that the hon. Gentleman trusts his own Front Benchers. However, it would be a little difficult for him to trust them if they
      1408
      have never made the statement, would it not? Would it not be helpful if they stated that they would not hold referendums until they had rules in place?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. We are discussing new clause 3. Let us concern ourselves with that.
      Mr. Miller: I should love to answer the point made by the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), but—on your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker—I shall not.
      Mr. Robathan:You cannot.
      Mr. Miller:Yes I certainly can.
      The substance of the new clause deals with the date of commencement. The problem is that the hon. Member for Blaby does not seem to trust anyone, but wants his so-called insurance policy to be effected immediately. I am trying to be helpful to him.
      New clause 3 would make alternative provision for the implicit commencement date of the Bill's provisions. I believe—although there are greater experts on the matter than I am—that, unless an alternative date is provided, a Bill's provisions will commence automatically on Royal Assent. New clause 3 would simply provide for the Bill to come into force on a date determined by the Secretary of State.
      Mr. Letwin: Never.
      Mr. Miller: Does the hon. Gentleman want to say something? I am not quite sure what the word "never" means. Never say never is my advice to him—or he might stay in opposition for ever.
      Mr. Letwin: I am, of course, trying to say that the intent of new clause 3—it would be better if the hon. Gentleman admitted it—is to give the Secretary of State power never to implement the Bill's provisions.
      Mr. Miller: Again, the hon. Gentleman shows no faith in anyone.
      Mr. Andrew Dismore: I do not know whether my hon. Friend is aware of the case of R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Fire Brigades Union and others, but it deals with a point of construction applying to his amendment. I hope to be able—if I catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker—to expand on that issue later in the debate.
      Mr. Miller: I am not sure whether to address my hon. Friend as learned, as he has substantially more legal qualifications than I do. Nevertheless, I shall avoid responding to his point, but leave him to make it later in the debate.
      New clause 3 will enable the Secretary of State to determine the date on which the provisions come into force, presumably giving him the option of following the advice and guidance sought by the hon. Member for Blaby. If there were to be a referendum before establishment of the promised electoral commission, the Secretary of State could trigger the Bill's provisions

      1409
      —which would, quite rightly, provide at least some mechanism to deal with the hon. Gentleman's concerns about the conduct of the referendum.
      Mr. Robathan: Has the hon. Gentleman just admitted the possibility that there could be a referendum before the measures are in place? If he did, he has contradicted everything that he said in Committee.
      Mr. Miller: I did not say that. I am working on the basis that I have as little knowledge of what happens in Cabinet as the hon. Gentleman does.
      Mr. Robathan: You trust them.
      Mr. Miller: I have considerably more trust in my right hon. Friends than the hon. Gentleman obviously does. If the Cabinet decided tomorrow that there should be a referendum, the new clause would give them a vehicle to provide the types of protection that the hon. Gentleman is seeking.
      Mr. Robathan: Last night, about 65 of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues voted against the Government. Do they have a similar trust in the Cabinet?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are debating a new clause. Those matters should not be dealt with in this debate.
      1.45 pm
      Mr. Miller: Last night, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) said that he accepted 98 per cent. of the Bill that was before us. If the hon. Member for Blaby would trust the Government and my hon. Friend the Minister 98 per cent., we would not be having this rather odd exchange. As I said, the Government have the opportunity to put in place the protection that the hon. Gentleman seeks should the Cabinet decide on a referendum on any subject between now and the enactment of the Bill.
      Mr. John Butterfill: The hon. Gentleman has already admitted that, without the new clause, the Bill will come into effect on Royal Assent, so the new clause would simply delay its implementation. Can he explain why we need a delay?
      Mr. Miller: That is a perfectly sensible point and it is my duty to explain it to the House. Due to the filibustering of the Opposition, I have not had the chance to do so. The Bill gives the Secretary of State the power to trigger the Bill if, hypothetically, the Government decided on a referendum on the abolition of Blaby or anything else. That is the insurance policy that the hon. Gentleman requires. If there is no referendum between now and the enactment of the Bill, without the new clause, we shall have set up a body that is superfluous to requirements at public cost, wasting taxpayer's money. The new clause would enable the hon. Member for Blaby to have his insurance policy without the potential waste of public money that would result from his having purchased that insurance policy earlier than necessary.
      Mr. Robathan: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for being so generous with his time, although he would
      1410
      quite like to spin out his speech. I am prepared to accept his new clause without further discussion if he guarantees that the Bill will receive a Third Reading this afternoon. If he wants to have an insurance policy brought in by the Secretary of State, I am willing to accept that in return for the Bill receiving a Third Reading today.
      Mr. Miller: As a humble Back Bencher, I regret that that is not within my gift. During the debates on the several amendments that I have tabled, I want to ensure that a rather weak insurance policy is improved so that we do not end up with the dodgy-MOT-certificate syndrome that we discussed this morning.
      Dr. Alan Whitehead: I have listened carefully to my hon. Friend's reasons for the new clause. Is he assuming that the Bill applies only to national referendums and not to local and regional ones, which may well take place at a time that is difficult to specify and according to the wishes of the Secretary of State or is he assuming that those flaws in the Bill will have been ironed out before Third Reading?
      Mr. Miller: As I understand it, the Bill refers only to referendums that are triggered by an action of a Secretary of State. Whether that could cover local or regional referendums is a matter for discussion. Some of my hon. Friends from the north-east have said that they would like an early referendum on the devolution of powers to that region. Such a referendum would require the Government to create the reference framework. I do not know whether the same applies to referendums at county council or district council level, although I am sure that it could be the case in certain circumstances. My one-line new clause would remove the possibility of an absurd amount of public money being wasted on the creation of a body that, even if Conservative Members have only a small amount of faith in the Government—surely they have at least some—
      Mr. Letwin: No.
      Mr. Miller: If that is the official position of the Conservatives, it reflects badly on them.
      Mr. Butterfill: Surely the hon. Gentleman accepts that everything that has happened today has been an organised filibuster to prevent the Bill from reaching the statute book. The Minister could give an undertaking to introduce Government legislation if he wanted. Of course we distrust the Government.
      Mr. Miller: I find that insulting. Throughout my time in the House, I have worked very hard with hon. Members from both sides on issues relating to road safety. My new clause, which we spent a substantial amount of time discussing today, was about issues relating to the death of 3,000 people a year. The hon. Gentleman should not regard that as filibustering. His constituents would not agree. It is probably substantially more important than this Bill.
      As I was trying to say before I was interrupted several times by Conservative Members, this is a simple new clause aimed at minimising the waste of public money that would ensue from all the provisions in the Bill coming into force on Royal Assent. I would prefer it if

      1411
      the Conservatives had a little faith in the Government and accepted the spirit in which my hon. Friend the Minister made his representations on Second Reading. I have been assured that there will be an electoral commission draft Bill, which will be subject to widespread public consultation. It is surely right that a Bill on issues that are so fundamental to our constitution should be subject to public consultation. I am sure that the hon. Member for Blaby accepts that. Why waste time and resources on the body specified in the Bill? If the hon. Gentleman wants an insurance policy, the new clause would get him more sympathy from Labour Members without wasting a lot of public money.
      Mr. Robathan: We have 36 minutes left today, so I suspect that we shall not finish all the business on this Bill or on the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill, which I regret, because I support that Bill.
      Mr. Miller: Will the hon. Gentleman therefore condemn the actions of his colleagues last week in talking out that Bill?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not go into that.
      Mr. Robathan: I would not dream of doing so. However, there is time available next week, when we have a recess starting on Thursday—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not mention those matters. He must refer to the new clause.
      Mr. Robathan: I bow to your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The new clause is a small clause, and the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) asked us to put more faith in the Government and to have an insurance policy. I do not particularly object to the clause, and I would be prepared to accept it. We agree that we want a referendums commission.
      The hon. Gentleman and the Minister sat through the Committee. I believe that the Minister thinks that this is a good idea. He may not think that every aspect of the Bill is a good idea, but I think that he accepts that it would be good to have a referendums commission so as to have the rules for referendums brought in before the next referendum—be it, as in the new clause, at the discretion of the Home Secretary, or be it at the enactment of the Bill.
      The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston was voluble about the new clause, as he has been throughout the day. We are asked to put faith in the Government, but the amendment paper shows that we should not have faith in them. Why has the new clause been tabled? It is not normal for a specific derogation to the Home Secretary to be made at this stage of a Bill. It is normal to have that enacted at Royal Assent. I do not object to the clause, but I want to know why it has been tabled. Why have the Government assisted in producing this clause and others, as we have heard, and why are they opposed to the Bill?
      The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston talked about a waste of public money and resources. However, he is aware that negligible amounts of public money would be spent under the Bill because there would be no
      1412
      need for a referendums commission if no referendum were called. I look forward to seeing the Government's proposals to give discretion to the Home Secretary to determine when the measures are brought into law.
      I would have more faith in the Government if they would give us the guarantee for which Members on both sides have asked, as have many outside the House.
      Mr. Letwin: Does my hon. Friend agree that we could accept entirely the new clause and the refusal of the Government to accept the Bill as a whole if we had such a guarantee? Does he further agree that proposing the new clause in the absence of that guarantee provides nothing like an insurance policy? If the Government are determined not to promise that they will have no referendum before the new commission is enacted, they will show no sign of actually implementing the legislation in advance of a referendum. Therefore, we have an insurance policy that the Government could negate.
      Mr. Robathan: My hon. Friend is right. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston talked about improving the insurance policy but, as I have said all along, I will withdraw the money that I wish to put in that insurance policy if we have the Government's insurance policy on the table. The clause will not improve the insurance policy and is designed to damage it.
      I remind the hon. Gentleman of the famous words of the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) on exactly this subject when he was asked whether the Government were obliged to accept the Neill recommendations. The right hon. Gentleman was then a Cabinet Minister; this was before his sad demise. I do not hear Labour Members cheering. The right hon. Gentleman said:
      "We don't have to but we need to be mindful of the analysis that he is offering."
      I should like the Government to say rather more firmly that they will accept the recommendations and introduce a Bill to be enacted before a referendum, with the discretion of the Home Secretary involved, as in the new clause.
      2 pm
      The new clause—along with various others—seems foolish in its introduction, its inception and its motivation. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) intends to speak, but the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), who has been drafted in, may waffle on about the new clause. I confidently expect them to be talking on it at 2.30, but they should know that those who act as toadies of the Whips only gain the contempt and derision of the Whips, and of their constituents, and they irritate and bore the House. I notice that the hon. Member for Hendon is laughing. I am delighted to say that his constituents will have a good opportunity, at the next general election, to reject him.
      Mr. Letwin: Does my hon. Friend agree that there are many circumstances under which the tabling of such a new clause and the filibustering techniques that are being used would be perfectly legitimate but that what he and I object to so strenuously in this case is the fact that we are dealing with the fundamentals of our democracy? The tabling of a new clause that is designed to do nothing

      1413
      other than destroy a measure intended to protect democracy against possible distortion by the use of public money and public broadcasting media is nothing short of a disgrace.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind hon. Members that interventions should be brief.
      Mr. Robathan: I agree with my hon. Friend, but it is more important to note that hon. Members of all parties agree with him. The hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) is a sponsor of the Bill and agrees with me, with Liberal Members, with the independent hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) and with people outside the House that the new clause was tabled purely to undermine the Bill and to undermine any better democracy in this country.
      Mr. Paul Flynn: I have not been physically present in the Chamber for most of today, but I have heard all the speeches by my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller). He spoke on the Road Traffic (Vehicle Testing) Bill, which I accept is very serious. There are 16 Bills before us today, and I am sure that my hon. Friend has expert knowledge of them all and would like to speak about them all with equal brevity but, sadly, although the Bill is splendid and the new clause is entirely acceptable and worth while, we are witnessing not only the assassination of a number of Bills by tactics that many of us might consider questionable—that happened last week, as it does on many Fridays—but the degradation of the rights and powers of Back Benchers.
      Back Benchers' time is wasted by Governments and by the Opposition when they want not to argue against a Bill but to use the crude weapons of Parliament to destroy it in an entirely undemocratic way. Today, as on most Fridays, the reputation of Parliament is being demeaned. We want genuine modernisation of the House.
      Mr. Robathan: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, with whom I agree on this subject, as on many, although on some we fundamentally disagree. Does he agree that there is plenty of time in a parliamentary Session to discuss those matters fully and put new measures that are needed—be they about bull bars or whatever—on the statute book? We have plenty of time, but we keep going off on enormously long recesses.
      Mr. Flynn: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He seemed to think that I was giving way, but I had in fact finished my speech. We are two years into this Parliament. The Government came in as modernising new Labour, but the modernisation—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has indeed finished his speech, because he has not said much about the new clause. Perhaps someone could speak on the new clause.
      Mr. Dismore: I congratulate the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) on the Bill's having reached this stage. As he knows from what I said on Second Reading, I have many reservations about it, but I agree with much of what he has said about the new clause.
      1414
      I am only sorry that the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) is not here today—he is another member of the usual Friday crew—because we could have had an interesting trip down memory lane.
      When I intervened on my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller), I mentioned the case of the Crown v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Fire Brigades Union and others. It was the leading case that interpreted, in a particular context, wording similar to that of my hon. Friend's new clause. That represents a trip down memory lane for the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border and myself because I was the solicitor who handled the case, and he was the Home Office Minister whom, I am pleased to say, I defeated in the House of Lords.
      The case concerned the then criminal injuries compensation scheme under the Criminal Justice Act 1988, which contained in its implementation provisions wording almost identical to that of the new clause. The House of Lords construed what the meaning of the word "may" was in that context. The case turned on whether "may" means "shall", or "shall" means "may", or neither, in any particular case. Bearing in mind what was said when we discussed the Road Traffic (Vehicle Testing) Bill just now, it is somewhat peculiar that, for the second time today, I am having to criticise the wording of an amendment devised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston.
      I may be able to answer the question asked by the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) when he intervened to challenge my hon. Friend about what he intended to achieve, by telling hon. Members that the enacting provisions in the 1988 Act, on which the House of Lords had to adjudicate, were expressed as coming into force
      "on such day as the Secretary of State may …appoint".
      That is almost identical to the wording in the new clause.
      In fact, the Secretary of State did not appoint a day, so the then non-statutory criminal injuries compensation scheme remained in operation. In 1993, the Home Secretary said that those provisions of the 1988 Act would not be brought into force, but the existing non-statutory scheme would be replaced, simply through the diktat of the Home Secretary.
      The case was brought by the Fire Brigades Union and a consortium of other trade unions, the TUC and many others to challenge the decision in the courts. Unfortunately, although we were on a winning streak, it went all the way to the House of Lords.
      Mr. Letwin: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because now he is explaining what he is talking about—a five-year delay during which the Government went unchallenged in not implementing legislation. That would be just long enough to hold the referendums on the euro, on proportional representation and so on, while the so-called insurance policy was left in abeyance.
      Mr. Dismore: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to what I said earlier—clearly he is already bored by our proceedings, although we have not been going long—he would d know that, for that very reason, I have much sympathy with what the hon. Member for Blaby said, and am not happy with my hon. Friend's new clause.

      1415
      If I may finish the ratio of the case, I shall be able to develop my argument more fully. I regret to say that the House of Lords decision was split—there seem to be lot of split decisions recently—but it found that the wording in the 1988 Act, which is almost identical to that in the new clause,
      "imposed a continuing obligation on the Secretary of State to consider whether to bring the statutory scheme …into force; that he could not lawfully bind himself not to exercise the discretion conferred on him; that the …scheme was inconsistent …and that, accordingly, the Secretary of State's decision not to bring"
      the provisions
      "into force…had been unlawful".
      However, the legislation
      "did not impose a…duty on the Secretary of State to bring"
      the scheme
      "into force at any particular time".
      The wording of my hon. Friend's new clause would, therefore, mean that the Home Secretary would have an obligation to keep the implementation of the legislation under review, but would not actually have to bring it into force.
      Such wording frequently appears in legislation, and because of my experience of that legal case, I always have great difficulty with it; the formulation is so vague. I think that Bills should either be drafted in the same way as the Bill before us, so that they come into force on the date of Royal Assent, or contain a clause similar to the new clause, but using the word "shall" instead of the word "may". That would impose an obligation on the Secretary of State to bring the legislation into force at some stage.
      I am concerned about such general discretion provisions, because the net impact of the 1995 case that I mentioned—if the then Home Secretary had got his way—would have been to introduce dramatic cuts in the compensation available to victims of crime. It was thanks only to the consortium of trade unions being prepared to put its money where its mouth was and take on the Home Secretary and the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border that we were able to stop the process. That led to much better provision for victims of crime in the legislation that the Conservative Government were forced to introduce.
      For those reasons, I am very concerned by the wording of new clause 3. It is not wise to allow such wide discretion because it should be for Parliament to decide when primary legislation should come into force. I accept the need for some time to be specified in secondary legislation for orders to be drafted and approved by Parliament, and the Bill contains many opportunities for that process. I would prefer the Bill to read as suggested by the hon. Member for Blaby or for new clause 3 to contain the word "shall" instead of "may".
      Mr. Tony McNulty: My hon. Friend has set out two positions, but would he agree that a third position—putting a date of commencement into the Bill, such as 1 January 2001—would be preferable? That was proposed in Committee and, had the promoter not been as petulantly churlish then as he has been today and accepted it, we might not have needed new clause 3 at all.
      Mr. Dismore: I have not had the opportunity to read the report of that part of the proceedings in Committee,
      1416
      but my hon. Friend makes a valid point. Many possible dates suggest themselves and, if the hon. Member for Blaby thought that there would be a referendum on Europe or electoral reform, he could have accepted the date proposed in Committee or tabled an amendment with a different date. That would have avoided the problem.
      Mr. Robathan: The Government, whom the hon. Gentleman has been urging us all to trust, have told us that we will have a referendum on European integration and on proportional representation. For once, I have trust in the Government and he does not. What is going on?
      Mr. Dismore: It is not a question of trust from my perspective. I trust the Government, just as my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston trusts the Government. My concern is one of statutory construction. The incorporation of words such as those proposed by my hon. Friend would be a bad addition to the Bill and that is why I do not support new clause 3. Much as I appreciate what my hon. Friend is trying to do, I cannot support him in this case.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Howarth): I welcome new clause 3 on commencement. The hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) has said on several occasions that he sees his Bill as an insurance policy. What he is apparently seeking to insure against is the Government not introducing their own legislation on the conduct of referendums before a referendum is held on the single currency, proportional representation or any other matter. The hon. Gentleman knows the answer to that and I shall not repeat it because he heard it ad nauseam on Second Reading, in Committee and on other occasions. He should know by now that the risk of that happening is such that there is simply no need for such an insurance policy.
      Both I and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary have made it clear on several occasions that the Government are committed to early legislation on the main findings of the Neill report, which include specific proposals about referendums.
      Mr. Letwin rose—
      Mr. Howarth: I shall give way briefly to the hon. Gentleman, but I do want to make some progress.
      Mr. Letwin: I am grateful to the Minister, but the idea that he wants to make progress is risible. I offer him the opportunity one last time in the progress of the Bill to give the assurance that would give us, and democracy in the United Kingdom, so much comfort—that the Government will not hold referendums on major issues before the provisions are implemented.
      Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman has asked me the same question over and over again, and I have given him the same answer over and over again. I will not play this silly little game with him. If the hon. Gentleman wants to waste time this afternoon, that is his business. I am not prepared to take part in that.
      2.15 pm
      Mr. Eric Forth: I have not asked the Minister the question before, so may I try? I have the permission of my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), the Bill's promoter, to take a little time to try the question again. Will the Minister give a simple undertaking that no referendums will be held until the provisions of the Bill are embedded in our law?
      Mr. Howarth: For the benefit of the right hon. Gentleman, the assurance that I have given in the past is that it is most unlikely that there will be a referendum on the single currency or on the electoral system before the provisions are on the statute book. However, I cannot give him any greater assurance than that for various reasons which he, as a member of a previous Government, would recognise. I cannot predict with any certainty what will happen, for example, on European integration and progress on the single currency, so it would be absurd for me to give such an assurance. We do not expect that that will be the case.
      We hope to have an electoral commission established and new controls, including those on the conduct of referendums, in place before the next general election. The hon. Member for Blaby knows that the Government's position is clear on the timing of possible referendums on the single currency and on the voting system for the House. There is no immediate prospect of either of those referendums being held.
      If the hon. Gentleman is serious about what he says, he would welcome new clause 3. Under the new clause, the Bill would come into force on a day prescribed by order. As a result, it would be possible to hold back on the appointment of a referendums commission until a referendum was in prospect. Consequently, the commission would have a real job to do. Such an arrangement would preserve the hon. Gentleman's insurance policy, but it would also ensure that taxpayers' money was not used as a premium to pay for setting up a referendum commission in the interim. My hon. Friend's amendment is worthy of support.
      Mr. Letwin: If the Minister genuinely believes that the amendment is worthy of support, and—leaving aside what I regard as his spurious argument—if he genuinely intends that there should be no referendum before proper rules are in place, there is a course of action open to him in the next 12 minutes, by association with his colleagues, the Whips. That, I believe, would be wholly acceptable to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) who has worked so hard on the Bill, to me, to many other hon. Members and to many outside the House who care about such matters.
      The Minister should withdraw the new clause and the other new clauses and amendments, and give the Bill a Third Reading so that it is on the statute book in a form that enables the Secretary of State to determine when it will be implemented. That would be a great step forward in our legislation.
      I admit that initially I was not optimistic about the speech of the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore). I know that he speaks eloquently and at length, but generally not to the purpose of improving the Bill. However, what he said this afternoon was illuminating and it increased my education. It helped to show that,
      1418
      although the Bill would not be perfect, if it were accompanied by good will on the part of the Government, it would be an improvement on the present situation. It would be by no means as good as a Bill without the new clause, for the reasons that the hon. Member for Hendon gave, but it would be a great improvement.
      That course of action is open to the Minister. If, by stating his expectation, the Minister means honestly to suggest that the Government do not want to hold referendums without the legislation, he should adopt such a course of action. We have the basis as a House and as a country for judging whether we should or should not have the trust in the Government that the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) suggested that we should have.
      I have always believed that the Minister, and very probably the Home Secretary, intended to do the right thing. I have always seen the Minister as a democrat. However, I am deeply suspicious of the motives of the Home Secretary's colleagues in Cabinet. They have tried to jettison the Bill through the new clause and the many amendments that are to come. I am deeply suspicious because the future of our democracy and its reputation depend on not holding another major referendum without having in place the necessary rules. I suspect that, in their hearts, all Labour Members know that. An opportunity has been granted to us by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby, who has introduced the Bill, and by the Minister, who says that his intentions are based on good will. I hope that we shall see the Government and their Back-Bench Members behaving with good will this afternoon.
      Mr. George Howarth: I think that the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) is being playful. I wrote to the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan)—the hon. Member for West Dorset received a copy of the letter—on 17 March. I set out clearly the Government's position. I see no point in entering the debate that the hon. Gentleman is trying to create. Nothing has moved on since 17 March. The Bill received its Second Reading and it was debated in Committee in great detail. The Government's basic position is no different from that set out in the letter of 17 March, a copy of which I have no doubt he cherishes and reads every night before he goes to sleep. That is where we stand on the matter.
      The hon. Gentleman knows full well that I have said from the beginning that he should wait until we publish a draft Bill on the Neill proposals before the summer recess. That Bill will set out fully where we intend to go with our proposals for an electoral commission. If the hon. Gentleman accepts the case for an electoral commission, it is nonsensical to go forward with a referendums commission, when we are so near to establishing something that would embrace all concerns.
      Mr. Letwin: If the Minister means what he has just said, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) has offered him a route to an irenic solution. There would be no need to establish the referendums commission in advance of the electoral commission if the electoral commission had been established before a referendum and if, as the new clause suggests, the Secretary of State had not implemented the Act. Surely the Minister should be willing on his own logic just

      1419
      espoused to accept the new clause, and then to urge his hon. Friends to withdraw the rest of the amendments and give the Bill a Third Reading.
      Mr. Miller: I have listened to this great debate with much interest. I am particularly interested in the lawyers' club axis that is developing between my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) and the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin).
      I want to simplify the process. I want to test the will of the House on this matter. If my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon wishes to oppose the new clause, let us see whether he has the support of Opposition Members.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 3, Noes 0.

      Division No. 195]

      [2.23 pm

      AYES

      Brand, Dr Peter

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Burstow, Paul

      Mr. Andrew Miller and

      Flynn, Paul

      Mr. Tony McNulty.

      NOES

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Mr. Andrew Dismore and

      Dr. Alan Whitehead.

      It appearing on the report of the Division that 40 Members were not present, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER declared that the Question was not decided, and the business under consideration stood over until the next Sitting of the House.
      Mr. Butterfill: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It should be shown on the record that the only reason that the Division was inquorate was that Opposition Members were not prepared to take part in a charade put up by Labour Members, who voted against their own new clause—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a matter for the Chair.

  Remaining Private Members' Bills

    FUR FARMING (PROHIBITION) BILL
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [14 May] on consideration of Bill, as amended in the Standing Committee.
    Amendment No. 36 proposed to the Bill, in page 2, line 20, at the end, to insert the words—
    '(c) in Northern Ireland, to the Crown Court'—[Mr. Forth.]
    Question proposed, That the amendment be made.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Debate to be resumed on Friday 11 June.

    AYES MISUSE OF DRUGS (AMENDMENT) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    To be read a Second time on Friday 11 June.

    WILDLIFE AND COUNTRYSIDE (AMENDMENT) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    To be read a Second time on Friday 11 June.

    PREVENTION OF DELAY IN TRIALS BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 23 July.

    REGULATIONS ON SMALL BUSINESSES (REDUCTION) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 11 June.

    HARE COURSING BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 11 June.

    LICENSING (YOUNG PERSONS) BILL
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [16 April].
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Debate further adjourned till Friday 11 June.

    AGE LIMITS ON HEALTH CARE BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 11 June.

    HEALTH CARE AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY BILL
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [23 April].
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Debate further adjourned till Friday 11 June.

    ACCESS TO ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 11 June.

    PLANNING APPEALS BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 11 June.

    BUS FUEL DUTY (EXEMPTIONS) BILL
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [12 March].
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Debate further adjourned till Friday 11 June.

    PUBLIC HOUSE NAMES BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 11 June.

    EUROPEAN PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (GIBRALTAR) BILL [LORDS]
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 11 June.

    ADJOURNMENT (WHITSUN)
    Motion made and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 25 (Periodic adjournments),
    That the Order of the House [30th April] relating to Adjournment (Whitsun) shall have effect subject to the following modification in line 3, to leave out 'Thursday 27th May' and insert 'Wednesday 26th May'.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes]
    Question agreed to.

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
    Ordered,
    That the Order of the House [30th April] relating to Business of the House shall have effect subject to the following modification in line 1, to leave out 'Thursday 27th May' and insert 'Wednesday 26th May'.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes]
    Ordered,
    That, at the sitting on Monday 24th May, the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motions in the name of Margaret Beckett relating to the Second Report from the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons, on Sittings of the House in Westminster Hall (HC 194), and to Sittings in Westminster Hall not later than three hours after the commencement of those proceedings and the Motions may be entered upon and proceeded with, though opposed, after Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes]
    Motion made,
    That, at the sitting on Wednesday 26th May—

    (1) the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motions in the names of Margaret Beckett or Mrs. Marion Roe relating to—

    (a) the First Report from the Administration Committee, on the Proposal to Re-open the Line of Route during the Summer Adjournment (HC 394), not later than two hours after the Motion has been entered upon;

    (b) Members' Travel to EU Institutions not later than one hour after the Motion has been entered upon; and

    (c) Financial Assistance to Opposition Parties not later than one and a half hours after the Motion has been entered upon;

    and the last foregoing Motion may be entered upon and proceeded with, though opposed, after Ten o'clock; and

    (2) the Motion in the name of Margaret Beckett relating to Select Committees (Quorum) may be entered upon and proceeded with, though opposed, after Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes]

    Hon. Members: Object.

    DRAFT LOCAL GOVERNMENT (FUNCTIONS AND STANDARDS) BILL
    Resolved,
    That it is expedient that a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons be appointed to consider the draft Local Government (Functions and Standards) Bill published in the Command Paper entitled Local Leadership, Local Choice (Cm. 4298), and that the Committee should report by 31st July 1999.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

  Families
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]
  2.33 pm
  Ms Sally Keeble: I am grateful for the opportunity to have this debate on the important issue of support for families. Despite the emptiness of the Chamber for a Friday Adjournment debate, this matter is of great concern to many hon. Members and is of great and growing interest to many people outside the House because of the changing pressures on family life.
  The issue is rarely out of the public arena. Support for families is a source of great strength for many, and its decline is seen as a cause of social decay for many people. It is a particularly important issue for my constituency, because it contains about 12,000 families, which is well above the national average for constituencies.
  I should like to read out the views of some of my constituents on family life. These people wrote to me about their experiences during six months of consultation and campaigning on family issues. A single parent wrote movingly about her desire to be at home to look after her child. She wrote:
  "I had my child because I wanted to raise her myself, not to be a part-time Mum".
  She was retraining to go back to work, and wanted to be able to combine work with a constructive family life. A vicar wrote:
  "Historically societies that have failed to uphold the family, and the sanctity of marriage, have often come to the point of collapse."
  A much older woman, whose family was grown up, wrote:
  "I have no authority at all to pass opinions on how others should bring up their families, but I'm a great believer in family life."
  A teacher, expressing views shared by a number of people, wrote:
  "Family/parenting/relationships etc could and should be dealt with more in schools and these messages should be reinforced through Government policies etc. Unfortunately I feel that many of these issues are hard to address because we are a very materialistic and therefore work driven society."
  Another older woman wrote to me. I thought at first that her letter would be about how women should stay at home looking after the children. She wrote:
  "I firmly believe that children under four years need 'one to one' with a parent. I worked part-time when my two children were this age on data processing 6-10pm. My husband arrived home around 5.30pm and took over with the children and put them to bed. It seems now always that material possessions are given priority over the love and care given to bringing up children."
  Family policy is sometimes a difficult area for Governments to deal with, because it is on the fault line between the private and the public, the personal and the political. In the past, Governments who have talked a lot about family values have got into trouble. I am drawing on the views and experiences of my constituents, and I pay tribute to many people from all walks of life who participated in the debate that produced the report "Supporting Families in Northampton", a copy of which I have sent to my hon. Friend the Minister. It is based on a Government consultation document.
  I thank Avon, Barclays Home Finance, Boots the Chemists, the bishop of Brixworth, Relate, Age Concern, Northamptonshire county council, Northampton borough
  1424
  council, the National Union of Knitwear, Footwear and Apparel Trades, Weston Favell credit union, and many members of the public who filled in questionnaires, came to meetings or just talked on their doorsteps about what they wanted for their families.
  For most people, the big issue was change. There was change in the world of work; in particular, there was the impact of women working. In my constituency, many women work, many in part-time jobs, and their incomes are important to the family budget. In the long term, the growing economic independence of women will have profound implications; but in the short term there are practical issues affecting family life. There is also the changing nature of work, from full-time nine-to-five work to part-time work, or shift working in a 24-hour economy. Different types of job require different skills.
  The other big change has been in what constitutes a family. Many families have broken up and reformed. Relationships are very different, finances have become more complicated, and, rather than having a nuclear or an extended family, many people have a network extending over a variety of families and generations.
  Those changes have led to the need for a very different kind of provision and support, as was reflected in the ideas presented by my constituents. It was noticeable that people were not judgmental about the different types of family, but took a pragmatic approach to the supporting of families in the sometimes very difficult circumstances in which they found themselves, whether those families involved two parents or one, or were "reformed families".
  People also made it clear that they considered that the Government's role was to support families—not to interfere in their private lives, decisions and choices, or indeed their life styles, but to provide practical assistance to meet their needs. For example, 100 per cent. of people aged between 25 and 40 who were surveyed in my constituency—including those with the heaviest family commitments—said that they thought that it was the Government's responsibility to ease the pressures of family breakdown, while 91 per cent. considered that it was the responsibility of employers to ensure that their employees could juggle home and work commitments.
  People did not necessarily think that Government action had to mean legislative action. It could simply mean extending or reinforcing best practice, or, for example, using purchasing power to ensure that employers implemented family-friendly employment practices. Indeed, many thought that legal solutions were not the best, because they were adversarial and expensive, and inappropriate in the case of what were often interpersonal issues.
  Most of the change that people wanted was in the sphere of work. Perhaps surprisingly, they wanted flexible working arrangements, allowing them time off work to deal with family crises. Many people, including the woman whose letter I quoted, went to a lot of trouble to juggle work and family commitments, so that their children could be cared for at home by a family member—perhaps with the mother fixing her working hours for when her partner was at home to care for the children. They wanted support in relation to those sometimes complicated arrangements. Quite a large number of people used nurseries, but, where people were working shifts and difficult hours, the hours of the nurseries, creches and such like often did not fit their

  1425
  working hours. They also wanted help with child care costs. I am pleased that those issues are being actively addressed by the Government.
  People mentioned the impact on public services of the changes, with the need for public services to be organised around user rather than provider needs and priorities. From the public services—the local authorities themselves—came the view that that did not always have to mean extra money; there were different ways in which to provide services, using existing resources. Services such as NHS Direct and the youth offender panels, which provide services outside regular office hours, are welcome steps in the right direction, but, too often, public sector services lag behind the changing patterns of people's lives.
  Another factor that came up was the importance of grandparents, especially when it came to child care. What emerged from the survey was that support from grandparents was regarded more highly by parents than by the grandparents themselves. I know that many hon. Members could attest to the importance of being able to telephone grandparents to ask for help when all other child care arrangements break down.
  From the survey, the difficulty of juggling work and home emerged as the biggest pressure for 25 to 40-year-olds—it was an even bigger family pressure than finance. At a conference on the family, we heard from Boots that, for 90 per cent. of people, their ability to balance work and home life was a key factor in their commitment to their employer. Indeed, 20 per cent. said that they would take a pay cut if they felt that the changes in their working lives would lead to an improvement in their home life.
  One of the biggest barriers, other than the practical ones of economy and staff management, to more family-friendly working was seen to be a lack of a forum for best practice. People said that there was a need for positive rewards and incentives, including from Government, for firms to introduce family-friendly policies.
  Another big plea was for more support during the difficult time when families break down, when the biggest pressures were seen to be financial. Indeed, 60 per cent. of housing repossessions are due to financial problems following family breakdown; they are not due simply to debt problems. Often, those occur when women are left in homes with mortgages that they cannot afford and which the former partner fails, or refuses, to help to pay for. People had a raft of suggestions, including that financial institutions should examine different financial packages for families to ease them through the different stages of family life, for changes to mortgage arrangements and for arrangements for handling bad debt when things get tight.
  There were suggestions for Government, such as ensuring that there was joined-up government not just between central Government Departments, but between local and central Government and Government agencies, including the Benefits Agency and the Child Support Agency. People saw Government as having a role in bringing together and providing backing for some of the more innovative ideas from financial institutions.
  1426
  People felt that there had to be much more focus on support for second families, especially the needs of children. On one of my school visits, I went to a school in quite an affluent part of my constituency. The head teacher spoke at some length about the special needs of children there, which surprised me. He went on to say that most of the special needs were directly caused by pressures on children due to family breakdown. The child who had the most severe needs was a girl of eight who had already lived in three different families.
  Many people in my constituency talked about the need for a culture change—for a culture that was more supportive of families. For the faith communities, there were the important issues about marriage and family life. Those arguments are well known and have been well rehearsed, but, even from the more secular in our society, there was talk about changing values, so that our society was more supportive of families. People talked at great length about the impact of the media and the portrayal of violence; the emphasis on business; and the contradiction that they sometimes detected in Government policy—which seemed to support families, but also to punish them when things went wrong.
  Many people spoke about the need for the educational system to teach young people about relationships. Many people—such as the teacher whose letter I quoted at the start of my speech—said that they thought that schools, communities and families were inextricably linked and needed to support one another.
  I ask my hon. Friend the Minister, in replying to the debate, to deal with some of those specific points, and also to say when the Government will be implementing the initiatives described in the document "Supporting Families". There is a huge fund of good will supporting implementation of the initiatives and a Government lead in encouraging other institutions to provide a more family-friendly society. It also supports the Government's provision of a legislative and financial framework to help the many families in my own constituency and elsewhere.
  2.51 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kate Hoey): I am very pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) has been able today to raise the very important subject of family policy. I agree with her wholeheartedly that, although it is a Friday afternoon and there are very few hon. Members in the Chamber—although it is very nice to see my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Ms Moran) here—people feel very strongly and great concern about the issue.
  Family life is the foundation on which our communities, our society and our country is built. Families are central to the Government's vision of a secure, just and inclusive society. The House owes a debt to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North for the work that she has done in her own constituency in organising not only the survey but the conference, which has produced such interesting results. The Home Office official who attended the conference found it very interesting and was particularly impressed by the breadth of support shown for it by my hon. Friend's constituents, who were from all walks of life.

  1427
  The consultation document, "Supporting Families"—which has been mentioned already—was the first ever consultation paper on family policy. The public reaction to it—over 900 responses—has been overwhelming, and, in June, we shall publish a summary document. All the responses that we received will feed into the on-going work on family policy of the ministerial group on the family.
  One of most important aims of the consultation was to raise awareness of family and parenting issues—and I think that it has already achieved that aim. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North has led the dialogue on the issues in her own constituency, and a similar dialogue is being held across the United Kingdom—although I should say that the process elsewhere in the country has not yet produced results as detailed or in the same depth as it has in her constituency.
  As the consultation process has been under way, we have made progress across a wide range of policy areas that will make a difference to families. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North has already mentioned some examples.
  A new National Family and Parenting Institute has been established with £600,000 of strategic funding from the Government. The institute aims to change the culture of parenting, so that seeking advice and information is seen as a sign not of failure, but of responsible parenting.
  We have also established a new family support grant—with £7 million, over three years—to improve family support services in the voluntary sector. The grant will help to build infrastructure organisations working to support families, and fund innovative parenting and family support work so that we are able to learn lessons of good practice across the country. It will also support work with boys, young men and fathers—groups in which the ministerial group has identified a particular need for targeted support.
  My hon. Friend found that 66.7 per cent. of 25 to 40-year-olds in her constituency would like a national helpline for parents to be established. The Government have given £300,000 to Parentline, to help it to expand into a national helpline for parents.
  Parentline will also help the new National Family and Parenting Institute to identify the major problems facing families today through the use of anonymised call data on the issues about which parents call in.
  The Government have committed £80 million in 1999–2000 to the sure start initiative for local work with families with young children in some of the most disadvantaged areas. The first 21 trailblazer areas for the sure start programme were announced on 9 April. The projects will start this summer.
  In Northampton, 73.6 per cent. of people responding to the survey wanted firms to be more family friendly—an important issue. Since we published "Supporting Families", we have made progress in helping families balance work and home. The Employment Relations Bill will bring in a right to parental leave and time off for urgent domestic reasons and will simplify maternity rights. The Department for Education and Employment is taking forward plans for a wide-ranging campaign to promote family-friendly employment practices. As the Northampton report says, the Government should lead by example as a family-friendly employer. We are working on that in all Government Departments.
  1428
  One of the key themes in "Supporting Families" was the need to strengthen marriages and support adults in their relationships for the sake of their children. I was interested to learn that 75.7 per cent. of people responding to the survey in Northampton want the Government to intervene to help families when relationships break down.
  The proposals in the consultation document were intended to increase the support and advice available throughout people's married lives, and in particular at times of stress such as when first children are born.
  The survey in Northampton also revealed that 75 per cent. of respondents wanted Government funding for counselling services for couples in difficulty. As my hon. Friend will know, the Lord Chancellor has initiated a review of Government funding for marriage support services. The review will help us develop a more strategic approach to funding for marriage support.
  All the responses to "Supporting Families" will help us as we develop family policy. The ministerial group on the family has already identified some key issues to be addressed over the coming year. In particular, it will be taking forward work on boys, young men and fathers. As we approach the new millennium, the lives of young men are undoubtedly more complex than they were in previous generations: a whole raft of social and economic factors have combined to create a need to find ways of preparing young men better for the realities they will face.
  Our primary aim is to recognise the potential of young men to make a positive contribution to society. However, anything we do to help boys must not have an adverse effect on the advances that have been made for young women over recent decades. So, while the ministerial group on the family looks at the needs of young men, the women's unit will be taking forward parallel work looking at the particular needs of young women.
  The role of fathers is crucial in this respect. Research has shown that boys who have no contact with their fathers are more likely to be violent, to get hurt, to get into trouble and to do less well at school.
  Ms Keeble: One point that was hotly debated during a discussion about nursery schools was that boys can go through their early-years and primary education without a male educational role model. If they do not have a father at home either, they are very much adrift. Is that thought behind the work of the ministerial team?
  Kate Hoey: I certainly hope so. I shall write to my hon. Friend and tell her exactly what is happening. Even when children are in contact with their father, voluntary organisations have told us that it is more difficult to encourage fathers to participate in parenting support. We want to encourage schemes for fathers and promote recognition of the fact that they have an important part to play.
  The ministerial group will be taking forward family policy in providing help for families facing serious problems. In "Supporting Families", we looked at the particular problems of teenage pregnancy, youth offending and domestic violence. We recognise that many other serious problems face families, including mental health problems, disability, alcohol and drug abuse. We shall be looking at those problems to try to ensure joined-up thinking and joined-up services so that families get the help that they need when they need it.

  1429
  We are grateful to my hon. Friend for her work in raising the profile of family issues in her constituency and for sending us the results of her research. She has provided a useful opportunity to give more publicity to "Supporting Families". What we have learned from Northampton will help us in our attempt to make a difference to the lives of families in the United Kingdom. I congratulate her on the work that she has done in her constituency and on giving us a coherent resume of what her constituents have said. It will be useful as we develop our family policies.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at one minute past Three o'clock.

  CORRIGENDA
  Official Report, 18 May 1999: In column 971, Mr. Norman Baker's speech, the fifth sentence in the sixth full paragraph should read:
  According to figures from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and from the Meat and Livestock Commission, a comparison of farmgate prices in October 1997 and 1998 shows the price of feed wheat down 13 per cent., lamb down 32 per cent., beef down 18 per cent., pigmeat—suffering particularly badly—down 41 per cent., milk down 12 per cent., eggs down 13 per cent. and broilers down 7 per cent.
  In column 974, the first sentence in the fourth full paragraph should read:
  There is great worry among local farmers about what genetically modified crops mean for them.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Development Funding (Eastern Europe)
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what development funding the Government have provided to(a) Bulgaria, (b) the Czech Republic, (c) Hungary, (d) Poland, (e) Romania and (f) the Slovak Republic, either directly or through the EU, in the areas of (i) the arts, (ii) the environment, (iii) economic development, (iv) education and training and (v) health, since May 1997. [84682]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The details of bilateral expenditure in these sectors in 1997–98 and 1998–99 is available only for projects with a commitment of over £100,000. (1998–99 figures are provisional.) Expenditure on such projects in areas (ii) (iii) and (iv) was as follows:

  £000

  Country

  Economic

  Development

  Education and Environment training

  Totals

  Bulgaria

  0

  0

  166

  Hungary

  883

  0

  0

  Poland

  483

  131

  0

  Romania

  413

  0

  76

  There were no projects with a commitment of over £100,000 in the health sector and no expenditure at all on the arts.

  We do not have a breakdown of EC expenditure by sector. In 1997, the latest year for which we have figures, the estimated UK share of EC net official assistance was as follows:

  1997 Imputed UK share of EC net official aid1

  £million

  Bulgaria

  1.38

  Czech Republic

  5.6

  Hungary

  7.4

  Poland

  23.0

  Romania

  12.3

  Slovak Republic

  3.6

  1Official aid is an internationally recognised statistic

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Spending Priorities
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on his Department's spending priorities for the remainder of the Comprehensive Spending Review period. [85432]
  452
  Mr. Nick Brown
  In my written statement to the House on 27 October 1998,Official Report, columns 156–58, I set out the key financial implications of the CSR for MAFF. Since then there have been developments which have necessitated a reassessment of spending priorities in order to accommodate:

  (i) additional demands on the Department's budget which were not provided for in the CSR. These include the costs of the BSE inquiry and new policy initiatives like the proposed pet movement scheme; and

  (ii) the budgetary consequences of not being able to proceed with the sale of the new Convent Garden Market site. The CSR settlement assumed that we would sell this asset in 2000/01 and our capital allocation was adjusted accordingly. We will not be able to meet that timetable.

  For the most part we have been able to accommodate the budgetary impact of these developments by making adjustments to the Department's own internal spending programmes. For example, we have been able to reprofile the expenditure on the new marine research vessel by delaying its construction by a few months. We have also found savings in the Department's capital building programme. And we are accelerating the disposal of unwanted assets in order to maximise receipts during the CSR period.

  However, these measures alone are not sufficient to contain the pressures on the Department's budget. In order to keep spending within the limits set by the CSR, I regret that I am having to make the following economies in addition to those set out in my statement of 27 October:

  (i) further cuts of £2.0 million in 1999/2000, £2.0 million in 2000/01 and £3.0 million in 2001/02 in the Department's R&D budget. These cuts will put pressure on our research programmes and will require careful prioritisation. We shall be drawing up, and consulting widely on, a new strategy for R&D;

  (ii) a refocusing of the Department's land use planning work, which is carried out by the Farming and Rural Conservation Agency, to strengthen relationships with Government Offices, planning authorities and the Regional Development Agencies and integrate agricultural considerations (especially the implementation of the EU Rural Development Regulation) into wider Government policies affecting the rural economy and environment. This will produce annual net savings of about £1.0 million in 2000/01 and 2001/02;

  (iii) a reduction of £1.5 million in 2001/02 in the Department's grant-in-aid to the Environment Agency;

  (iv) closure of fisheries grant schemes. The schemes in question have been in place a long time: harbour grants since 1955 and marketing/ processing, port facilities and fishing vessel safety equipment grants since the late 1970s/early 1980s. They have served a valuable purpose and many have benefited from them over the years. However, in view of the pressures on the Department's budget the time has come to draw a line under these open-ended schemes. As of today, I am closing the harbour and fishing vessel safety equipment grants schemes to new applicants. There will be no further rounds of awards under the processing and marketing and port facilities grant schemes. In all cases, where commitments to funding have already been entered into they will be honoured.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Trade Dispute
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will introduce a compensation scheme for
  453
  those British firms which have been affected by the United States trade sanctions authorised by the World Trade Organisation; and if he will make a statement. [83315]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 5 May 1999]: There are no plans for specific measures to support industries that remain on the US Administrations revised retaliation list over the banana dispute. The Government want an early resolution to the dispute and are encouraging the European Commission to come forward quickly with its analysis of options for revising the EU's banana regime. As well as a final settlement, we would also like an interim solution whereby the US retaliation was displaced by a form of compensation as preferred under the rules of the World Trade Organisation.

  This would lift the burden from those companies that are being hurt by a dispute that has nothing to do with them. It is also important to stress that there was never any intention of extending the cashmere scheme beyond the date on which the WTO authorised US retaliatory action. There would, therefore, have been no guarantee even for cashmere in respect of orders placed after 12 April.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what support he plans to provide to firms in respect of tariffs consequent upon the EU dispute with the USA over bananas. [83128]

  Mr. Wilson
  There are no plans for specific measures to support industries that remain on the US Administration's revised retaliation list over the banana dispute. The Government want an early resolution to the dispute and is encouraging the European Commission to come forward quickly with its analysis of options for revising the EU's banana regime. As well as a final settlement, we would also like an interim solution whereby the US retaliation was displaced by a form of compensation as preferred under the rules of the World Trade Organisation. This would lift the burden from those companies that are being hurt by a dispute that has nothing to do with them.

  Manufacturing Jobs
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate he has made of the number of manufacturing jobs lost in the UK in the last year. [84372]

  Mr. Byers
  I refer the right hon. Member to the figures published by the Office for National Statistics in its "First Release of Labour Market Statistics", which was issued by the ONS on 19 May 1999, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

  Gas-fired Power Stations
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what applications for additional gas-fired power station capacity he expects to determine over the next six months. [84340]

  Mr. Byers
  All applications will need to go through full consideration. It is not possible to put a time limit on such matters.
  454

  Ilisu Dam
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to what extent ECGD support for the Ilisu Dam will be conditional on compliance with ILO standards and conventions. [84885]

  Mr. Wilson
  We are considering the conditions on which ECGD support might be made available for this project. No decisions have yet been made.

  Hearing Aid Council
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans his Department has to carry out a consultation process on the effectiveness of the current powers of the Hearing Aid Council. [84773]

  Dr. Howells
  We have no such plans. My Department has regular contact with the Hearing Aid Council to discuss issues of concern and I visited the Council last November.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Probate
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department on what authority and on what grounds the Central Probate Registry in High Holborn has increased its fees for the examination of wills from 1858. [84724]

  Mr. Vaz
  The increase in fees is governed by the Non-Contentious Probate fees order (Statutory Instrument 1999/688(L)). The recent increases were introduced in order to ensure that the fee charged accurately reflects the cost of the service provided.

TREASURY

  Banking Regulations
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the Banking Act 1987 (Exempt Transactions) Regulations 1997 and their effect on retail co-operative societies and other industrial and provident societies. [85313]

  Ms Hewitt
  As part of the general review of exemptions from financial services legislation, the Treasury has been looking at the exemptions from the Banking Act which:

  (i) allow industrial and provident societies (I&Ps) to take deposits from their members in the form of withdrawable share capital (WSC), in circumstances which would otherwise require authorisation by the Financial Services Authority; and

  (ii) allow retail co-operatives which are members of the Co-operative Deposit Protection Scheme (CDPS) to take deposits in the form of loans from the public.

  The Treasury has decided to continue the exemption for WSC, subject to compliance with a code of practice which will require societies to make it clear to those subscribing for WSC that this is risk capital, where such issues rely on the exemption. The Treasury has today issued a consultation document on the proposal, and will make a further announcement after considering the responses.
  455
  Following consultation with representatives of the Co-operative Union, the exemption which allows CDPS members to take deposits in the form of loans from the public will end when the current term of the CDPS comes to an end at the end of March 2000. Societies will repay such loans as they mature.

  Office for National Statistics
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has agreed the business plan for the Office for National Statistics for 1999 to 2002. [85314]

  Ms Hewitt
  Copies of the plan, giving details of the performance targets I have set for 1999–2000, have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

HEALTH

  Health Service Reports
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the reports commissioned by his Department since 1 May 1997 from(a) external bodies and (b) individuals on (i) primary care, (ii) acute hospital care, (iii) accident and emergency provision, (iv) nursing and (v) waiting lists, where applicable giving the date of publication. [79611]

  Mr. Dobson
  Information about reports commissioned by the Department has been placed in the Library. Information about research funded by the Department or supported through the National Health Service research and development levy is in the National Research Register which is also available in the Library. More detailed information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Osteopathy
  Mrs. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will take steps to increase the availability of(a) osteopathy and (b) chiropractic treatment in the NHS. [84728]

  Ms Jowell
  The availability of osteopathy and chiropractic treatment within the National Health Service, as with any other form of treatment, reflects decisions taken by health authorities, trusts and primary care groups about the clinical and cost effectiveness of such services and the priority to be given to their provision in the light of local health needs. As primary care groups have only recently been established, we shall be studying the use that they make of all forms of complementary medicine.

PRIME MINISTER

  Public Consultations
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Prime Minister what period of time is recommended in Government guidelines for public consultations. [84900]

  The Prime Minister
  The Cabinet Office guidelines state that eight weeks should generally be the minimum response time for all consultation exercises, but whenever possible more should be allowed. Where less than eight weeks is allowed, the consultation document should 456
  specify why a longer response time could not have been given (for example, pre-determined statutory periods for consultation, threats to health, the pace of EU negotiations or long-standing existing arrangements). For consultations with clearly defined or specialist groups, shorter consultation periods may suffice, depending on the nature of the subject and the scale of the exercise: this is for departments, agencies and other bodies to judge according to the circumstances.

  10 Downing Street
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Prime Minister what estimate he has made of total staff costs for No. 10 Downing Street in(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98, (c) 1998–99 and (d) 1999–2000, indicating separately the costs for (i) private secretaries, (ii) Policy Unit staff, (iii) Press Office staff, (iv) Strategic Communications Unit staff, (v) support staff and (vi) political office staff; and if he will make a statement. [80115]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 15 April 1999]: The total staff costs for No. 10 Downing street were £3.4 million in 1996–97, £4.1 million in 1997–98 and £4.9 million in 1998–99. Estimated costs for 1999–2000 are £5.3 million. Due to changes in the accounting systems it is not possible to give a breakdown of the 1996–97 figures as requested which means that a meaningful comparison with subsequent years cannot be drawn. The cost of the Political Office does not fall to the Government.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Citizens (Deportation)
  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received regarding the right of a sovereign country to deport its own citizens from the land of their birth and nationality; and if he will make a statement. [80801]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  [holding answer 16 April 1999]: Representations of this nature have been made to the Secretary of State by and on behalf of the Ibis community. This is related to issues arising in the judicial proceedings being brought by the Ibis which will in due course come before the Divisional Court. It is therefore inappropriate for the Government to comment further.

  Travel Advice
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how frequently his Department is updating information on travel advice to individual countries on his Department' s website; and if more regular updates are planned for countries with(a) a political involvement in and (b) close proximity to the current NATO bombing campaign in the Balkans. [81214]

  Mr. Hoon
  All travel advice is reviewed routinely on a monthly basis. It is updated more frequently when there is reason to do so. The situation in countries in the general neighbourhood of the current NATO air campaign is being closely monitored, and new travel advice would be issued immediately should it be judged appropriate.
  457
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what advice his Department is giving to tourists planning to visit areas in close proximity to the NATO military actions in the Balkans. [81215]

  Mr. Hoon
  In view of the current hostilities in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) (FRY) we are currently advising against all travel to the FRY, Republika Srpska (RS), Albania and all but essential travel to Macedonia. We also advise additional caution with regard to travel in areas bordering FRY.

  We are monitoring the situation closely, and updated travel advice will be issued as soon as there is any change in the risks to British nationals in the region.

  Non-genetically Modified Soya Beans
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports his Department has received concerning the efforts of the state Government of Rio Grande do Sul to guarantee non-genetically modified soya-bean production throughout their state; and what plans his Department has to give assistance. [84501]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We have not received any such reports.

  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that my hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Rooker) gave on 19 May 1999, Official Report, column 395.

  Iran
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects the new British Ambassador to Iran to be appointed; and if he will name him. [84741]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 18 May that Britain and Iran have agreed to upgrade relations by appointing Ambassadors in Tehran and London. Mr. Nick Browne will be British Ambassador in Tehran.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what loans have been made by the British Government to Iran in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [84755]

  Mr. Hoon
  The British Government made no loans to Iran in the period specified. Short-term ECGD cover has been available since July 1998, but so far this facility has not been used.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many Ministers have visited Iran in each of the last three years. [84754]

  Mr. Hoon
  There have been no ministerial visits to Iran in the last three years. The last UK Minister to travel to Iran was Baroness Chalker, who visited Iraqi Kurdish refugees in north-west Iran in 1991.

  Commonwealth Students
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many students currently studying in the UK from Commonwealth countries have 458
  received financial assistance from his Department towards the cost of their education studies in the UK in each of the last three years. [84743]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) provides financial assistance to students from the Commonwealth studying in the UK under two programmes; the Chevening Scholarship Scheme and the Commonwealth Scholarships and Fellowships Plan (CSFP).

  In 1996–97, 452 students from the Commonwealth received Chevening awards while 237 received new CSFP awards. In 1997–98 the figures were 214 and 79 respectively and in 1998–99 141 and 72.

  The figures for 1996–97 include awards funded by both the FCO and the Overseas Development Administration (ODA). The figures for 1997–98 and 1998–99 are for FCO funded awards only as in 1997 the ODA became a separate Government Department (the Department for International Development (DfID)). DflD continued to provide funding to both schemes for Commonwealth students in 1997–98 (240 Chevening and 239 CSFP awards) and 1998–99 (253 Chevening and 210 CSFP awards). Most Chevening awards are for one year only while many CSFP scholars are on PhD programmes, and study in the UK for up to three years.

  Cyprus
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions his Department has held with the Government of the Republic of Cyprus in connection with its application for membership of the European Union; and if he will make a statement. [84940]

  Ms Quin
  I visited Cyprus last month to discuss with the Government of Cyprus, and with leaders of the Turkish Cypriot community, the prospects for a settlement and progress with Cyprus' application to join the EU. There is also close and regular contact at official level. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I have regular discussions with colleagues from other EU member states on all aspects of the accession process.

  EU General Affairs Council
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish the agenda for the EU General Affairs Council of 31 May. [85220]

  Ms Quin
  The provisional agenda for the General Affairs Council on 31 May is:

  Horizontal Issues

  Preparation of European Council, Cologne, 3–4 Jun

  European Security and Defence Identity

  Institutional Reforms

  EU-Charter of Fundamental Rights

  Human Rights

  (possible) Enlargement. Preparation of the Accession Conferences with Cyprus, Hungary, Poland, Estonia, the Czech Republic and Slovenia at Ministerial level on 22 June

  Article 4 Report on progress achieved by the Union

  Comitology
  459
  External Relations

  (possible) EU's relations with Mercosur and Chile

  Preparation of the EU-Latin American and Caribbean Summit, 28–29 June
  (possible) EU/Mexico relations

  (possible) Association agreement with Egypt

  Northern Dimension

  EU/US relations

  Preparation of the EU/US Summit, 21 June

  Trade issues

  EU/Japan relations. Preparation of the EU/Japan Summit, 17 June

  EU/Canada relations. Preparation of the EU/Canada Summit, 17 June

  Western Balkans

  Middle East Peace Process

  EU/South Africa agreement

  Common Position on Human Rights, Democratic Principles, the Rule of Law and Good Governance in Africa

  (possible) East Timor.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Works of Art (Loans)
  Mr. Leslie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many indemnity undertakings were given by departments under section 16 of the National Heritage Act 1980 for the six-month period ended 31 March; and what was the value of(a) any contingent liabilities in respect of such undertakings given at any time under that section which remain outstanding as at 31 March, (b) non-statutory Government indemnities in respect of loans handled by the Government Art Collection which remain outstanding as at 31 March and (c) non-statutory undertakings to Her Majesty in respect of loans from the Royal Collection which remain outstanding at 31 March. [85354]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The provision for the Government Indemnity Scheme is made by the National Heritage Act 1980. The scheme facilitates public access to loans of works of art and other objects for public display made to museums, galleries and other such institutions by private owners and non-national institutions. It does this by indemnifying lenders against loss or damage to their loan. Loans covered by the scheme must be for public benefit. The scheme also covers loans of such objects for study purposes within borrowing institutions where this would contribute materially to the public's understanding or appreciation of the loan. Examples of this are enhancing interpretation or explanation to the public of objects or bringing into the public domain, the conclusions of any study.

  In the six month period ended 31 March 1999, the following undertakings to indemnify were given under section 16 by the relevant Departments for objects on loan to national and non-national institutions:

  Number

  Department for Culture, Media and Sport

  520

  Scottish Office Education and Industry Department

  120

  Welsh Office Education Department

  56

  Department of Education for Northern Ireland

  16

  460
  The value of contingent liabilities in respect of undertakings given at any under section 16 and which remained outstanding as at 31 March 1999 is:

  £

  Department for Culture, Media and Sport

  2,230,770,568

  Scottish Office Education and Industry Department

  450,749,492

  Welsh Office Education Department

  43,847,621

  Department of Education for Northern Ireland

  10,993,527

  The value of non-statutory Government indemnities to cover loans handled by the Government Art Collection and which remained outstanding as at 31 March 1999 is:

  Value: £6,975,000.

  The value of non-statutory Undertakings given to Her Majesty in respect of loans from the Royal Collection and which remained outstanding as at 31 March 1999 is:

  Value: £204,729,113.

  Green Transport Plan
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the introduction of a green transport plan for his Department. [82844]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 11 May 1999]: Following last July's Integrated Transport White Paper, which set targets for the introduction of green transport plans for Government Departments, we are working to complete a plan covering all our buildings. That plan will be published shortly and it will be made available to the Environmental Audit Committee and to hon. Members.

  Media Relations
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many(a) civil servants and (b) special advisers involved in media relations were employed within his Department at 1 May (i) 1997, (ii) 1998 and (iii) 1999. [84194]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 18 May 1999]: Detailed information on the numbers of permanent civil servants employed in Departmental Press Offices during the financial years 1997–98 and 1998–99 was provided in a memorandum dated 16 June 1998 to the Select Committee on Public Administration and published in its report, "The Government Information and Communication Service (HC 770), in July 1998. A copy is in the Library of the House. The number in post at 1 May 1999 is 13.

  Special Advisers in this Department have ad hoc contact with the media but none are specifically employed in media relations.

DEFENCE

  Targets Agency
  Ms Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what key targets have been set for the Naval Manning Agency for the financial year 1999–2000. [85301]
  461
  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Key Targets have been set for the Chief Executive of the Naval Manning Agency for the financial year 1999–2000. The targets build upon progress made by the Agency since it formed on 1 July 1996 and are as follows:

  Key Target 1

  a. The percentage of filled Officer billets to be 94 per cent. greater.

  b. The percentage of filled rating billets to be 90 per cent. or greater.

  c. The percentage of filled other rank billets to be 88 per cent. or greater.

  Key Target 2

  The variation of Strength to Requirement to be between zero and minus 2 per cent.

  Key Target 3

  a. The percentage of Officers receiving the required Notice of Change to be 60 per cent. or greater.

  b. The percentage of ratings receiving the required Notice Change to be 98 per cent. or greater.

  c. The number of occurrences where Minimum Time Ashore criteria are met to be 99 per cent. or greater.

  Key Target 4

  a. To achieve a 5 per cent. reduction in NMA manpower overheads.

  b. To carry out 2 Benchmarking Exercises.

  c. To achieve a Customer Confidence Score of 60.

  Key Target 5

  a. Production of Annual Accrual Accounts to be completed by April 2000.

  b. To operate the NMA within its 1999–2000 Net Cash Allocation for Operating Activities (at 1998–99 prices) of £10.883 million, a reduction of 3.1 per cent. after specific, additional in-year commitments have been discounted.

  Mr. Olner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what key targets have been set for the Defence Clothing and Textiles Agency for the financial year 1999–2000. [85310]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The Chief Executive of the Defence Clothing and Textiles Agency has been set the following Key Targets for 1999–2000:

  Key Target 1

  To meet Customer requirements as set out in the DCTA Customer Supplier Agreements (CSAs) to deliver:

  95 per cent. or more of products reaching Customers within specified supply chain processing times.

  Product defect reports processed and responded to in less than 12 weeks.

  A reduction in products not being accepted during the receipts process by 5 per cent.

  84 per cent. or more of aggregated underlying availability of material.

  Key Target 2

  To achieve an average 3 per cent. improvement in Unit Cost of Output.

  Key Target 3

  To deliver Research and Development Projects To Time within Acceptable Quality Standards and within Budget, in accordance with the DCTA Core Research and Development Proposals 1999.
  462
  Key Target 4

  To deliver Elements of the Modular Field Catering System (MFCS) and CRUSADER 21 Projects on Time and within Budget.

  Key Target 5

  To achieve Stock Management Targets as defined in QMG's or Re-Provisioning Plan.

  Ms Christine Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what key targets have been set for the Defence Postal and Courier Services Agency for financial year 1999–2000. [85312]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The Chief Executive of the Defence Postal and Courier Services Agency has been set the following Key Targets for 1999–2000:

  Key Target 1

  To meet the Customers' requirements as specified in Customer Supplier Agreements (CSAs) to deliver:

  96.6 per cent. or more of aggregated deliveries of Official Mail of
  and BFPO Private Mail to be within CSA specified times.

  98.5 per cent. or more of aggregated deliveries of Courier Mail to be within CSA specified times.

  Key Target 2

  To achieve an average 3 per cent. improvement in the Unit Cost of Output.

  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what key targets have been set for the Medical Supplies Agency for the financial year 1999–2000. [85353]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Key Targets have been set for the Chief Executive of the MSA for financial year 1999–2000. The targets build on the progress already made by the Agency since it formed in March 1996 and are as follows:

  Key Target 1–Composite Medical Material

  To build, completely and to time and within budget, for all 3 Services, 95 per cent. of the programme for kits, outfits and packs, as defined in endorsed Equipment Tables and as directed by the Director Medical Programme & Plans (D Med P & P).

  Key Target 2–The Operational Requirement

  To meet 100 per cent. of the Service's requirements for stocked medical material and blood products for operations.

  Key Target 3–The Exercise and Training Requirement

  To meet 98 per cent. of the Services' requirements for stocked medical material and blood products for exercises and training.

  Key Target 4–Response to Demands

  To meet 85 per cent. of demands for Category B items (common used items with a unit cost of less than £100 and approved by D Med P&P) within MSA's charter standard (next day delivery of priority demands; 72 hours for routine); and 95 per cent. within one week.

  Key Target 5–Stock Issued to Stock Held Ratio

  To improve the ratio of stock issued to stock held from 1.72 to 1.75.

  Departing Service Personnel
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service personnel have left each of the services, quarterly, in each of the last five years. [78779]
  463
  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The numbers of personnel who have left UK Regular armed forces during the last five years is as follows:

  Naval Service

  Army

  Royal Air Force

  Total

  1 January-31 March 1994

  947

  4,051

  1,609

  6,607

  1 April-30 June 1994

  1,385

  3,782

  2,407

  7,574

  1 July-30 September 1994

  1,423

  4,637

  1,224

  7,284

  1 October-31 December 1994

  2,416

  8,480

  1,152

  12,048

  1 January-31 March 1995

  961

  4,986

  1,187

  7,134

  1 April-30 June 1995

  992

  3,803

  1,273

  6,068

  1 July-30 September 1995

  1,128

  3,970

  1,511

  6,609

  1 October-31 December 1995

  1,387

  3,622

  1,634

  6,643

  1 January-31 March 1996

  1,438

  4,048

  4,058

  9,544

  1 April-30 June 1996

  1,712

  3,887

  1,540

  7,139

  1 July-30 September 1996

  2,588

  3,875

  3,131

  9,594

  1 October-31 December 1996

  1,385

  3,558

  1,813

  6,756

  1 January-31 March 1997

  1,446

  4,034

  4,031

  9,511

  1 April-30 June 1997

  1,268

  3,446

  1,198

  5,912

  1 July-30 September 1997

  1,331

  4,049

  1,217

  6,597

  1 October-31 December 1997

  1,216

  2,457

  1,066

  4,739

  I January-31 March 1998

  1,456

  4,426

  1,128

  7,010

  1 April-30 June 1998

  1,398

  4,018

  1,316

  6,732

  1 July-30 September 1998

  1,287

  4,532

  1,224

  7,043

  1 October-31 December 1998

  1,367

  4,157

  1,179

  6,703

  El Shifa
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his letter to the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent of 22 February, on the El Shifa pharmaceuticals factory in Khartoum, if he will review his decision not to release information made available to Her Majesty's Government by the United States Administration on the matter. [84763]

  11994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Number of complaint cases

  79

  62

  42

  88

  59

  Number of complaints

  180

  106

  96

  212

  108

  Informally resolved

  31

  14

  14

  24

  24

  Substantiated

  10

  6

  4

  4

  0

  Unsubstantiated

  89

  51

  51

  34

  9

  Dispensation from investigation

  31

  4

  0

  7

  12

  Withdrawn

  19

  31

  16

  19

  16

  Open

  0

  0

  11

  124

  47

  11994–95 figures are for a 15 month period 1 January 1994 to 31 March 1995

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Firearms
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what measures he plans to take against the possession of illegally held firearms; and if he will make a statement; [84733]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the number of illegally held firearms in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [84735]

  Mr. Boateng
  There is no reliable estimate of the number of illegal firearms in circulation in this country.

  Government Departments work closely with the police service and Her Majesty's Customs to prevent and detect the illegal use of firearms.
  464
  Mr. George Robertson
  I am afraid that I cannot discuss intelligence received in confidence from another Government, as is recognised by exemption 1 of the Code of Practice for Access to Government Information. However, as we stressed at the time, we had the assurance of the United States Government that their decision to resort to military action was based on compelling evidence that the El Shifa factory was connected with chemical weapons development or manufacture.

  MOD Police
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what powers are available to Ministry of Defence police(a) to search civilian property, (b) to interrogate civilians and (c) to lay charges against individuals; from what legal authority officers of the MoD police derive their powers; what remedy is open to civilians who believe they have been subject to ill-treatment or abuse by MoD police officers; how many complaints have been made against MoD police in each of the past five years; and what were the results of such complaints. [84783]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 20 May 1999]Ministry of Defence Police officers derive their constabulary powers from the Ministry of Defence Police Act 1987. MOD Police officers have the same powers as their Home Department Police colleagues to search civilian property, interview civilians and lay charges against individuals, in respect of matters that come within their jurisdiction as defined in the 1987 Act. The MOD Police are subject to comprehensive disciplinary procedures, overseen by the Police Complaints Authority in the case of complaints made by members of the public.

  Details of complaints made against MOD Police are shown in the table:

  A sub-committee has been set up by the Association of Chief Police Officers to consider the police response to the criminal use of firearms. The National Intelligence Service is compiling a strategic threat assessment of the firearms situation in England and Wales. An Interdepartmental Committee on Small Arms Policy has been created to ensure the structured co-ordination of all Government Departments concerned with the legal and illegal movement of firearms.

  The Firearms Consultative Committee has been asked to consider as part of its current work programme what measures can be taken to reduce the illegal possession and use of firearms. Work is also continuing at international level to address the problems of the illicit manufacture and trafficking of firearms, notably through a Protocol to the proposed United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organised Crime.
  465

  Hunting
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the occasions on which he or representatives from his Department have met representatives from (i) the Countryside Alliance, (ii) the Master of Foxhounds Association and (iii) the British Field Sports Society since May 1997 indicating in each case(a) the reason for the meeting, (b) where and when it took place and (c) its duration. [84717]

  Mr. Straw
  I met the Master of the Foxhounds Association on 9 June 1998 in a meeting with him and others to discuss the policing of hunts. The meeting was held in the House of Commons and lasted approximately 30 minutes.

  No meetings have taken place between officials from this Department and the Countryside Alliance, Master of Foxhounds Association and The British Field Sports Society.

  Protection from Harassment Act 1997
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions have taken place under each section of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997; how many and what percentage of prosecutions have resulted in a conviction; how many cautions have been issued in relation to each section of the Act; and if he will make a statement. [84734]

  Mr. Boateng
  The available data from the Home Office Court Proceedings Database, for 1997 and provisionally for the period January to September 1998, are given in the table.

  Persons aged under 21 sentenced to immediate custody1 by sex, atype of offence and type of court England and Wales

  Number of persons (Thousand) and percentage

  Number of persons sentenced to immediate custody

  Persons sentenced to immediate custody as a percentage of all persons of relevant age group sentenced for indictable offences

  Indictable offences

  Summary offences

  Indictable offences

  Age, sex and year

  Total number sentenced to immediate custody

  All courts

  Magistrates' courts

  The Crown court

  Total non motoring

  Total motoring

  All courts

  Magistrates' courts

  Crown court

  Aged 15-17

  Males

  1993

  3.8

  3.3

  2.5

  0.7

  0.4

  0.2

  11.1

  9.3

  35.8

  1994

  4.2

  3.6

  2.8

  0.8

  0.4

  0.2

  11.1

  9.3

  38.3

  1995

  4.9

  4.2

  3.0

  1.2

  0.5

  0.2

  12.2

  9.4

  45.3

  1996

  5.7

  4.8

  3.1

  1.7

  0.6

  0.3

  13.2

  9.5

  48.0

  1997

  6.1

  5.1

  3.1

  2.1

  0.7

  0.3

  13.5

  9.1

  48.1

  Females

  1993

  0.1

  0.1

  0.1

  0.0

  0.0

  —

  2.6

  1.9

  18.5

  1994

  0.1

  0.1

  0.1

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  2.8

  2.1

  21.9

  1995

  0.2

  0.1

  0.1

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  3.0

  2.2

  22.0

  1996

  0.2

  0.2

  0.1

  0.1

  0.0

  0.0

  3.4

  2.2

  26.0

  1997

  0.3

  0.2

  0.1

  0.1

  0.0

  0.0

  4.6

  2.7

  29.5

  466

  Number of persons cautioned, proceeded against at magistrates' courts and convicted at all courts for offences under the Protection from Harassment Act 19971, England and Wales, 1997 and January to September 19982

  Offence/disposal

  1997

  1998 January to September2

  Section 2—Offence of harassment (summary)

  Cautioned

  171

  431

  Total proceeded against

  507

  3,011

  Total convicted

  249

  1,604

  Conviction rate3

  49

  53

  Section 3—Breach of the conditions of an injunction against harassment

  Cautioned

  1

  7

  Total proceeded against

  7

  17

  Total convicted

  3

  8

  Conviction rate3

  43

  47

  Section 4—Putting people in fear of violence

  Cautioned

  51

  109

  Total proceeded against

  243

  1,094

  Total convicted

  76

  391

  Conviction rate3

  31

  36

  Section 5—Breach of restraining order

  Cautioned

  0

  7

  Total proceeded against

  23

  234

  Total convicted

  16

  179

  Conviction rate3

  70

  76

  1Came into force on 16 June 1997

  2Provisional

  3The number of offenders convicted at all courts as a percentage of defendants proceeded against at magistrates' courts

  4Came into force on 30 September 1998
  Young Offenders

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home
  Department how many young(a) men and (b) women up to the age of 21 years were sentenced to periods of imprisonment in England and Wales during each of the last five years. [84681]

  Mr. Boateng
  Information taken from the Home Office Court Proceedings Database is given in the table.
  467

  Persons aged under 21 sentenced to immediate custody1 by sex, atype of offence and type of court England and Wales

  Number of persons (Thousand) and percentage

  Number of persons sentenced to immediate custody

  Persons sentenced to immediate custody as a percentage of all persons of relevant age group sentenced for indictable offences

  Indictable offences

  Summary offences

  Indictable offences

  Age, sex and year

  Total number sentenced to immediate custody

  All courts

  Magistrates' courts

  The Crown court

  Total non motoring

  Total motoring

  All courts

  Magistrates' courts

  Crown court

  Persons

  1993

  3.9

  3.4

  2.6

  0.8

  0.4

  0.2

  10.2

  8.5

  34.7

  1994

  4.3

  3.7

  2.9

  0.8

  0.4

  0.2

  10.1

  8.4

  37.1

  1995

  5.1

  4.3

  3.1

  1.2

  0.5

  0.2

  11.1

  8.5

  43.7

  1996

  5.9

  5.0

  3.3

  1.7

  0.6

  0.3

  12.0

  8.6

  46.5

  1997

  6.3

  5.4

  3.2

  2.2

  0.7

  0.3

  12.4

  8.3

  46.6

  Aged 18-20

  Males

  1993

  11.0

  9.0

  3.0

  6.0

  0.9

  1.1

  17.0

  7.2

  51.3

  1994

  12.1

  9.6

  3.5

  6.1

  1.1

  1.5

  19.2

  8.9

  55.6

  1995

  13.1

  10.4

  3.8

  6.6

  1.3

  1.6

  22.0

  10.6

  59.4

  1996

  14.2

  11.2

  3.9

  7.3

  1.4

  1.6

  24.3

  11.2

  65.3

  1997

  15.1

  11.8

  4.1

  7.7

  1.6

  1.8

  24.5

  11.3

  63.8

  Females

  1993

  0.3

  0.3

  0.1

  0.2

  0.0

  0.0

  5.0

  2.4

  25.1

  1994

  0.4

  0.3

  0.2

  0.2

  0.0

  0.0

  5.2

  2.8

  26.9

  1995

  0.5

  0.4

  0.2

  0.2

  0.0

  0.0

  7.2

  3.8

  31.1

  1996

  0.5

  0.5

  0.2

  0.3

  0.0

  0.0

  8.9

  4.6

  35.3

  1997

  0.6

  0.6

  0.3

  0.3

  0.1

  0.0

  9.0

  5.0

  31.6

  Persons

  1993

  11.3

  9.3

  3.1

  6.2

  0.9

  1.1

  15.7

  6.6

  49.8

  1994

  12.5

  9.9

  3.6

  6.3

  1.1

  1.5

  17.6

  8.1

  54.0

  1995

  13.7

  10.8

  4.0

  6.8

  1.3

  1.6

  20.4

  9.7

  57.6

  1996

  14.8

  11.7

  4.1

  7.6

  1.4

  1.6

  22.6

  10.4

  63.3

  1997

  15.8

  12.4

  4.3

  8.0

  1.6

  1.8

  22.7

  10.5

  61.4

  1 Immediate custody for persons aged 15 and under 21 comprises detention in a young offender institution

  Crime and Disorder Audits
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further analysis he intends to(a) make and (b) publish of the crime and disorder audits. [84771]

  Mr. Boateng
  Over the next few months we will—in liaison with the Audit Commission and Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary—be analysing the audits and strategies produced by local crime and disorder reduction partnerships. We will issue reports on key issues, for example, the consultation process and target setting. The main aim will be to provide the partnerships with advice on good practice so as to help them become more effective.

  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance he intends to give to ensure that future crime and disorder audits contribute to the Government's road casualty reduction strategy. [84772]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 does not specify what categories of crime and disorder must be included in the audit and strategy which local partnerships must produce. However, existing Home Office guidance to partnerships makes clear that strategic priorities must be based on the local audit findings and consultation with the community. Therefore, where this process has identified road safety as a priority, we would expect it to be addressed in the strategy.
  468
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which issues were most often identified by local authorities and police forces in their crime and disorder audits. [84769]

  Mr. Boateng
  We have not yet completed an analysis of the audits and strategies produced by the local crime and disorder reduction partnerships. A number of reports will be issued by the Home Office on various aspects of the partnerships' work over the next few months. Early indications are that burglary, car crime, drug and alcohol-related crime, and youth crime are among the issues most frequently mentioned in strategies as priorities to be tackled.

  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in what percentage of crime and disorder audits enforcement of road traffic offences has been identified as a priority [84770]

  Mr. Boateng
  We have not yet completed an analysis of the audits and strategies produced by the local crime and disorder reduction partnerships. Early indications are that a relatively small number of partnerships have made road safety a priority issue.

  Cleveland Police
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 26 April 1999,
  469
  Official Report, column 77, on the Cleveland police, when he expects to be able to publish the legal costs of Cleveland police in the libel case relating to sexual harassment against three Cleveland police officers; and if he will make a statement. [84881]

  Mr. Boateng
  I am unable to give a timescale as to when the total legal costs of the action will be known since this is the subject of comprehensive negotiations being conducted by the Force insurers.

  Immigration and Asylum Bill
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received(a) in support of and (b) opposing the provisions of the Immigration and Asylum Bill from (i) civil rights groups, (ii) refugee organisations and (iii) the churches, indicating the provisions of the Bill referred to in each case. [84530]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The information requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The Special Standing Committee on the Bill received oral and written evidence from a wide range of civil rights groups, refugee organisations and church groups. This evidence has been printed in the Official Report, Special Standing Committee, Immigration and Asylum Bill (Other Memoranda and Letters submitted to the Committee). Ministers and officials in the Home Office have had correspondence from, and meetings with, a number of such organisations about provisions in the Bill.

  Electoral Procedures
  Mr. Hawkins: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what period of consultation he plans, and with whom, following the publication of the report of his working group on electoral procedures. [84966]
  Mr. George Howarth
  My Working Party on Electoral Procedures will report in the late summer. My right hon. Friend, the Home Secretary will decide what, if any, further consultation may be necessary once he has had the opportunity to examine its recommendations.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Genetically Modified Organisms
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions which of his responsibilities in respect of genetically modified organisms will be devolved to(a) the Scottish Parliament and (b) the National Assembly for Wales. [81461]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 20 April 1999]: None. Prior to devolution responsibility for environmental aspects of genetically modified organisms under Part VI of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in Scotland rested with the Secretary of State for Scotland and in Wales the Secretary of State for Wales. These responsibilities will be devolved to the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales respectively.
  470

  GM Crops
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 15 April 1999,Official Report, columns 301–02, what are the (a) number and (b) percentage of existing field test sites for genetically modified crops which have been subject to (i) pre-planting environmental audit and (ii) sub-surface impact analysis. [81946]

  Mr. Meacher
  All applications for consent to release a genetically modified plant must include a pre-planting environmental audit including details of the release site ecosystem including climate and fauna, details of any sexually compatible wild relatives or cultivated plant species present and the proximity of officially recognised biotopes or protected areas. All 373 existing field test sites for genetically modified crops have been subject to such an audit. There is no requirement for applicants to include a sub-surface impact analysis. The farm-scale evaluations will however include a sub-surface impact analysis as detailed in my earlier answer.

  Newspaper Delivery
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to introduce legislation to regulate the wholesale newspaper delivery contracting industry. [82195]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We have no plans to regulate the wholesale newspaper delivery industry, but all users of commercial vehicles over 3.5 tonnes are required to have an operator's licence. This ensures the safe and proper use of goods vehicles and the protection of the environment around operating centres.

  The Government are keen that local authorities should approach their planning and transportation responsibilities in a well-informed and balanced manner, protecting the interests of local residents while promoting efficient freight distribution in order to support the vitality of the local economy.

  Our strategy for Sustainable Distribution, published on 2 March, proposes to develop the concept of "freight quality partnerships", particularly for urban areas. This will involve local authorities, the distribution industry and the local community working together in the development of a partnership agreement. The partnerships will provide a mechanism through which can be developed an understanding of local distribution issues and the associated concerns. Through the agreement, practical, constructive best practice solutions can be introduced which reconcile the need for the efficient and timely delivery and loading of goods and services with local environmental and social concerns regarding noise, disturbance, vehicle routing and pollution.

  Fuel Tax Escalator
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what methodology is used to evaluate the effect on the environment of the fuel tax escalator. [83257]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We draw on a variety of methods to assess the impact on emissions of carbon dioxide and regulated emissions, as well as congestion. Most of these methods rely on models which forecast the behavioural
  471
  impacts of the fuel duty escalator, and use these to estimate the effect on emissions. The models used include the National Road Traffic Forecasts model, in conjunction with the Vehicle Market Model employed by the Department to assess the impact of different policy instruments on vehicle fuel consumption and emissions.

  Motorway Lighting
  Mr. Stringer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the reduction in the number of accidents which would result from providing lighting on the whole of the motorway system. [84539]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on 7 May 1999,Official Report, columns 483–84.

  Cycling Policies
  Mr. Bradshaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many people in his Department are directly employed promoting cycling policies; and how many were so employed in May 1997. [84721]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Work in support of cycling policies, including research, accounts for the whole of three posts and a substantial part of six others. The equivalent figures for May 1997 were four and six. One research post has been transferred to work on walking and Home Zones.

  School Budgets
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions to what extent the costs assumed for the area cost adjustment in school budgets differed from actual costs in the last year for which figures are available. [84765]

  Mr. Meale
  It is not possible to make the comparison requested. It is the difficulty of determining the actual cost which would be relevant to the area cost adjustment that gives rise to much of the disagreement about that adjustment.>

  Debt
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will publish a list of English local authorities broken down by classification and ranked by(a) outstanding debt and (b) outstanding debt per head of population; [84863]

  (2) if he will publish a list of English local authorities ranked (a) by outstanding debt and (b) by outstanding debt per head of population. [84862]

  Mr. Meale
  The latest information on levels of debt outstanding for each local authority in England relates to 31 March 1997. I have today placed the information requested in the Library of the House.

  High-level Waste
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will 472
  place in the Library a copy of the report, "High-Level Waste and Spent Fuel Disposal Research Strategy", DETR/RAS/98.006, dated May 1998. [84761]

  Mr. Meale
  Copies have been placed in the Library.

  Westminster Council
  Mr. Geraint Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the implications for the Code of Local Government Conduct of the decision of the Court of Appeal relating to Dame Shirley Porter and Mr. John Magill. [84915]

  Ms Armstrong
  We have made no such assessments. In March 1999 we published detailed proposals (Cm 4298), including a draft Bill, for Councils to adopt new constitutions and for a new ethical framework for local government. The proposals for the new ethical framework include introducing new statutory codes of conduct together with an enforcement regime involving independent investigation of alleged unethical conduct.

  Councillors
  Mrs. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will issue guidance on the circumstances in which a councillor, applying for a discretionary grant from his or her council, may lobby other councillors to vote in favour of that grant.
  [84920]

  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will issue guidance on the circumstances in which a councillor applying for a discretionary grant to his or her council may put that matter before a meeting of the council for decision. [84922]

  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will issue guidance on the circumstances in which a councillor who has a personal(a) pecuniary and (b) non-pecuniary interest in a matter before his or her council may put a proposal to the council relating to that matter. [84919]

  Ms Armstrong
  The National Code of Local Government Conduct, published in April 1990, provides guidance to members of local authorities on their conduct, including on the disclosure of pecuniary and other interests, and on dealings with the council. It makes clear that the statutory requirements on disclosure of interests must be scrupulously observed at all times, and that councillors should never seek or accept preferential treatment in their dealings with the council because of their position as a councillor.

  In March 1999 we published detailed proposals (Cm4298), including a draft Bill, for a new ethical framework for local government including introducing new statutory codes of conduct which will be rigorously applied through an enforcement regime involving independent investigation of alleged unethical conduct.

  Siobhain McDonagh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will issue guidance on the circumstances in which the leader of a council can be regarded as acting on behalf of that council. [84923]
  473
  Ms Armstrong
  There are currently no legal powers for a single councillor to act on behalf of their council.

  In March 1999 we published detailed proposals (Cm 4298), including a draft Bill, for councils to adopt new constitutions, including decision making structures where an executive mayor or other councillors could act on behalf of the council. In parallel with the new constitutions we are proposing a new ethical framework for local government, which includes each council adopting a statutory code of conduct for councillors reflecting the particular decision making structure of its new constitution.

  Judy Mallaber
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will issue guidance on the circumstances in which political considerations can be the prime motivating factor for a decision taken by members of a local authority. [84921]

  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will issue guidance on the circumstances in which it would be permitted for electoral advantage to be the motivation behind a local authority decision. [84917]

  Ms Armstrong
  It is the responsibility of each local authority to satisfy itself as to the legality of its actions. Local authorities, like other public bodies, are subject to the requirements of administrative law. They may not act illegally, irrationally or with procedural impropriety, and hence their decisions must be made taking account of only considerations which a Court would judge relevant.

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will issue guidance on the circumstances in which legal advice can act as authority for a course of conduct by a local authority. [84916]

  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will issue guidance on the circumstances, when legal advice has been taken based on incomplete instructions, in which a local authority may act on the basis of that advice. [84918]

  Ms Armstrong
  It is the responsibility of each council to satisfy itself as to the legality of its actions.

  Tree Preservation Orders
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many appeals against refusal by local councils of consent to fell trees under the protection of tree preservation orders have been made since May 1997. [84911]

  Mr. Meale
  My Department has received 1,174 appeals between 1 May 1997 and 31 March 1999 against local councils' refusals of consent to carry out felling or other works on trees under the protection of tree preservation orders or against their failure to determine such applications.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many decisions by inspectors to allow consent to fell trees under tree preservation orders he has overturned since May 1997. [84912]
  474
  Mr. Meale
  None. The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions decides himself appeals against local councils' refusal of consent to fell protected trees. Inspectors are involved (a) when the appellant requests a Hearing or Public Inquiry or (b) when the appeal raises technical or arboricultural issues. However, in all cases, the Secretary of State makes the final decision, having regard to the Inspector's advice.

  Floods (South Lakeland)
  Mrs. Humble
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will provide financial assistance to South Lakeland District Council under the Bellwin scheme for costs incurred following the severe flooding over 5 and 6 January. [85311]

  Mr. Meale
  I am satisfied that financial assistance under the Bellwin scheme is justified in the case of South Lakeland District Council given the exceptional nature of the floods and the damage caused. A scheme will, therefore, be established under section 155 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. Grant will be paid to the authority to cover 85 per cent. of the eligible costs above a threshold which have been incurred by the authority in dealing with the flooding.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  New Deal (Young People)
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how many firms with fewer than(a) 250, (b) 100, (c) 50 and (d) 10 employees have received a subsidy for taking on a trainee under the New Deal for Young People; [84928]

  (2) how many firms in the engineering sector have (a) taken on one or more trainees and (b) received a subsidy for taking on a trainee, under the New Deal for Young People; [84924]

  (3) how many firms in the retail sector have (a) taken on one or more trainees and (b) received a subsidy for taking on a trainee, under the New Deal for Young People; [84927]

  (4) how many firms in the leisure sector have (a) taken on one or more trainees and (b) received a subsidy for taking on trainees, under the New Deal for Young People. [84925]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The existing Employment Service systems unfortunately do not allow us to monitor the number of starts on the Employment Option by employer. The Employment Service has commissioned its IT supplier to develop an employer database to provide this information.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his answer of 4 May 1999,Official Report, column 369, if he will be using (a) off-flows and (b) an absolute fall in the unemployment count in the target category to measure the Government's progress against the New Deal pledge target of moving 250,000 people from welfare to work. [84566]
  475
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Neither on its own is sufficient as a measure of the Government's success in meeting its New Deal target, since that target relates specifically to helping young people into work as well as off welfare. Details of the number of 18 to 24-year-olds taking up jobs from the New Deal are published each month in the "New Deal for Young People and Long-Term Unemployed People Aged 25+ Statistical First Release", prepared by the Government Statistical Service.

  New Deal (Advisers)
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many advisers who are employed on the New Deal Gateway scheme possess(a) a certificate as a qualified social worker and (b) an equivalent credential; and if he will make a statement. [84967]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Employment Service does not collect information of this nature about its staff.

  Rainsford School, Chelmsford
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his answer of 19 April 1999,Official Report, column 444, when he expects to reach a decision on the appeal made by Rainsford School, Chelmsford, against the direction by Essex County Council to admit a pupil, whose name has been supplied to his Department. [84787]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  We asked Essex Local Education Authority to provide further details on this pupil and their handling of the direction process, along with full information about alternative local schools, by Monday 15 March. Unfortunately, not all the information was received by this deadline. The LEA has provided the Department with some additional material, but the LEA has been contacted by my officials to obtain the remaining essential facts about the case, before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State can make a decision. This he hopes to do very soon after this remaining information is received.

  Community Schools
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment from what date community schools will be entitled to choose to move to foundation status. [85036]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Regulations will enable community schools to publish statutory proposals to move to the foundation category from 1 September 2000.

  Modern Apprenticeships
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many NVQ Level 3s have been accredited since 1 September 1998; what is his estimate of the number of small and medium businesses which no longer have their preferred NVQ available to them for modern apprenticeships; and if he will make a statement. [84564]
  476
  Mr. Mudie
  The total number of Level 3 NVQs accredited by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority during the period 1 September 1998 to 10 May 1999 is 101.

  The information on small and medium firms is not available.

  Wirral Metropolitan College
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what response he plans to make to the conclusion of the FEFC Inspection report of Wirral Metropolitan College that the Remuneration Committee had not complied with its terms of reference when it recommended the early retirement package for the outgoing Principal. [84540]

  Mr. Mudie
  The terms of reference of the remuneration committee of Wirral Metropolitan College seek to ensure that rewards are commensurate with performance. The package for the Principal was agreed in January 1999. In March 1999 the Governors were informed that the FEFC inspection of the college had concluded that there were significant weaknesses in the management of the college. The inspectors considered that the Governors should have been aware of those weaknesses at the time of considering the early retirement of the Principal. The FEFC has been asked by the Department to remind all colleges that, in considering any compensation for early retirement of senior staff, Governors should take into account the performance of the individual concerned.

  Parliamentary Democracy
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what measures he has put in place to develop the involvement of young people in the working of parliamentary democracy. [84740]

  Mr. Mudie
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment published proposals on 13 May for consultation as part of the review of the National Curriculum on a framework for citizenship education in schools. This includes knowledge about the working of parliamentary democracy.

  We have this year, in conjunction with the DETR, run the Children's Parliament on the Environment involving 10 and 11-year-old pupils from schools across the country. This has provided all pupils involved with an opportunity to develop an understanding of, and take an active role in, the democratic process.

  The Department gives grant to the British Youth Council, a national voluntary youth organisation, for work to promote the informal personal and social education of young people. The British Youth Council holds regular Youth and Parliament days to raise young peoples' awareness of parliamentary and democratic procedures.

  Upland Communities
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures he has taken to assist the economies of the upland communities; and if he will make a statement. [84297]
  477
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  Upland communities have distinct needs and face particular challenges. The rural dimension is an important consideration of all polices and programmes affecting these areas.

  Specific measures to assist upland communities include the major financial aid package announced by the Government last November which was worth more than £21 million to farmers in Wales. It included approximately £15 million for the 1999 Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowances (HLCA) Scheme. This meant an increase of about 55 per cent. across all the HLCA rates. Over 90 per cent. of 1999 claims were paid by the end of April.

  On 6 April, the Secretary of State for Wales launched a consultation paper on how HLCAs should be reformed in the wake of the agreement on Common Agriculture Policy reform. The results of that consultation will inform the National Assembly for Wales' consideration of how best to meet the needs of farming communities in the hills and uplands of Wales when responsibility for agriculture and rural affairs is transferred to it on 1 July 1999.

  Heroin
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on his measures to tackle heroin addiction. [84298]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  The Welsh Drug and Alcohol Strategy, 'Forward Together' aims to prevent the misuse of drugs and alcohol, particularly among younger people; and provide treatment, support and rehabilitation for those misusing drugs and alcohol.

  The Department has established the Welsh Drug and Alcohol Unit to provide advice and support to professionals working in the field of drug and alcohol misuse, including those working with heroin users. It has funded the provision and distribution of free, bilingual, prevention resources for every age group in Wales,
  478
  covering alcohol and a range of drugs, including heroin. In response to the concern over the increasing use of heroin the Department funded the production of a specific heroin prevention resource, 'Brown'.

  Through the 'Delivering Care, Meeting Need' initiative the Department is supporting two projects involving supervised self administration of methadone in community pharmacies in Dyfed Powys Health Authority and North Wales Health Authority. These projects should provide support to drug misusers while reducing the leakage of prescribed methadone.

  The Department supports residential services to provide treatment and rehabilitation for drug and alcohol misusers. In 1999–2000 £1.5 million is being made available through a new scheme to improve access to treatment in areas of greatest need.

  The UK Anti-Drugs Strategy recognises that all drugs are harmful and enforcement against illegal substances will continue. It will focus on those that cause the greatest damage, including heroin and cocaine. This will be reflected in the Welsh Strategy which is being refocused to reflect many of the key elements in the UK Anti-Drugs Strategy.

  Following the transfer of functions, this will be a matter for the National Assembly.

  Planning
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what initiatives he has taken to improve planning appeal procedures; and if he will make a statement. [84294]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Stewart) by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning on 31 March 1999,Official Report, column 762.

  Following the transfer of functions, this issue will be a matter for the National Assembly.

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

Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 11 a.m. my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on biotechnology. It is likely that the Statement will be taken after the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, in the first debate.

Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty Bill [H.L.]
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Perhaps I may start by reminding noble Lords of my interest as chairman of the Sussex Downs Conservation Board, in succession to the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, whom I am delighted to see in his place. I should also like to thank Mr. Ollard, from the Public Bills Office; John Godfrey and Paul Amis, from West Sussex County Council; Ray Woolmore and Lynette Leeson, from the Countryside Agency, and our Sussex Downs officer, Martin Beaton, for the great help that they have given me in the preparation of this Bill. The hard work has been theirs. The errors of omission and commission have been mine.
Bill Bryson, in his well-received book on his last walking tour round England, wrote of his movement out of Broadway, that lovely town in the Cotswolds, on to the Cotswold Way. He wrote as follows:
"The view from the top over the broad Vale of Evesham was, as always from such points, sensational—gently undulating trapezoids of farmland rolling off to a haze of distant wooded hills. Britain still has more landscape that looks like an illustration from a children's story book than any other country I know—a remarkable achievement in such a densely crowded and industrially minded little island … It is easy to forget, in a landscape so timeless and fetching, so companionably rooted to an ancient past, how easily it is lost. The panorama before me incorporated electricity pylons, scattered housing estates and the distant sunny glints of cash and carry warehouses".
Those sentences are in a sense a paradigm of the difficulties as regards some AONBs today, where necessary social and economic growth has to run parallel with necessary conservation.
The rationale for this Bill is that the national parks Act of 1949 designated areas of outstanding natural beauty but it left no one responsible for their management or funding. Consequently, over the past 50 years voluntary ad hoc bodies have sprung up which are concerned, and properly so, with their local AONB. Of those, we, the Sussex Downs board, are probably the
538
most formal: a joint committee formed seven years ago by the local authorities and the Countryside Commission. Our original brief was for six years. Thanks to the work of the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, that was extended for another three. But even in that time our funding from the Countryside Commission was reduced and that of the local authorities was held at the old level. The board of which I am chairman will expire in April 2001.
Such short-term voluntary arrangements cannot be suitable for the positive and constructive development of landscape management. Working as we do with local farmers, for example, to remove 50 year-old scrub from a chalk escarpment, help them return it to grass, re-introduce South Downs sheep, get an ESA grant in the process, and perhaps a stewardship grant for access, requires a long-term view, a long-term plan and long-term funding.
I came to the conclusion that the present legislation was inadequate. I decided to introduce a Bill that confirmed the landscape qualities of national parks and AONBs as equivalent and that the policies for their protection against inappropriate development were in place. I have built on clauses drafted by the Countryside Agency which it placed before government more than a year ago. So far—and I know that the noble Baroness who is to reply will bear this in mind—neither we nor the agency have received any positive response. We had a promise, first, of a reply "very soon"; then a reply of "soon"; and my most recent letter from Mr. Meacher, the Environment Minister—a friendly letter—assures me that these matters are receiving "continuing consideration".
My Bill has three prime objectives. The first is to enable—that word is important—the establishment of statutory conservation boards. But that is done on an "opt-in" basis. It is not compulsory. It happens where the Countryside Agency, English Nature and the elected local authorities recommend to the Secretary of State that they want this done. It will be done on an à la carte basis; each will be considered on its merits, each individual conservation board perhaps having somewhat different powers and composition appropriate to its area. That is a point that is not fully understood in the briefing put out by the National Farmers' Union.
The second objective is to provide secure funding from central and local government. The third and most complex is to strengthen the protection given by the planning system. The second point, which is very important, is dealt with in Clause 3 of the Bill. New Section 88D gives the AONB conservation board the same legal powers relating to funding as those that apply to national parks. Subsection (1) gives AONB conservation boards the power to levy local authorities for their contribution. Subsection (2) gives the Secretary of State power to make a grant.
In practice, I believe that a conservation board will follow the same procedures as a national park and will prepare a five-year corporate financial plan. That plan will be approved by the Secretary of State of the Department of the Environment, who will also approve the authority's budget annually. In approving the budget

539
the Secretary of State will determine the level of grant to be provided by the Government, which is currently 75 per cent. in the case of a national park, and the local authorities will provide the balance of funding. The AONB conservation board will have power to levy the local authorities for the balance of 25 per cent.
Dealing with the third point, planning is covered in detail in new Section 88C. Your Lordships will be relieved to know that I do not intend to go into all of the detail at this moment, but I hope that we shall do so at Committee stage. In general terms every conservation board will prepare an AONB management plan, and I certainly envisage public consultation in that process. Under Clause 4 the conservation board will be a statutory consultee in relation to development plans for AONBs but it will not be the sole planning authority. I suggest that this lies at the heart of the difference between super-conservation boards—a term that has become used in the local press in Sussex—and national parks. They are the sole planning authority. I believe that it would be not only a remote but an inefficient, expensive and unpopular bureaucracy if the South Downs AONB, which stretches nearly 100 miles from Winchester to Eastbourne and covers 16 local authorities, was the sole body responsible for development control throughout that area, where the 16 other local authorities would remain responsible for development in their particular areas not within the AONB. I believe that that would be an extraordinary additional piece of bureaucracy.
The same comment applies to the Chilterns AONB, which has four counties, and the Cotswold AONB, which has five counties and two unitary authorities in it. But the statutory consultee on development matters would be of vital importance in defending areas from major development threats, such as the plan to build 1,150 new homes in an AONB near High Wycombe. The statutory management plan would be of use in containing and managing pressures of tourism on famous and popular Cotswold villages and walking routes such as the Cotswold Way which I mentioned at the beginning.
Finally on planning matters, new Section 77(3A) in Clause 4 in effect requires the Secretary of State to call in a planning application if the conservation board decides, in view of its significance, to refer it to the Secretary of State. From experience with my board, I consider that to be necessary and that is why I put it in the Bill. But I appreciate that it is a step too far in the thinking of some local authorities. I hope therefore that it will be considered in detail at Committee stage, although I would welcome amendments.
The Bill has brought general support from a number of organisations and public bodies, for example the English Sports Council, the Association of AONBs and, in my own area, the Society of Sussex Downsmen. Others have criticised it. There are those who very firmly believe that at least in the case of the South Downs a national park is necessary and that the Bill does not go far enough because it is not the sole planning authority at development control level. Others, for example the CLA, may think that it goes too far.
540
Perhaps this means that my Bill has got it about right, but from my experience of the conservation board I say to those who fear that it goes too far that we are not a distant, remote imposing body. For example, we work with farmers only when they want us to find positive solutions to land management problems.
We seek opportunities for more quiet enjoyment of the Downs, for example by promoting our scheme Take Your Bus For a Walk through leaflets distributed in places like Brighton. We are rooted in the local authorities, not imposed on top of them. For example, 24 of the 36 members of my board come from local authorities. But our experience has shown the need for greater co-ordination of planning and management policies in a multi-authority AONB, and that can be done only by new legislation. This is a probing Bill and its purpose is not only to put forward a format for super-conservation boards but also to get the Government to reveal their intentions. I very much hope that in replying to the debate the Minister will be able to give us a hint of that.
The current position of AONBs was very well summed up in the words of the Countryside Agency in one of its leaflets:
"Perhaps most vulnerable of all are not the wild high places but the gentle smaller scale landscapes of England and Wales, hedgerows, spinneys and bluebell woods: heath, marsh and meadows".
That is us. What will the Government do? I hope that we shall hear something about that today.
Finally, perhaps I may suggest to the Minister that if there is no time for a major countryside Bill in the 1999–2000 Session, as we are now being told by the spin doctors, why not introduce a short, specialised protected areas Bill dealing just with the AONBs and the sites of special scientific interest? It would be an important step forward for our environment in the new millennium. As a former Chief Whip I should do my utmost to see that it received all-party support.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Renton of Mount Harry.)
11.20 a.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, the next time your Lordships re-read John Keats' long poem, Endymion, perhaps I may invite you to give special attention to the opening lines, where he writes,
"A thing of beauty is a joy for ever: Its loveliness increases; it will never Pass into nothingness",
because with all respect to the great poet, that is rubbish, is it not? A thing of beauty, especially a beautiful landscape, will rapidly deteriorate into a wreck, an eyesore or a tip unless it is guarded, defended and saved harmless by those who care about beauty in our environment and protect landscapes from inappropriate industrial and commercial exploitation. The Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, does just that. I welcome it, and I hope that the whole House will welcome it and give it a fair wind.
I declare, proudly, a long-term non-financial interest as one of the vice-presidents of the Council for National Parks which for half a century has worked to protect our

541
countryside from everything that might harm it. There is no conflict of any kind between the national parks and the areas of outstanding natural beauty. They were indeed begotten together in the 1949 National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act, and each was given such standards, status and safeguards as seemed at that time appropriate to them. AONBs were generally smaller and more numerous, but there was not, is not and never will be any sense of the national parks being first-class citizens and the AONBs second-class citizens. I cannot emphasise too strongly that AONBs and national parks have developed contentedly side by side for 50 years without envy, hatred, malice or any uncharitableness.
For reasons which no doubt at the time seemed sufficient, the 1949 Act failed to make anyone statutorily responsible for AONBs. Unlike the national parks they have no guaranteed source of funding. The welcome Bill of the noble, Lord Renton, proposes that local authorities should have a legal responsibility for the conservation and management of AONBs, which they might, if they wish, discharge through formally constituted conservation boards. This is good. The Bill also places on local authorities a duty to contribute to their cost. This is better. And it gives the Secretary of State power to contribute as well. This is best of all. The CNF' welcomes these proposals, and looks forward to working with the new conservation boards, which can make a considerable contribution to safeguarding the countryside.
But lest it should ever be thought that the sun is shining, God's in his heaven and all's right with the world, perhaps I may draw your Lordships' attention to a few matters in which I consider that this excellent Bill is still capable of improvement. The most important is probably the omission, to which the Country Landowners' Association has drawn attention, of any mention of the social and economic characteristics of the AONBs. People live and work there. Economic and social considerations need to be just as much in the foreground in AONBs as in any other rural areas. Perhaps the Bill might be improved if it were to include a duty on local authorities and conservation boards to foster the economic and social well-being of local communities in AONBs, on the model of Section 62 of the 1995 Environment Act.
Might it not also be wise to reconsider the Bill's proposal that conservation boards should have compulsory purchase powers? Local authorities already have considerable powers in that area, and it is always a sensitive and contentious issue. I find myself agreeing with the CLA that no convincing case has yet been made for such a power, and the time is not ripe for doing something which it is not clearly necessary to do. It would be a work of supererogation, like over-egging the pudding, or taking a steam hammer to split a dried pea.
It might also improve the Bill if there were to be proper provision on the face of the Bill for public consultation over the proposed management plans. To do so would add a pleasing touch of transparency to the process, and encourage as many interested people as possible to participate in the consideration of matters which, in many cases, would be sharply relevant to their concerns.
542
AONBs have unquestionably proved their value since 1949, and the Bill of the noble Lord. Lord Renton, recognises their achievement. But, in the AONB nest, there is still one huge cuckoo, one anomaly, which has never been satisfactorily resolved. The noble Lord referred to it, and so shall I. Unfortunately, the Bill is sadly silent on the question of the South Downs.
The two adjacent areas, East Hampshire and the Sussex Downs, were first proposed as a national park as long ago as 1929 by the CPRE. It was 30 years later that East Hampshire was granted AONB status, and a further four years elapsed before the Sussex Downs made the grade. Yet in 1947 the Hobhouse Report had recommended national park status for the South Downs., and the Council for National Parks supported that recommendation then, and has continued to support it consistently and unwaveringly ever since. We have done so for three reasons. First, the South Downs have been subjected for decades to unrelenting development pressure on a par with that experienced by any one of the national parks, most of which lie in upland areas and, further away from major conurbations. One has only to mention Twyford Down and the titanic struggle over the major road scheme there to realise the difficulties that have had to be faced. The demands on space made by the ever-expanding coastal towns have eaten up swathes of downs, and "as we speak" there are proposals to establish a major development in a disused chalk quarry. It is the serious, informed opinion of the South Downs Campaign Group that AONB status has done nothing to protect the downs from these developments. I quote from one of its submissions which states:
"All Planning decisions affecting the South Downs have remained in the hands of thirteen (now twelve) different local authorities, each with its own priorities and agendas".
Secondly, in size, extent and complexity of administration the South Downs cover an area of 1,375 square kilometres, which is almost the same as the Brecon Beacons and larger than four of the existing national parks. It is estimated that there are 32 million leisure visits to the South Downs every year, while the most visited of the national parks, the Peak District (and I declare an interest there because I live in it) has 22 million visits per year.
Thirdly, for the past 49 years it has been generally talked of in and around the South Downs as if it were a national park. Very many people think that it is. Only those who have to administer and defend it know (all too painfully) that it is not. In 1959, the then Minister for Town and Country Planning said:
"Now at last we shall be able to see that the mountains of Snowdonia, the lakes and the waters of the Broads, the moors and dales of the Peak, the South Downs and the tors of the West County belong to the people as a right and not as a concession".—[Official Report, Commons, 31/3/59; col. 1493.]
It is somewhat rhetorical, perhaps a bit Old Labour, but it makes the point.
If it were possible, we should like to see the South Downs AONBs excepted from the Bill in some way. It is surely not beyond the wit of man or the wisdom of a parliamentary draftsman to redesignate the South Downs as a national park. They need that defence. As we read in PPG7, which I am sure is never far from

543
your Lordships' bedsides, the Government regard national park designation as conferring the highest status of protection as far as landscape and scenic beauty are concerned.
Finally, perhaps I may ask my noble friend whether in winding up she can enlighten me by telling me and your Lordships how many AONBs there are in England. The Countryside Agency, the new statutory body with responsibility for advising government on issues relating to the environmental, economic and social well-being of the English countryside, states boldly, baldly and confidently that there are 37 AONBs in England. On the other hand, the Country Landowners' Association informs me in writing that there are currently 40 in England and Wales; 35 wholly in England, four wholly in Wales and one on the border in the Wye Valley. Somewhere, somehow someone has lost two AONBs. Perhaps I may adopt and adapt the words of Mr. Oscar Wilde: to lose one AONB may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose two looks like carelessness.
11.31 a.m.
Lord Jopling: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry on instigating this general debate on AONBs on the back of his Bill. I have a great interest in the subject because in a previous incarnation in another place I represented parts of two national parks and part of one area of outstanding natural beauty.
I begin by referring to the entertaining speech of the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris. I wrote down his comment that national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty have existed without malice for all these years. However, I invite him to come to the north of England. I have been criticised by my former constituents for being much too friendly to national parks and their organisations; I have also been criticised by national park authorities for having on occasions been extremely rude about them. I always describe the two national parks, part of which I represented, as the Lake District National Park, which was on the whole tolerated by the people who lived in it, and the Yorkshire Dales National Park. which was generally loathed by the people who lived in it. Therefore, I suggest to the noble Lord that he might reconsider his comments. I have always tried to encourage those who manage national parks to create a better feeling among the people who live in them.
My noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry referred at the end of his speech to the fact that he is a former Chief Whip. I hope that he will not mind that, having fulfilled a similar role, I begin by commenting on the parliamentary procedures for Bills of this kind. He will know that, given the rules in another place, his Bill can get on to the statute book only if no one says a single word on the subject and the whole Bill goes through another place entirely on the nod. I do not want to debate how many national parks and AONBs we have—let us settle for 40—but there must be many Members of another place who have a great interest in the subject. Frankly, they will not allow the Bill to go through without a single word being spoken.
544
Five or six years ago a Bill was introduced in this House dealing with the administration of the national parks. As I was the Member of Parliament representing parts of two, I made it clear that I was not going to have that Bill go through another place without saying a single word. The same will apply to this Bill. It may be that our procedures need to be examined, but that is a different matter. There is a concern that many people do not recognise the procedural niceties and assume that the Bill is a serious contender for legislation this year. Of course, it is not.
Secondly, I turn to AONBs in general and return to a point I made earlier with regard to the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Morris, that there was no malice about them. I remember when a new AONB was proposed in my constituency in Cumbria at the top end of the Eden Valley. There was massive opposition not only from the Country Landowners' Association and the NFU, but from a whole raft of local organisations. It took a great deal of negotiation and trimming of the legislation and the area defined in order to obtain widespread agreement. To try to impose new rules on the countryside, which will probably be onerous on the people who live in there is not sensible, given the current major crisis in the farming industry, particularly in areas where the land is not of the best quality. The greatest difficulties are being experienced in those areas at the moment.
I do not want to speak for too long, but I should like to turn to a number of matters in the Bill. As A.P. Herbert said on one occasion, I know nothing about agriculture. Although I am a farmer and a former Minister of Agriculture, I am afraid that I have no knowledge whatever of the Sussex Downs Conservation Board or much knowledge about the area it covers. However, I am particularly concerned about the Bill and the reaction that it has brought from the Country Landowners' Association, of which I am a member. am also a member of the National Farmers Union.
I am especially concerned about the association's principal anxiety, which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Morris. It states:
"We strongly suggest that the Bill should include a duty on local authorities and conservation boards to foster the economic and social wellbeing of local community in the AONBs".
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Morris, that that should be included in the Bill. He made a very constructive comment because there is a great lack of understanding among the urban population in Britain that the countryside is the workplace of a huge number of people and should therefore be respected.
I turn to another issue which is important and which was also referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Morris: the great objection of the Country Landowners' Association to the suggestion that compulsory purchase powers should be made available to the boards. I first came to this building 35 years ago, to the other place, and I remember being enthusiastic about compulsory powers for boards of this kind. I remember a previous Labour government introducing the rural development boards. I also remember the North Pennines Rural Development Board, in my old constituency, being given such powers.

545
I remember making speeches when the board was first formed, suggesting that that may be a good thing in certain circumstances.
However, I have totally changed my mind. I see no need for, and I see no great advantage in, powers of compulsory purchase being given to such boards and organisations. I believe that at all costs that provision must be removed from the Bill. I am strongly opposed to it altogether.
In opening the debate, my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry talked about the landscapes of national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty being equivalent. In some ways, that is true. However, I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, is to follow me and the other day I heard him make a speech in which he implied that private ownership of land, whether in areas like these or elsewhere, was not a good thing and that it was, to use the current "in" phrase of the new Government, the "people's land". I believe that is the view that he was trying to convey, and I reject that view absolutely.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for giving way. On that point, I think he misheard me. I do not regard the landscapes of AONBs and national parks as equivalent. I was asking that in law they should be clearly given equivalent protection, a point that the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, took up and agreed with. I believe that there should be equivalent protection in law, but I do not believe that in terms of scenic value or remoteness or population they are equivalent.
Lord Jopling: My Lords, I was about to turn to that point and say that I do not agree with that view. I believe that areas of outstanding natural beauty should have considerably looser protection than the national parks which are our prime scenic, cultural and environmental honey-pots. I do not agree that the AONBs should have equivalent powers of protection.
On that rather unhappy note, I think that I have said enough. I believe that is the first time for a long time that my noble friend, Lord Renton and I have disagreed. I simply question whether there is any great point in moving into Committee on this Bill. To have a general debate on AONBs is extremely useful, but to make amendments to a Bill which, clearly, will never get on to the statute book may be a waste of everybody's time.
11.42 a.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I congratulate my old, personal friend—not my political friend—the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, on introducing this Bill, even though I am a little puzzled by it. I wonder whether it is a Bill about how we should run AONBs in future or whether it is a Bill about the Sussex Downs. Perhaps it falls between the two.
The noble Lord has a particular interest in the South Downs. In so far as the Bill is about the South Downs, it is suitable that he should introduce it. His very title comes from the Downs. Most noble Lords who will speak today on the South Downs part of the Bill will
546
probably know Rudyard Kipling's mnemonic about them. I do not believe that this is one of his best poems, although he was, in my view, a great poet. The poem states:
"The Weald is good, the Downs are best—I'll give you the run of 'em, East to West. Beachy Head and Winddoor Hill, They were once and they are still. Firle, Mount Caburn and Mount Harry Go back as far as sums'll carry".
Then it lists the various Downs ending with the words:
"And when you end on the Hampshire side—Butser's old as Time and Tide. The Downs are sheep, the Weald is corn, You be glad you are Sussex born!"
Noble Lords who are Sussex born may be glad of the fact, but I am afraid that it is no longer true that "the Downs are sheep" and "the Weald is corn".
I declare an interest in that I also am a vice-president of the Council for National Parks, along with the noble Lord, Lord Morris, and other noble Lords who will speak in the debate. Two areas that it has been suggested may become, over a period of time, national parks, are the New Forest and the South Downs. I am the first to suggest that the New Forest is not suitable to become an orthodox national park. The historical and common land arrangements are too complex. However, I see no reason why the South Downs should riot be a straightforward national park. I speak, not with the advice of or on behalf of the Council for National Parks, but merely as someone who has taken a great interest in them.
However, granted that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, decided to be more ambitious and to provide a framework for AONBs as a whole, I wish the Bill well, although I doubt, as the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, has suggested, that it will be allowed to live very long. I disagree with him about it going into Committee. In Committee I believe that we would be able to work out a large number of problems which need to be worked out, whatever happens in regard to future AONBS or future national parks. It would be time well spent, and rather more well spent than some time recently spent in your Lordship's House.
In the meantime, I agree with those who have said that we must try to improve the Bill. I am quite interested in the idea of the representation of owners on boards, as happens in the Broads. The noble Lord, Lord Jopling, quoted my remarks about ownership of land. Let me make my position quite clear. The land belongs to God, and under God to the Queen. As it belongs to the Queen, it belongs to the community and I believe that individual ownership comes below that in the hierarchy. Owners are really stewards rather than owners.
I too query the power to acquire land compulsorily. I have not heard that being defended and I do not have the faintest idea why it is in the Bill. II: does not seem to me to be necessary.
It is good that we are discussing the AONB s and the Sussex Downs as I am most fond of them. I hope that we shall go on to discuss the Bill in Committee, but in the meantime, I give the Bill a limited and slightly puzzled welcome.
11.48 a.m.
Lord Kimball: My Lords, I must declare an interest. I live in a area of outstanding natural beauty and, like my noble friend Lord Jopling, in another place I represented a major part of one of the most successful areas of outstanding natural beauty in the country, the Lincolnshire wolds. In that area there is an efficient farming community, the excellent diversification of redundant farm buildings and the co-operation of all the Conservative controlled local authorities in the area.
Whatever concern we may express about the Bill, I am certain that we shall all want to pay a sincere tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, for the work that he has done on the Sussex Downs. It is that excellent work that has made everybody want to proceed further. I suggest that when the noble Baroness winds up the debate she could lay to rest a lot of the concerns expressed today if she said that the necessary finance will be made available so that the current arrangement of the Sussex Downs Conservation Board can continue to be run as it has so successfully been run.
The difficulty with this Bill is that it extends what has been a success as a local measure to all areas of outstanding natural beauty and not just to the Sussex Downs. Some noble Lords may have had the opportunity to read the June edition of Field with its comment that the old threat of nationalisation of the ownership of land seems to have been replaced by,
"a gradual move to actual nationalisation of the use of land".
Forty-four per cent of all the land in England and Wales is now covered by one of the following: there are 40 AONBs: there are SSSIs; there are nitrate vulnerable zones; there are green belts, national parks and the land owned by the National Trust. And that is not all. There are some exciting new entrants coming into this field: special protection areas are just around the corner along with special areas of conservation.
And the awful thing is that countryside officers in various guises now outnumber farmers, farm workers and foresters. The offending officers do not understand the "living landscape approach" under which the English countryside has developed. I see that reflected in Clause 1 of the Bill in which it takes powers,
"safeguarding such areas from intrusive development".
What constitutes "intrusive"? It is a presumption against change and it does not serve the rural community. Diversification is the way that the countryside is going to develop and I believe that this Bill does not give sufficient consideration to the economic and social attributes that must function in areas of outstanding natural beauty.
We must get away from this chocolate box approach to the English landscape. People have to manage farms and forests. In that area, we have to have manufacturing and service industries. The diversification of activities is what keeps an area of outstanding natural beauty alive.
Many of us will want to table a large number of amendments to this Bill. It is important that, as it is a probing measure, my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry realises that we will want to discuss in depth a duty on the boards to foster economic and social
548
welfare; representation on the boards for owners and land managers; and, as my noble friend Lord Jopling said, we will certainly press for the removal of the compulsory purchase powers. I do not know why they are in this Bill. They are quite unnecessary. We will also be expressing grave concern about this jurisdiction over adjacent areas.
I see a case for over 20 amendments to this Bill. I hope that in considering it my noble friend Lord Renton will realise that we need a great deal more time in the various stages. Perhaps with that warning, the newly fledged Countryside Commission may well want to pause and not encourage one of its most favourite children to rush forward for this well-meaning and unnecessary legislation. The sensible voluntary approach can still work, if only those who have to administer the system know that they cannot just rush to Westminster and legislate about things.

Biotechnology
11.53 a.m.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, I should like to repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office. The Statement is as follows:
"Biotechnology is an important and exciting area of scientific advance which offers enormous opportunities for improving our quality of life. In healthcare, biotechnology has already helped to develop better treatments for diseases, such as multiple sclerosis, heart disease and diabetes. It is also helping the environment through techniques such as bioremediation, which assisted the clean-up of beaches following the 'Sea Empress' oil spill in December 1996. In agriculture, genetic modification has the potential to produce food more efficiently, which is more nutritious, tastes better and uses fewer pesticides. This is just the start.
"There are many real and exciting benefits and potential benefits. But this is new technology and the risks must be rigorously assessed. The Government recognise the considerable public concern about the safety of genetically modified food and crops. Our overriding duty is to protect the public and the environment. We must continue to ensure that the controls we have in place are sound and that they command public confidence.
"That is why the Prime Minister established a new Cabinet Committee on biotechnology last autumn. It is why the first decision of the committee in December was to carry out a review of the regulatory framework to ensure it was rigorous, as transparent as possible and able to cope with so fast-moving a technology. We invited a wide range of interested bodies to give us their views, including the Select Committees of this House.

549
"It is also why we thought it essential to seek the views of the public through the public consultation on the biosciences. It is why we commissioned a report from the Chief Medical Officer and Chief Scientific Adviser on the public health implications of genetically modified food. All three reports are published today.
"My colleagues, the Minister for the Environment and the Minister for Food Safety, have also been in discussion with the industry over the past year to ensure that the cultivation of genetically modified crops in this country is effectively managed. We are today also endorsing guidelines for the cultivation of these crops.
"The review has found that the existing system of careful, case-by-case assessment of new biotechnology products and processes is an essential component of our regulatory system. But there are persuasive arguments for strengthening the system by adding new strategic commissions to take a broader, long-term view of developments in the technology.
"We will therefore set up two new advisory bodies: the Human Genetics Commission which will advise us on applications of biotechnology in healthcare and the impact of human genetics on our lives; and the Agricultural and Environment Biotechnology Commission which will cover the use of biotechnology in agriculture and its environmental effects. Working alongside the Food Standards Agency, which will soon take on responsibility for genetically modified foods, these new bodies will have wide-ranging remits, advising Ministers on likely future developments in the technology and addressing broader issues such as ethical considerations.
"The members of the new commissions will be drawn from a broad range of interests: those with expertise of consumer issues and ethics, for example, will sit alongside scientists. The commissions will also consult widely with the public and stakeholders when carrying out their work.
"One of the main findings of our consultation exercises was that the regulatory system should be made more transparent. We agree, and our report published today includes guidelines on transparency which all committees involved in biotechnology, including the new commissions, will be required to follow. We are confident that with these changes we will have a system for regulating biotechnology which is rigorous and open and which will safeguard the public interest.
"In their report on genetically modified foods and public health the Chief Medical Officer (Professor Liam Donaldson) and the Chief Scientific Adviser (Sir Robert May) conclude:
'Many of the issues raised by foods resulting from genetic modification arc equally applicable to foods produced by conventional means'.
They go on:
"There is no current evidence to suggest that the genetically modified technologies used to produce food are inherently harmful'.
550
They further report:
'We are reassured by the precautionary nature and rigour of the current procedures used to assess the safety of individual genetically modified foods'.
"They emphasise that there is a need to keep a close watch on developments and to continue to fund research to improve scientific understanding in this area. Both the Government and our advisory committees will continue to do this. They encourage us to take moves to improve the openness of the regulatory procedures to public scrutiny. This we are doing today.
"They recommend that consideration should be given to the establishment of a national surveillance unit to monitor population health aspects of genetically modified and other types of novel foods. The Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes is already discussing how this might be done. The Ministerial committee will review progress on this in the autumn.
"The Government have been working with environmentalists and the biotechnology industry to ensure that the first farm-scale plantings of genetically modified crops in Britain are carefully managed. That is why we have embarked on a programme of evaluations which are being rigorously undertaken to secure thorough and reliable evidence on whether or not they cause damage to the environment. Unrestricted commercial cultivation of any crop will not proceed until we are satisfied that it does not harm the environment.
"Today, the industry group, SCIMAC (Supply Chain Initiative on Modified Agricultural Crops), has published a package of measures which will ensure that proper care is taken when the crops are grown on the farm. We welcome this important, step forward.
"These are tough rules—and they are underpinned by legally binding contracts. There will be an independent system of enforcement and audit. Some have said we should have legislated in this area. This would inevitably have taken much longer than our voluntary approach.
"However, we think these guidelines could well form the basis of future legislation—and we will he working with the industry and our European partners to take this forward.
"The Science and Technology Select Committee said this week we need an informed public debate in this area. It condemned some media treatment of the subject. It called for more openness and transparency—for more information to be provided to the public which is accurate and objective. We agree. The measures we have announced today are intended to achieve this. But we need to establish the debate on a firm basis.
"The Chief Medical Officer and the Chief Scientific Adviser firmly believe there is no current evidence to suggest that genetic modification technologies used to produce food are inherently harmful. The Science and Technology Committee came to the same view. The Royal Society this week convincingly dismissed the results of some recent

551
research on potatoes—and the misinterpretation of it—as wholly misleading. And there is no evidence to suggest that any GM foods on sale in this country are harmful.
"The Government welcome open, rational, well-informed debate. That is the best way to safeguard the public interest. Regrettably, some political, media and other treatment of these issues has not served the public well.
"Biotechnology undoubtedly has the potential to improve our quality of life in very many ways. It is government's responsibility to encourage this potential. But we will not do so at the risk to public health and the environment. This duty is at the heart of today's announcement."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
12.2 p.m.
Lord Luke: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made by his right honourable friend in another place. It is a pity that it has been made on a Friday as this matter is of very considerable interest for many Members of this House who could not be here today. Biotechnology and its application to human food has become an increasingly important concern to the public over the past six months. So we very much welcome the Statement and the various documents and reports that have been issued with it.
We shall judge the Statement by three criteria. Will the measures announced protect the British people against any possible threat to human health? Will they protect the British environment against any possible damage from genetically modified crops? Will they restore confidence in the integrity of the Government's approach to these matters and assure the general public that future decisions are taken openly, with health and the environment given priority at all times over considerations of commerce and politics?
Bearing in mind those criteria, does the Minister accept that there is a risk that certain genetically modified crops could upset or even destroy the balance of nature? Does the Minister recognise that there is now an overwhelming case for an absolute ban on all commercial planting of genetically modified crops until research into their impact has been completed?
It is of course very difficult to say how long such research will take because, if there is no impact discernible, at some stage a decision will have to be taken that there has been no impact and that therefore it is safe to proceed. Will the Minister say how likely it is that such a position will have been reached in under three years? How will the Government regulate the planting of trial crops in the future? How will it be possible to ensure that genetically modified pollen is not blown by the wind or spread by the bees all over the countryside to the detriment of organic and, indeed, non-organic farms? If such contamination does take place, will there be compensation for any farmer whose business may be compromised or, indeed, ruined?
552
Does the Minister agree with his colleague, the environment Minister, who said yesterday that if evidence were available in Britain of threats to biodiversity, such as that posed in America by genetically modified maize to the Monarch butterfly, certain genetically modified crops might have to be banned outright?
Does the Minister recognise that in spite of today's reassurances, some consumers will undoubtedly want to avoid eating foods which have genetically modified components?
We shall study the accompanying documents and reports with great care and hope that they will help to restore public confidence. As the Statement says, biotechnology offers enormous opportunities for improving our quality of life. Those opportunities must not be thrown away, but at the same time absolute priority must be given to considerations of human health and the welfare of the environment. If the Government follow those criteria, they will of course be supported by these Benches.
12.6 p.m.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, we welcome this Statement. I do not object to the Statement being made on a Friday. The sooner that matters of this nature get into the public domain, the better. Only this week the Select Committee on Science and Technology said that an informed public debate in this area is vital. The media's treatment of the matter has aroused concern. That will abate only when the public has available properly researched reports. We cannot blame the public. A BMA report stated recently that the adverse effects of genetically modified organisms are likely to be irreversible and that as we cannot yet know whether there are any serious risks to the environment or human health, the precautionary principle should apply. The report went on to say that the antibiotic resistance that could be caused by GMOs is one of the major public health threats that we face in the 21st century.
The media do not help. It is reported that the Government's most senior scientist has contradicted the Prime Minister's policy with a call for a four-year ban on the commercial release of GMOs.
No one can dispute that we need scientific advances which will improve the quality of life but once in a while, we face adversity. Public opinion is often shaped by such events. That does not mean that we could not or should not look for advances in science which would bring lasting benefits to many of our people who look to scientists for solutions. It is for those reasons that we welcome also the additional safeguards that the Minister has announced today. We welcome the establishment of the human genetics commission which will help to promote an informed debate on the use of biotechnology in healthcare and the impact of human genetics on our lives.
We welcome too the establishment of an agricultural and environmental biotechnical commission which will help us to hold a rational debate on the use of biotechnology in agriculture and the environment. That is tied up with the Food Standards Authority and is certainly a way forward.

553
We need a number of assurances. We want the two commissions and the Food Standards Authority to ensure that they not only address matters of concern but produce frequent reports with full scientific evidence on their areas of responsibility which the public can study.
On page eight the Statement talks about the unrestricted commercial cultivation of any crop not being permitted. Does that mean that non-commercial cultivation could continue? Should not restriction apply to all cultivation? We also want to see international agreement on the mandatory segregation of genetically modified crops. The Government need to be far more active on this issue. We want a Food Standards Agency with powers to regulate genetically modified products. All meetings of related advisory bodies should be open to the public.
European Union member states should have the right to opt out of the growing and importing of genetically modified crops without fear of retaliation. The big businesses behind genetically modified crops are American multinational companies, and any refusal of such produce could result in a bigger trade war than that over bananas.
We want clear labelling of all food produce that is genetically grown, and no commercially grown genetically modified crops should be permitted before 2003, when government funded research is due to end. Farm-scale trials of genetically modified crops must be completed before any commercial planting.
12.11 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am grateful for the welcome given to my Statement. I am also grateful for the acknowledgement given to biotechnology's huge potential to improve our quality of life, and for the endorsement of our approach, which is that, while we have a responsibility to encourage its potential. we shall not do so if there is a risk to public health or the environment.
The noble Lord, Lord Luke, effectively posed the Government three tests. First, will the measures protect human health adequately? Secondly, will they protect the environment? And, thirdly, will these measures restore public confidence? I believe that the answer to each test is "yes". Measures are in place that involve a case-by-case consideration before food and novel food processes are used which will provide some adequate protection. In addition, we have introduced the two new commissions. We have also indicated the role that the Food Standards Agency will play. Case-by-case consideration will be given to environmental matters and., once more, the commissions will be involved in that.
In the measures taken today, we have sought to respond to public concerns. We believe that one of the most important aspects will prove to be the extent to which there is a transparent process through which the public can see that appropriate measures, which protect the environment and public health, are taken.
The Statement makes clear that the Government have been working with environmentalists and with the biotechnology industry to ensure that the first farm-scale
554
plantings of genetically modified food crops in Britain are carefully managed. The report by the Chief Scientific Adviser and the Chief Medical Officer endorses the continuation of those trials. Unrestricted commercial cultivation of any crop will not proceed until we are satisfied that it does not harm the environment. I believe that that meets the concern raised.
The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, sought three assurances. First, he sought an assurance that the new commissions would be transparent in their proceedings. He asked that regular reports should be given on their activities. It is not appropriate for me to read the document in full, but the report published today entitled The Advisory and Regulatory Framework for Biotechnology sets out in paragraph 51 a series of steps that it is intended that both the commissions and the advisory committees will take in order to be more transparent. I believe that that meets the majority of concerns raised by the noble Lord.
The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, referred to commercial cultivation, and I hope that I have met that point. He also wanted mandatory separation of genetically modified crops and organic or other crops. We have talked to the industry, and we are satisfied that the farm-scale trials have been conducted in accordance with good practice. I hope that I have dealt with all the concerns raised.
12.14 p.m.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I warmly welcome the Government's important announcement which in many respects endorses some of the most important conclusions of the report on genetic modification recently produced by the European Communities Select Committee, which was published earlier this year, and is due to be debated next week.
I particularly welcome the announcement about the Agricultural and Environment Biotechnology Commission which will have a broader remit and membership than any of the existing advisory committees. It was just such a committee for which the Royal Society called and for which we, in our report called, and I very much welcome it.
I also welcome the Government's firm stand in resisting calls for a blanket moratorium for a predetermined number of years on all growing of genetic modified crops. Permission to grow commercially should surely depend on the outcome of the current field trials. Those field trials should he allowed to take place, and it cannot be known in advance for how long they will need to continue.
I have some questions in relation to the new commissions. Is there any significance in the choice of the word "commission" rather than "committee"? What balance will the Government aim for between lay and scientific membership? To which Ministry will they report? Will it be to a Cabinet subcommittee? Will they be able to commission research?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords. I am grateful for the welcome given to my Statement. I pay

555
tribute to the Select Committee's work. The material that we have published today comes to conclusions that are very similar to those of the Select Committee. The bodies are called commissions because they are to take a more strategic look at these issues than committees would do. Committees would be more concerned with a case-by-case consideration of food and planting issues. I think that that explains the difference.
The commissions will be able to commission research. I was asked about the breakdown between lay and scientific members. All sorts of people will be represented: lay members, members concerned with ethics, scientists, providers, and so on. I cannot give a precise breakdown. The Human Genetics Commission will report to health Ministers and the Agricultural and Environment Biotechnology Commission will report to the Minister in the Cabinet Office.
Lord Jopling: My Lords, I add my welcome to that given by the noble Lord, Lord Reay, and to the tribute paid by the Minister to the Select Committee's work. The Royal Society and the Select Committee recommended an overarching body to oversee all the regulators. I am not clear whether the Minister's proposals are in line with the wishes of the Royal Society and the Select Committee. I hope that the Minister can assure me on that.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am aware that the Select Committee suggested one overarching body. However, I do not think that we came to the same conclusion on that recommendation. Biotechnology can be used in a wide range of sectors. We thought that it would be too much for a single, overarching body to manage. That is why we suggested two commissions. It seemed to be the best way of providing the strategic leadership required.
Lord Kimball: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that one of the problems has been the failure of the firms that are working in this field to promote the good which they are doing? Is he aware that we are discussing this problem 26 years after an Act was passed concerning plant breeders' rights? Is he further aware that in the first year the Act was on the statute book a very new, high-yielding, disease-resistant winter barley was launched on the market? The source from which it was said to come was seeds that were found on the hem of a dead nun's dress in Bulgaria. Can the noble and learned Lord imagine a more soothing way of calming the public's fears about genetically modified seed?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I can think of no more soothing way. The debate on genetically modified foods has rightly focused, and focused almost exclusively, on the negative aspects. There has been no widescale debate about the benefits to medicine, to the environment and to the third world which can come from the development of this science. When I say "development", I mean development. A good deal of development needs to be done. What we should not do is take steps which prevent that development taking
556
place and, as a result, cause great disbenefit to the quality of life not just in the first world but also in the third world.
Viscount Addison: My Lords, how does the noble and learned Lord square with what he has just said the concerns arising from this example: on the one hand, the threat of peanuts in so many foods that are inadequately labelled to those who have allergies; and, on the other hand, the future ability of genetically modified peanuts to remove from the peanut the organism causing the allergy?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, perhaps I may write to the noble Viscount in relation to the problem of the peanut.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, what precautions will be put in place to prevent during the experimental period pollen from genetically modified crops that may damage the environment getting out of those plots and into the rest of the landscape round about the experimental area?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, one of the main issues in relation to that question is the distance between the farm-scale trials and the ordinary farming activity going on elsewhere. That would be the main aspect of protection.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I realise from what the Minister said that the advisory committee will contain a wide range of experts. On the environmental issues, I hope that the Government will listen carefully to the advice they are given by English Nature, which so far is somewhat concerned about the possible environmental impact of genetically modified crops.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the Government intend to take the best advice on all of these issues and pay appropriate regard to it.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that there is a less hysterical group of people in the community who are concerned about this issue? They accept all the points made by my noble friend Lord Kimball about the benefits in terms of feeding the people of the world, the medical benefits and many others. However, at the same time, they are worried that whole species of the life chain may disappear as a result of growing these crops or that there may be disruption of the environment to the extent that the price to be paid for those benefits is too high. These questions need to be resolved. For that reason I believe that what the noble and learned Lord appears to be saying in the Statement is right. We should not go forward to commercial production until we know that biodiversity will not be upset.
The Statement says:
"Unrestricted commercial cultivation of any crop will not proceed until we are satisfied that it does not harm the environment".

557
Why is the qualification of "unrestricted" there? If it read:
"Commercial cultivation of any crop will not proceed until we are satisfied that it does not harm the environment",
that would be unequivocal. Can I take it from the noble and learned Lord that restricted commercial cultivation could take place? Can I have an assurance that no commercial cultivation will take place until we are satisfied that it does not harm the environment?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I have already said that field-scale and farm-scale trials are going on. The results of those farm-scale trials will have to be looked at. Once the results of those farm-scale trials have been looked at, appropriate measures will have to be determined. It would be wrong to restrict ourselves in any way as to what those measures should be. In effect, the noble Baroness is asking me to define whether it will be all or nothing. I cannot say.
Lord Christopher: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in welcoming the Statement and congratulate the Government on bringing it forward. I am left perplexed about why my honourable friend in another place submitted himself this morning to a difficult interview when he had some very good things to say which he obviously could not say in advance of making his Statement. But that is another matter.
We have to accept that there is widespread misunderstanding about what is taking place. That is not helped by the press, but I suppose that the press was not very much better informed than many of us. Public anxiety is understandable. The latest story that I have heard—I have no means of knowing whether it is accurate—is that a company is beginning to look at what contribution to this science funnel web spiders and scorpions can make. That is bound to worry people. Therefore, I ask the Minister whether any thought has been given to elevating the controls and so on in this area on an international basis.
I ask that for two reasons. First, in many respects, it seems that the United States is significantly ahead, certainly in using GM seeds. Secondly, my noble and learned friend did not mention the economic consequences of this technology, which need to be examined on an international basis. It has often been said that it will help third-world countries. It will not help them if they cannot keep the seed after each crop to grow the next crop and it may not help them if part of the environmental effects in their countries—in South America and Africa—are to interfere with other important crops through contamination. I am puzzled as to why further experiments are not carried out under more controlled conditions. A great many vegetables are today grown in tunnels. I have been to at least two or three extremely good butterfly farms. Thinking of the issue of the Monarch, it would have been perfectly possible to have discovered that in what I would call laboratory conditions.
558
I conclude by asking the Minister to indicate whether the safety element of food will extend to the volume of that food consumed over a period of time as well as to the short-term consequences.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, with regard to safety, all aspects will have to be considered, including the amount of genetically modified food that may be eaten and what its consequences may be. The noble Lord asked about the international aspects. As I said in the Statement, we shall be working not just with industry but also with our European partners. I think that the noble Lord had in mind the wider international aspects. We must consider scientific advice and scientific research, from wherever in the world it comes.

Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty Bill [H.L.]
Second Reading debate resumed.
12.28 p.m.
Lord Chorley: My Lords, we return to another equally important aspect of the environment. I warmly welcome the Bill and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, on his initiative. I assume that it has the support of the Countryside Agency since it so closely follows the model clauses that its predecessor body, the Countryside Commission, published last year.
I too have an interest: I am a vice president of the Council for National Parks and I also live in a national park. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, made quite clear the Council for National Parks' position on the South Downs and national park status. On this occasion I do not wish to enter into debate on that subject. My remarks today are purely personal.
I should add that the National Trust, which is a substantial landowner in almost every AONB, also supports this Bill. Although I suspect that it would tend to favour national park status for the South Downs, I pass that by.
A few years ago, when I was chairman of the National Trust, we were involved with others in an unsuccessful battle to prevent the erection of a wind turbine. The site chosen by the developer was almost on the edge of the Cotswold escarpment overlooking the Vale of Gloucester. The creature that was erected is about as big as the Clock Tower of Big Ben. When the noble Lord, Lord Renton, introduced the subject, he quoted from Bill Bryson on the Vale of Evesham; he might equally well have been as horror-struck as I was in looking over into the Vale of Gloucester. On the other side, it was literally yards—between here and the Throne—from a National Trust property, which was why we objected. There were also other properties. If ever there was a case of a prime site in one of England's prime AONBs being desecrated, that was surely it. One might have been forgiven if one had not felt that the site selected was deliberately chosen to show the contempt that some developers have for that statutory designation.

559
I was, and I remain, staggered that we can allow huge industrial structures to be built on land designated by statute (even though the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, does not agree) as having equal landscape quality to that of national parks; nor is that an isolated instance. Noble Lords will have their own examples. There is already one wind turbine in the Forest of Bowland AONB. A huge wind farm of 34 turbines in the North Pennines AONB has recently been turned down by the Minister, I am glad to say—all the more power to his elbow—but a judicial review is being sought. There is the dualling of the A.303 through the Blackdown Hills; there is the case of the Twyford Down desecration; and there is the case of the future use of RAF Bentwaters in Suffolk, on which I suspect my noble friend Lord Bridges will touch. And so it goes on.
We really must do something to make the protection work, for which Parliament so wisely legislated 50 years ago. This year we are rightly celebrating the 50th anniversary of that Act. On the national parks front the Act has worked well; just think of the developments that would have occurred in our national parks without that Act. Let us not forget that the Act also introduced the concept of AONB designation for fine landscapes in identical terms to national parks. The only difference was that the national parks designation included the promoting of opportunities for understanding and enjoyment. But the AONB status has for us in the event been the very poor relation. It is therefore fitting and appropriate that in this jubilee year the Bill seeks to do something about the problem, or at least to draw it to our attention.
The weakness of the 1949 Act, as we have already been told, and I will therefore not labour the point, is that it did not give the planning authorities the duty to promote the conservation of those areas. With the benefit of hindsight that may now seem obvious. We all know the threats that have emerged and I have mentioned some of them. We discuss them frequently in this House and they are discussed in the Countryside Commission's excellent report of last year, Protecting our Finest Countryside.
We cannot legislate against every kind of landscape threat—for example, certain agricultural practices—but we can surely put the AONBs on a more positive footing. The Bill, I suggest, does this in the main by picking up the model clauses of the Countryside Commission's document. I will skip over some of the detail. One of the main features of the Bill which attracts me is in encouraging the Government to set up conservation boards and in giving such boards a degree of statutory status. The model is the Sussex Downs Conservation Board which, as we know, is chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and of course sitting next to me is his predecessor, my noble friend Lord Nathan.
The noble Lord has taken us through the details clause by clause. I should like to comment on four points: first, the planning. This in a sense lies at the heart of the conservation board issue. The need for a coherent approach to planning, for a management plan, in each AONB, is manifest and the purposes are warmly applauded. Equally (if not more) important is making a
560
conservation board a statutory consultee, which the noble Lord explained. The only question is: does this go far enough? The noble Lord said that, on the one hand, there are people who want more and there are people who want less. There is a balance to be struck there. For example, should the conservation board have the right of veto over planning approvals or should it have the right to insist on "call in"? That is something we should perhaps discuss when we get to Committee stage. I should be particularly interested to hear the comments of the noble Baroness the Minister.
A second point in relation to planning is the status of a conservation board management plan. In effect, how does it relate in legal or process terms to structure and local plans and the new development plan system? I am not a planner and I should like some guidance.
Secondly, there is the composition of the conservation board. I welcome the power given to the Secretary of State to appoint independent members. I should like to know whether the Government envisage that this would be done, roughly speaking, on a national park basis, which would seem to be the most appropriate.
Thirdly, I welcome the proposed powers of ownership and acquisition of land. On the whole, I am against compulsory acquisition powers.
Fourthly, I know and welcome the power of a conservation board to make levies to local councils and similarly for the Secretary of State to make grants. In other words, the AONB conservation boards will be put on the same footing as the national parks, as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has said. The funding will be crucial and here I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kimball. Without funding the board would be a dead duck—it may be a dead duck anyway, but when we do something it does need to be funded.
I very much hope that the Government will give the Bill a fair wind, the more so because there is no certainty that there will be a countryside Bill in the next Session. Even if this Bill should fail—and I note the attitude of the noble Lord, Lord Jopling—I think it will have proved to be a useful exercise, a dummy run if you like, for government legislation. Many of us will remember, and the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, indirectly referred to it, how useful the noble Lord, Lord Norrie's, Bill was on national parks administration. It paved the way for the 1995 national parks provisions in the Environment Act of that year and it teased out many difficult issues. I suggest that this Bill can perform a very useful function in that respect too. I welcome the Bill.
12.40 p.m.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by saying that because of the addition of the Statement to today's business, it is conceivable that I might not be able to stay until the end of the debate. In which case, I sincerely apologise to the House, to my noble friend and to the Minister. I shall, of course, read the Hansard report of the conclusion of the debate if I am not able to be here.
In declaring my interest, which in a sense is fairly relevant to the substance of the Bill, I should perhaps point out that I was for 12 years a member of the

561
Countryside Commission and a member for eight years of the Rural Development Commission. As your Lordships know, those two have been amalgamated into the Countryside Agency. Therefore, I am extremely conscious of the point that you must not separate the protection of rural beauty from the fact that people have to work and earn their living in rural areas. To me that is axiomatic. In the days when I served on the Rural Development Commission, a policy was adopted specifically so that there should be a cross-membership to bring both commissions together. Now they are together I should also declare my chairmanship, until last year, of the Council for the Protection of Rural England. I am currently one of its vice presidents. I am a farmer in Suffolk and also president of the Suffolk Preservation Society.
What we ought to get clear, and clearer than has perhaps come through at present, is the relationship between national parks and AONBs. I should like to read from what I regard as the ex cathedra statement of government policy going back 50 years—as far as I am aware, it has never been changed—from the Countryside Agency's brief statement on the matter:
"AONBs are the equal of our National Parks in terms of their landscape quality. They should enjoy the same level of protection".
I regard that as being a statement of the statutory position following the designation of these areas. What we are talking about in this Bill is not the desirability of protecting AONBs, but the method by which they should be protected, whether or not we need a new form and another level of bureaucracy.
Although AONBs are in no sense, as I have just suggested, the ugly sisters of national parks, they are certainly the poor sisters. For the past 50 years, although considerable funds have always been made available for national parks, funds have not in general been made available for AONBs. That is an important point to remember.
Moreover, I start from the premise that you cannot rely on local authorities to protect landscape if they are just left on their own; it simply does not happen. Local authorities responsible for a particular piece of landscape should take into account their obligation to protect it. In the days when planning was a function of county councils rather than district councils—a change in the planning system which took place in the early seventies—there was more likelihood that the broader picture of conservation would be taken account of by county councils. Therefore, especially when an AONB is divided among a number of local authority areas, as many of them are, it is particularly helpful that there should be some sort of a body to take the responsibility for at least sifting through the planning process when it applies to AONBs, and certainly trying to take into account the statutory obligation to protect these very precious areas.
The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, mentioned the Bentwaters controversy in the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB, on the edge of which I live. That is certainly a good example. The developer has proposed a regional airport—it is extremely doubtful whether Britain needs another regional airport; certainly not in the South-East—and seems to have been able to persuade
562
the officers of the Suffolk coastal district council that it is perfectly proper for such an airport to be situated in the middle of that particular AONB. In my opinion, the council did not begin to take into account the environmental dimension to this development application. If we had a different form of body which was responsible for this stewardship and protection, I believe that we would get a lot further.
I am not saying—indeed, I have never said—that these areas should become national parks. There is a difference. I do not believe that the national park model is necessarily right for all AONBs. When I was on the Countryside Commission, we realised the lacuna in protection which there was at that time for the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads and started to consider what to do about it. We decided not to make them a national park. I take the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, that it would not be appropriate to make the New Forest into a national park.
Therefore, in the case of the Broads, we came up with the proposal of giving the area its own protection body. It also had its own Act of Parliament. I agree with my noble friend Lord Jopling that there can be great opposition to some of these things. I know very well that there was huge opposition—that is not an understatement—to the establishment of the Broads authority. In fact, I had to go round trying to persuade people that it was a reasonable proposal. It is now working very well and is very popular. That is very much a case of combining the economic with the conservation. The biggest single occupation in the Broads is tourism—boats and all that. This had to be brought together with conservation. I strongly believe that we need new structures for such a purpose.
However, I am not sure whether my noble friend's Bill, on which he should be very much congratulated for bringing forward, is exactly the right way to do it. I certainly would go along with some of the suggestions that have been made as regards amendments which might be needed in Committee. In my opinion, it would be well worth while pursuing the matter further. I do not know whether, ultimately, what we are doing is acting as pathfinders for the Government to bring in a Bill to do the things that we decide we need, or whether we can carry it further through the Private Member's process.
I was a little puzzled by something that my noble friend Lord Jopling said, though no doubt the Minister will give us a view on it. I thought I understood my noble friend to say that a Bill originating here could not even be discussed in another place. I may be wrong on that, but that would certainly surprise me. If it is the case, I would agree with him entirely that our procedures need to be changed because that vitiates the whole working together of the two Houses which should be a central part of a bicameral legislature.
At any rate, I do not want to go further now other than to say that I welcome the Bill. I think, intrinsically, that it is right and that it would provide a new protection for very precious areas of our country. We must, by one means or another, fill the administrative gap which exists for such protection.
12.48 p.m.
Lord Nathan: My Lords, I should like to begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Kimball for what he said. I am delighted that he has come back to the Chamber to take his place so that he may hear my thanks to him for his kind remarks. I am extremely grateful to him. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, for his kind words.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, is no longer in his place. I say that because it seems to me that the National Parks Bill, with which I was to some extent connected and which was introduced into this House by the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, was an experience which might conceivably be repeated in this case. It had the great merit of being considered in this House; it was considered in Committee and was approved by your Lordships. For the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, mentioned, it did not get any further, but it was incorporated in large measure as it left this House into the environment legislation of 1995. It seems to me that the discussion we could have both in Committee and today about this Bill may serve a useful purpose to the same end.
This is an important and timely Bill. It provides the framework for administration of areas of outstanding natural beauty which is presently lacking. As has been said, my experience derives from the privilege of being the chairman of the Sussex Downs Conservation Board from virtually its beginning in 1992 for over five years until I was succeeded by the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, in October 1997. The experience I had is relevant to my support for the main purposes of this Bill. I thought it might be of interest to your Lordships.
The board was constituted by an agreement between the 13 local authorities within which the AONB lies and the Countryside Commission, as it then was. Although named the Sussex Downs AONB, about one-third of its nearly 400 square miles lie in the weald to the north. In view of the discussion which has taken place, I thought it might be relevant to your Lordships if I refer briefly to the objects of the board as set out in that agreement. I shall not read it at length but it starts with the prime objective:
"to protect, conserve and enhance the natural beauty and amenity of AONB".
Subject to that overriding requirement, the second object is:
"to promote the quiet informal enjoyment of it by the general public".
The third objective has been the subject of some comment elsewhere. It is:
"generally to promote sustainable forms of economic and social development especially working with farmers and landowners to encourage land management which supports the two objectives above".
In that context the board has been active—I have been particularly interested in that activity—in the promotion of coppicing, which has made a considerable economic contribution in its initial stages and I am certain will continue to do so. Other economic activities are also being promoted by the board.
564
I return to the history of the board. East and West Sussex County Councils transferred their countryside management responsibilities to the board and undertook to provide funding of around £600,000 per annum to the board to be matched by the Countryside Commission. The agreement was to be reviewed after six years. This period expired on 31st March 1998, from which time interim arrangements have been in force to continue for a maximum of three years; that is, until 31st March 2001. The agreement worked well and I believe that the board was considered a success. The 13 local authorities and the Countryside Commission worked together harmoniously and I was particularly proud of the fact that over the five years of my chairmanship we never had a row! However, from an early stage—a couple of years after we started—we gave thought to the precarious nature of our arrangements in the long term: changes in local authorities over the years might lead to a desire for withdrawal or cessation of funding which might bring the whole enterprise to an end.
I emphasise that, although during those five years we had local authority reorganisation resulting in radical alteration to East Sussex and the creation of Brighton and Hove unitary authority, adjustments were made to accommodate these changes in a harmonious manner, to the great credit of those concerned in difficult circumstances. The local authorities were also under much financial pressure during this period and yet they sustained and in some cases increased their financial contribution from 1st April 1998 to compensate for the reduction in funding from the Countryside Commission. But we foresaw from an early date that these uncertainties rendered long-term policies for the AONB difficult to implement, as well as appropriate staff arrangements. What was needed was a greater measure of security as to the existence of the board and its funding. This was the basis of our discussions internally and in due course with the Countryside Commission.
The board instituted a consultation and held a major conference on its future which resolved that the board should continue in its present form, reinforced generally on the lines of the provisions of this Bill. Subsequently the Department of the Environment instigated a further conference on the future of the board which was implemented by the Countryside Commission. The outcome was the same. We were of course aware that the Countryside Commission's prime interest was to innovate and promote new ventures rather than to provide ongoing funding for successful enterprises. After all, we had been the beneficiaries of its support for new ventures and had absorbed much of its available funds. That is why we got in touch with the Department of the Environment to secure funding direct from it on some more permanent basis.
We therefore envisaged that legislation was required for the benefit of AONBs generally, enabling the Secretary of State to establish arrangements appropriate to different AONBs—particularly where these were situated within a number of local authorities—and to provide for funding, both by local authorities and national resources, on a basis giving the security required. In addition to the Sussex Downs AONB—with which the Countryside Commission was keen to

565
combine East Hampshire AONB—there are perhaps three other AONBs falling within this description. This Bill enables this aim to be fulfilled and is its main purpose. The noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, has given it much time and thought and it is he who has achieved this result. There are provisions relating to planning and other matters which clearly require detailed examination in Committee. I shall look forward to that discussion, but it is for another day.
I end by emphasising the great merit of leaving local authorities to create structures they consider beneficial, such as they did in the case of the Sussex Downs Conservation Board. After all, they are the representatives of the people living within their areas. Such actions enhance and enlarge local authorities. However, AONBs are not only local but a national heritage enjoyed by those living far from them. The board had, according to estimates made by a university team, some 32 million visits in a year. That is why national resources as well as local funds are needed. This Bill enables this to be done without utilising the provisions relating to national parks imposed upon the area, thus diminishing rather than enhancing local representative authorities. I very much hope that this Bill will commend itself to your Lordships.
12.57 p.m.
Lord Monk Bretton: My Lords, I believe that it will be easier for me—and probably the best thing to do—if I start by saying rather simply that from our house there is a fine view of a substantial part of the South Downs. For much of my life I farmed in the low weald just below the clowns, which is a completely different kind of countryside from the downs themselves. The contrast between the two is amazing. However, one field that I farmed came within the Sussex Downs AONB. I explain that quite simply by way of declaring an interest.
Of course, like most residents I have an interest in preserving my view of the downs. I am also a member of the CLA and the NFU. I am well aware of the importance of maintaining the economic viability of the area. I am really a local observer of what has happened in the area. Within the view that I described earlier, just within the AONB—two miles away—lies the house of my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry. Everyone locally is immensely grateful to him for being willing to serve as the chairman of the Sussex Downs Conservation Board. They are also grateful to the previous chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Nathan—my university contemporary and friend—who has just spoken. There is no doubt that he did very well indeed when leading the board in its initial stages. He should also be congratulated on his skill in persuading my noble friend to succeed him as chairman. I am not sure how relaxing a sinecure he may have suggested it was.
It is no surprise that my noble friend Lord Renton has found it necessary to introduce the Bill. The Countryside Commission—now the Countryside Agency—has made us aware that legislation on this matter is needed and that the matter is getting more pressingly urgent. That urgency springs from the serious need to put the Sussex Downs Conservation Board on a firmer footing, as the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, said. As far as concerns
566
myself and several other noble Lords who are in attendance today, the Bill has a somewhat local flavour. It concerns us first and foremost because there are not many conservation boards looking after AONBs; primarily, there is our board and the Norfolk Broads board.
The South Downs dominate our area—their striking beauty is admired far and wide—and the increasing pressure upon them as a result of a major population increase produced the need, first, for designation and, subsequently, for the formation of the voluntary conservation board. As a local observer who lives just outside the area of the downs, I can report that the board has done an awful lot of good. There have been no rows; it has been popular; and there is a universal view that something very closely along the same lines should continue but that its funding must be made more secure.
I trust that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading. I do not agree with my noble friend Lord Jopling that it will do no good to go beyond Second Reading. It is very important that we try to get the Bill into better shape now and that it goes on to Committee stage. The Bill may well be incorporated in other legislation in due course.
Nevertheless, the Bill needs modification. Many of the points about modification have already been mentioned, but perhaps I may say a little more in support of them. There is no mention in the Bill of a responsibility to have regard for the rural economy. That is a matter of great importance. A conservation board should have regard for the rural economy in order to preserve the good will of the people who live and work in its area and to encourage them to help. There is no doubt that they will help; after all, it concerns their homes and their environment too.
I should perhaps also raise the question of representation on the conservation boards. There is no provision in the Bill for direct representation by owners and other land managers. I believe that there should be. The Norfolk Broads board set a precedent in that respect. It has such representation.
I am doubtful about the powers in relation to land. I have no particular objection if the board needs to own land, but I do have an objection to the board having compulsory powers. I believe that it wants compulsory powers because there are areas on the downs which do not belong to anyone and it wishes to gain control over those. That is fine as far as it goes, but it is a cumbersome tool with which to purchase land. One should bear in mind that the purpose of the Bill is that other AONBs might want to adopt the same proceedings. I do not think that such a widespread power is necessary or should be given. After all, local authorities have that power—and local authorities are appointed, not elected, bodies.
I have not formed a definite view of Clause 4. I have heard the comment that the powers in the clause could well be unnecessary as local authorities broadly, already have them. I shall need to consider the clause further. However, I should like to comment specifically on Clause 4(2), paragraph (b) of which relates to the power over adjacent areas. I do not think that that is an

567
acceptable power to give to a conservation board. Perhaps I may explain. The view from our windows is over the South Downs ESA; superimposed on that is the South Downs AONB. The AONB is a larger area and provides the buffer that protects the ESA. I do not want anything in the Bill that would enable conservation boards effectively to increase the size of AONB areas. They should be designated in the way they always have been and not altered in that way.
I should like to stress particularly the kind of spirit necessary when a board is established in an AONB. It is most important that the matter is decided by local popular will. Only in that way will the local population carry a board forward well and with the enthusiasm that helps so significantly. I am anxious to ensure that the Bill does that.
l.8 p.m.
Viscount Addison: My Lords, I commend the way in which my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry has introduced both his Bill and the debate. I should declare an interest as a vice-president of the Council for National Parks and the British Trust for Conservation Volunteers.
We support the need for AONB legislation, which would provide for better management of AONBs. Indeed, the CNP signed the Wildlife and Countryside Link AONB paper. Better resources and management of AONBs raise the environmental stakes in the countryside generally and assist with the protection of national parks.
However, the area of the South Downs, which is currently an AONB, is a special case and its future could be compromised by dealing with it in this context. The current context is one of overwhelming support for national park status for the South Downs. A 1998 national opinion poll for the Ramblers Association demonstrated that, nationally, 77 per cent of those questioned felt that the South Downs should be designated a national park. A petition of 21,000 names in support of national park status for the South Downs has recently been submitted to the House of Commons. The Government have a manifesto commitment to designate more areas of countryside as national parks.
As early as 1947, when the Hobhouse Committee was formed, calls were made for the South Downs to be designated a national park. The level of public support for national park status for the South Downs is overwhelming and is on a par with the popular calls in the 1950s for the first 10 national parks to be designated. In today's world of competing priorities, it would be hard to replicate such grass-roots support for other countryside initiatives. The South Downs has been a missing piece of the jigsaw of the national parks family ever since the Hobhouse report of 1947 included it in its list of prospective national parks. Research has indicated that there is no popular opinion, either historical or current, that is pushing for national park status for any other area of outstanding natural beauty.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I shall not intervene at
568
any great length, but before he leaves this question perhaps I may point out to him that, so far as the Sussex Downs are concerned, every elected local authority is represented on the board of which I am chairman. They are all opposed to national park status—and they represent their electors—with the possible exception of Brighton and Hove. All the other elected local authorities do not believe that the Sussex Downs are suitable for national park status.
Viscount Addison: My Lords, it is always easy to find fault.
There appears to be a 50 per cent chance that a countryside Bill will be included in this year's Queen's Speech, unless, of course, the Minister can announce today an improvement on those odds. At present, AONB proposals are likely to be included in a broad-based countryside Bill that also includes clauses to protect sites of special scientific interest and to deliver the Government's access commitments discussed during the debate introduced last Wednesday by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn.
If a countryside Bill is not included this year, waiting until next year would be a very high-risk strategy. That is because next year is likely to be the last Queen's Speech of the Parliament, and the Session could be curtailed by a general election. It would require much effort to secure manifesto commitments to ensure the same content of countryside legislation in the next Parliament. Therefore, there are several uncertainties as to whether or not this Parliament will produce countryside legislation. The South Downs cannot afford to wait because of the pressures it is under from development and recreation. The crucial difference between AONBs and national parks is the legal power that national parks have to manage recreation and "to promote opportunities for public enjoyment and understanding of the special qualities of the area". That is of vital importance where the visitor numbers are so high and where there are major threats from commercial tourist complexes.
Whichever way you look at it, national parks enjoy a higher status of protection than AONBs. National park status using existing legislation—that is, the Environment Act 1995 and the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949—provides a ready made solution that would deliver exactly what the downs need in terms of protection, status, guaranteed funding and a permanent body with planning powers.
As the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, said, the Sussex Downs and East Hampshire AONB covers an area that is almost exactly the same as the Brecon Beacons National Park, and it is larger than four other existing national parks. So the South Downs meet the criteria of the national park, and would benefit from the legal framework for linking recreation and conservation known as the Sandford principle.
The South Downs is an exceptional area, both in terms of landscape quality and the pressure that it is under, particularly from development. Those are important drivers in the need for the downs to be designated a national park and do not exist to the same

569
degree in other areas of outstanding natural beauty. That uniqueness is one of the reasons why the Sussex Downs Conservation Board was created. A national park authority would produce an holistic, strategic vision for the area.
1.15 p.m.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I am delighted to support the measures being promoted by the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry. When he was in the other place he represented the mid-Sussex constituency where I live. I shall not say whether or not I voted for him. His interest in areas of outstanding natural beauty is well known. His work as chairman of the Sussex Downs Conservation Board is much valued by all those who live in the area and who visit the downs.
I am often asked why I live in Sussex. The answer, apart from helping to make the county multi-racial, is the sheer joy I get from living in the vicinity of the Sussex Downs. When I was introduced into this House—I see that my noble friend Lord McNally who sponsored me at that time is present—I chose as part of my title Waltham Brooks, which nestles in the foothills of the Sussex Downs surrounded by Amberley on the one side and Pulborough on the other.
Not only Members of this House, but all those who are concerned with the preservation of the natural beauty of our countryside, welcome the Bill's proposals. At present, the Sussex Downs Conservation Board is the only such board in the country set up by joint agreement between local authorities and the Countryside Commission. If it is an example of what can be achieved in just one area of the country, it is right that we should support this measure, which could assist other such areas when it is enacted.
The one aspect of this country that is valued by most visitors is the natural beauty of our countryside. No matter which corner of the world one visits, the beauty of our land is always a talking-point. We should all be remembered for ensuring that future generations not only enjoy but also preserve that which is unique in our land. It is a legacy of which we can all be proud. The Bill helps towards that end.
No one can disagree fundamentally with any measures which call for stronger protection and better management of the areas of outstanding natural beauty. If here is a clear objective in the Bill, it is to conserve and enhance. It places the AONBs on the same plane as the provisions enjoyed by the national parks. Further, it is right that it puts an obligation on all planning authorities, at whichever level they operate, to promote the conservation and management of AONBs.
I particularly welcome the statutory basis on which the conservation boards would be established. The power to acquire land by agreement or compulsory orders is important. It is one way in which we can ensure that planning processes do not allow the gradual erosion of AONBs. The fact that the board would have statutory powers to make compulsory purchase orders would deter the increasing tendency to encroach on such land. The bottom line of what the noble Lord proposes
570
in his Bill is to ensure that AONBs are equal to our national parks in terms of their landscape quality. They should receive no less protection than national parks.
Of course, a long-term study of the relationship between AONBs and national parks is necessary. But in the short term the Sussex Downs Conservation Board has demonstrated what can be done. I support this measure.
1.18 p.m.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, I am a landowner and land manager, living and working in an area of outstanding natural beauty (AONB). Therefore, I am grateful for this opportunity to place on record some of the views which matter to me and which have an increasing importance in the governance of this country; namely, the countryside, its make-up, appearance and development, and the control of the lives of those who live and work there by those who often do not live and work there.
AONBs were defined and given protection as long ago as 1949. That does not seem to have been a very good year for statistics, but the population of England and Wales in 1951 was 44 million. Twenty-five years later that figure had risen to 52 million. Over the same period the number of private dwellings rose from 12 million to 24 million. In 1949 in the UK as a whole there were approximately 2.1 million private cars, while in 1997 there were 21.7 million.
In the face of these facts—a rise of nearly 2.0 per cent in the population but almost double the number of houses and a ten-fold increase in cars—it is surely appropriate that we continually monitor the protection that is afforded to the most beautiful parts of our country. However, I am loathe to add to the multiplication tables by approving a further increase, this time in the number of unelected, unaccountable and possibly unqualified people sitting on committees and wielding great power.
Our countryside has evolved over centuries and most of the beautiful bits are thanks to small numbers of people who live and work in a rural environment. Together they built the villages which sell our calendars worldwide and designed and developed the spar towns and medieval towns. For the most part they co-operated in the slow change from forest land and wild places to the cultivated and cared for landscape of the 19th and 20th centuries. It is surely remiss that apparently representatives of these people who have been so successful are not necessarily to be included in the suggested new area boards.
We have had compulsory purchase for a long time but departments, councils and so on which wish to exercise their rights have had to show just cause. What "just cause" could an area conservation board cite for buying land? Would it be one field, one view, an entire wood or even a village or small town? No landscape maintains itself. Our cliffs erode and ultimately fall into the sea; our mountains erode and slowly change shape; woods become overgrown and subject to devastation by high winds and mini-hurricanes; fields revert to nature and become the embrace of brambles, dandelions and

571
nettles. The contribution of the land manager—the farmer, estate owner or public parks superintendent—must not be ignored, but in this Bill that contribution is ignored totally.
The Government have recently begun to issue revised planning guidance for consultation. In PPG 12, dealing with development plans, it is made quite clear that local authorities have a duty to,
"take environmental considerations comprehensively and consistently into account [through] the need to sustain the character and diversity of the countryside".
The document goes on to refer to the,
"conservation and enhancement of wildlife habitats and species".
This Bill would, however, give to area conservation boards the power to disagree with one or more local authorities and refer them directly to the Minister. There are 40 AONBs, although I am told that at the present moment two cannot be found.
Many of those AONBs cover the jurisdiction of 10 or more local authorities. Will the Minister welcome this gratuitous addition to his workload? However, the powers of these new boards will not stop there. We are told that if an application for planning permission is likely to affect any land in or adjacent to land that is covered by one of these boards, the local authority must refer it to the board and then take into account what the board says. How adjacent is "adjacent"? Will it affect buildings, roads, roundabouts or bridges? Perhaps it might be stretched to cover electricity pylons and mobile phone towers, but that is probably too much to hope for.
I have already said that it is appropriate continually to monitor the protection offered by an AONB, but I submit that area conservation boards, particularly as set out in this Bill, are too draconian a measure. Over the past six months in your Lordships' House we have had at least four opportunities to consider the hardships being visited upon those who rely on the countryside for their sustenance. Let us not add to their burden by setting over them bodies that will tell them not only what to do but what not to do and will demand payment for the privilege, in that,
"a conservation body shall have power to issue levies to the councils".
Instead, I suggest that local authorities be given the power to protect AONBs, the responsibility for carrying out that protection and the duty to ensure that they do it in a manner which is consistent with the reasonable requirements of those who live and work in these areas. I also suggest that where an AONB covers multiple local authorities, it be given the power to appoint an advisory body to assist a representative committee in its deliberations. I would hope that that body would include local experts such as land managers.
Finally, I notice that there is some agreement that it would be better if perhaps the Sussex Downs Conservation Board continued in its present or a similar format rather than tried to make a vehicle like an AONB fit its requirements.
Lord Monk Bretton: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down perhaps I may put a question. Would he
572
prefer a conservation board or national park for an AONB? In the South Downs we would prefer a conservation board.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, having listened to the contributions of various noble Lords, it is probable that we have 40 AONBs whose demands are very varied. It may well be that great areas like the Sussex Downs should have purpose-built boards to deal with the problems specific to them rather than have the creation of one almighty body to deal with one area which is not appropriate to others. As a result, draconian powers would be given that were not appropriate to perhaps 39 other such areas.
1.27 p.m.
Viscount Hampden: My Lords, yesterday evening in order to prepare for this debate I climbed to the top of Mount Caburn, which is part of the Sussex Downs behind my house, in order to inspect a wonderful colony of burnt-tip orchids which are very good this year. Having done so, I looked across the Ouse valley and espied the proud escarpment called Mount Harry. Your Lordships will realise that the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, is not only a noble neighbour but, I hope, a noble friend (if I am allowed to address him thus from where I stand).
I must declare an interest in that my family estate is in the AONB in the Sussex South Downs. I strongly reciprocate the words of my noble kinsman Lord Monk Bretton in congratulating the Sussex Conservation Board on all that it has done under the former chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Nathan and the present chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry.
In addition to owning part of the AONB, for the past 20 years I have been the estate manager. Therefore, I have experienced the conflicts of interest and difficulties of managing an estate in an AONB. First, there is the conflict of interest related to transport. I totally understand that transport policy does not come under the auspices of the conservation board either as it exists now or as contemplated under the Bill. But there is a serious conflict between those who live in the AONB and want to enjoy it and those who want to get there. One of the reasons, but not the only one, that we are so against the idea of a national park is that designating the Sussex Downs in that way will bring in far more traffic than the county can possibly cope with.
There is a second conflict. In the village that my estate owns is a chalk pit whose use is almost ended. The local authority responsible for waste disposal keeps its eye on empty holes. There is a conflict between the local authority and everyone else. My personal conflict is that my trustees in London can see a large cheque arriving, and I can see an overripe tomato from a villager being aimed at my face.
The third conflict is between agriculture and those who want to anticipate the right to roam. I cannot stress enough how important it is to keep agriculture happy in the South Downs. I am proud of the fact that it was a steward of a previous Lord Hampden in the

573
18th century, John Ellman, who perfected the breed of South Downs sheep which has been responsible over generations for keeping the Sussex sward in the beautiful state it is at present.
If one keeps politics out of the right to roam, there is no problem. I have lived there for 20 years and no person enjoying a walk on the downs has ever caused a problem. There was a mass trespass on my land last summer. A group of 40 people, having failed to breach the ha-ha at the Glyndebourne Festival visited me. I am sorry to say that all they managed to find was a Portaloo left from a wedding the previous evening. They relieved their frustrations in the Portaloo.
There is a possible conflict between the conservationists or the environmentalists seeking to look after the downs, and those wishing to pursue some form of leisure thereon. I mentioned the orchids earlier. They are part of an SSSI looked after by English Nature. There is also a heavy demand for paragliding over the same site. When hang-gliding started, it was a minority sport; and as the equipment was heavy, only strong men could climb the hill and use it. Now, paragliding is very much a developing sport and the conservation board is concerned about how we can control it.
A more terrifying leisure pursuit may be coming our way. I was telephoned a fortnight ago by London Weekend Television asking to do a documentary on a piece of my land which a man had identified as a perfect place to get into a spherical object and bounce down a hill. I gather that that pursuit is quite popular in California. The idea of spherical objects bouncing down hills, knocking sheep out of the way, and crushing the orchids and the cowslips is too horrific to contemplate.
I thought it right to give the House some idea of what it is like to run an estate in an AONB. I welcome the Bill and wish it all success.
1.32 p.m.
Viscount Gage: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, for bringing forward this debate which will discuss the technical details he proposes to strengthen the South Downs Conservation Board's powers to protect and manage areas of outstanding natural beauty.
The downs are, and have been, under threat from a combination of over-exploitation for leisure pursuits, urban development and inappropriate farming practices. In my opinion, in recent years these dangers have been kept under a reasonable and viable level by the board. Other noble Lords have spoken in favour of the board. I do not agree with my noble friend Lord Addison that there could be a better way of managing the South Downs.
I declare an interest as our family have both farmed and let out tenancies on areas of the downland in question for 500 years. I should like also to mention the very considerable contribution that my late father, who was a Member of your Lordships' House for 60 years, played in conserving the South Downs between the wars. At that time there were no conservation boards of any description in existence. In 1934, he headed a private debate in this House to prevent Brighton Corporation's proposal for a race track; and, although
574
his Motion was not carried, the fact that he initiated the debate alerted the county councils to the threats of development. The councils then made arrangements with the local landowners which resulted, according to the local county archivist, in 80 per cent of local downland being protected.
Noble Lords are aware that the threats to AONBs are as real today as then. They comprise new patterns of agriculture and woodland management, greater development pressure, and changing patterns of recreation. The realisation that no individuals could control that was apparent in the late 1940s when the possibility of national park status was discussed. One of the reasons for its rejection—I believe that it pertains today—was the fact that the downs are economically farmed and not "wilderness". Nevertheless, quite correctly, the AONB status was declared in 1966.
It is academic to discuss how the South Downs Conservation Board came into existence. It is more pertinent to describe the exemplary manner in which it carried out its duties, together with the input of 11 regional authorities. This team has been responsible for pursuing a policy which balances the need for conservation and sensitive agricultural use, and has gained the confidence of farmers and landowners, as well as all the visitors who come to enjoy the beauty of the landscape.
Thirty million visitors walk the South Downs Way, and all benefit from the outwardly invisible, but inwardly effective, control that the South Downs Conservation Board employs. The degree of respect shown by those people to the landscape which is unspoilt but close enough to London and other large towns to be accessible, has been achieved without the imposition of notices or signs in a low-key manner, which enhances the enjoyment of visitor arid resident alike. This is very much to the credit of the board.
The details that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, proposes appear to the layman technical arid unnecessary. On the contrary, in practice, these are only a logical development of the Countryside Commission's own recommendation in its pamphlet of 1998. The most vital of these issues is the agreement of permanent funding beyond the year 2001 coming direct from funding from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, rather than via the Countryside Commission. Secondly, the provision that disagreements between local authorities and the board would entail automatic referral would meet the objections of those critics of the South Downs Conservation Board who consider that their present powers to prevent development are less than those enjoyed by the status of "national park".
In short, those provisions would allow the continuance of the exemplary work which the South Downs Conservation Board achieves and, without giving the board carte-blanche authority, would enable it to continue its considerable but unobtrusive role in perpetuity for the benefit of all of us who love this particular part of England. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, succeeds.
1.37 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: My Lords, I put my name down to speak today because I have an interest in the Bill from my viewpoint as Opposition spokesman for tourism. I have taken the opportunity to speak from the Back Benches as we may do in opposition on a departmental issue that is outwith our own area of direct responsibility. I see few advantages of being in Opposition, but this is at least one of them.
I believe that my noble friend's Bill is defective in at least one respect. I believe that it should take account of the interests of those who live and work in AONBs, the role that they play in the conservation of those areas, and the need for economic activity in those areas. At present it does not seem to do so, as several noble Lords have pointed out today.
In its briefing, the CLA pointed out that,
"The Bill as drafted focuses on conservation and development control without recognising that successful conservation depends upon profitable economic activity and viable rural communities".
Social and economic considerations need to be just as much to the fore in areas of outstanding natural beauty as in other rural areas. Of course I support the importance of recognising the landscape value of these areas and ensuring that it is taken fully into account in planning policy decisions.
I note that the NFU favours a "living landscape" approach whereby sensitively designed farm diversification enterprises can proceed as well as routine agricultural developments. I endorse that viewpoint.
Farmers today are facing the worst crisis in British agriculture for about 60 years. When I was Opposition spokesman for agriculture last year I became keenly aware that tourism is indeed a vital source of income for farmers amid the industry's continuing crisis.
Gina Woodcraft of Farm Tourism 2000 says that letting a bed was once merely "pin money" for the farmer's wife. She says that now it is becoming a major part of farm income. The Government have made it clear that farmers must diversify in order to survive the changes which will be wrought by Agenda 2000.
Farmers already face enough obstacles when they try to diversify. I hope that, in responding to the debate, my noble friend can assure me that this Bill will not add to those obstacles.
The Deloitte & Touche Visitor Attraction Survey 1996–97 revealed that the biggest percentage growth was that registered for farm visits. Farm Tourism 2000 recently produced a survey sponsored by the EU, MAFF and the West Country Tourist Board. It reported that tourists who take B&B breaks on farms say that for them the traditional elements for agriculture are the most important reason for their visit. Farm visitors want proximity to livestock; they want to experience the "real" countryside, complete with the smell of manure and muddy fields and tracks. So the reason why tourists wish to visit farms can itself preserve the farm landscape.
Today, I should like to draw attention to three examples of best practice of farm tourism and to seek an assurance from my noble friend that the passage of
576
this Bill would not in any way hinder the development of such businesses in areas of outstanding natural beauty. I am grateful to the Enterprise Agency for West Devon for its assistance. It has given me examples of two best practice farm tourism enterprises in its area.
The first is a 120 acre sheep/beef farm in the Countryside Stewardship Scheme at Jacobstowe. It has nine bedrooms and a camping barn which sleeps 16. It has grown from virtually nothing and is a thriving business. It has an ETB 3 Crowns—the Government are changing it from a tourist board to a tourist council—which is a highly commended award and it is AA listed. It even has its own website in this IT age. Currently it employs two full-time and up to 12 part-time employees throughout the year. The Enterprise Agency states that:
"Tourism has been the salvation of Higher Cadham Farm".
The second example is a more modest business; that of Little Bidlake Farm at Bridestowe. It is a working dairy/beef farm which is family run. It takes four to five guests. That income is vital to their survival.
Those two businesses perhaps represent what is considered by the public to be the traditional type of farm holiday, a family break. But farm tourism can take many forms and be valuable in social as well as economic terms. Rural Britain is another country if you are an inner-city child who has never seen a cow. Noble Lords may have read of the charitable trust Farms for City Children. It was established by Clare and Michael Morpurgo in 1972. It aims to relieve the poverty of experience of young children from inner-city areas by providing them with a chance to take part actively and purposefully in the working life of a farm and conservation of the countryside.
The trust has three centres and the example I should like to describe is that at Nethercott Farm, Devon. It is a typical commercial Devon mixed farm with a herd of milking cows, a large flock of breeding ewes, pigs, poultry and horses. Its crops include barley, hay and silage. It is farmed by the brothers Graham and David Ward on a farm business tenancy. Already, plans are afoot to change to organic farming. The farms involve teachers and their children in the day-to-day running of the farm, providing a minimum of four hours tuition and activities each day. It is good for the children and it is also good for the farm.
Farms for City Children has a policy of setting its level of charges per child as low as possible in order to ensure that as many children as possible can attend. The other costs are made up by fundraising and occasional donations from local authorities. Farms for City Children has just been awarded a 1999 Education Extra Certificate of Distinction in recognition of the innovation and excellence of its out of school hours learning provision. The children live, eat, work and play together. The emphasis is placed on co-operation, teamwork and building confidence. I am told that they enjoy their week of what they call "muck and magic".
Are those three examples the kind of ventures which would have a place on land affected by the Bill? Other noble Lords will be able to refer to other types of business. I have kept in mind my responsibilities as spokesman for tourism.

577
I also have in mind an amendment to the Bill which I believe would improve it. It has been mentioned by other noble Lords today. It was mentioned by the Country Landowners' Association. Unlike other noble Lords, I have no interest to declare. I belong neither to the CLA nor the NFU, and unlike other noble Lords I do not benefit from a wonderful view from my window. I am indeed a townie who benefits from enjoying the countryside in what I hope is a responsible manner.
The CLA briefing suggests that, as a minimum, local authorities and conservation boards in relation to AONBs should be required to have regard to the economic and social well-being of local communities in the areas affected. I hope that my noble friend will be prepared to accept that amendment at the Committee stage.
Growth is not incompatible with environmental issues. As regards the prosperity of rural areas, the key is to provide the environmental needs of most urban people. It is important that we do not become so restrictive in our use of land that planning will not be granted for businesses which are good for farmers, tourists, the local community and society as a whole.
1.46 p.m.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, I am not a vice-president of the Council for National Parks, but I am extremely happy to support the Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry. In my experience, the protection currently afforded to AONBs by existing legislation has been shown to be insufficient. I know the Sussex Downs pretty well, but my concern is for the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB, which I know much more intimately. Our AONB includes important areas of surviving sandlings, wonderful tidal estuaries, small rivers and bird reserves of international importance at Minsmere and Havergate Island. It also happens to include Snape Maltings, a concert hall with an incomparable acoustic which is host to a wide range of music and musical education. Quiet tourism is increasingly the main economic activity of the area.
All that is under threat from the proposal to create a civil airport with a disconcertingly large potential for growth on the site of a redundant USAF base. I refer to Bentwaters. I have spoken on this subject previously in your Lordships' House and shall refer to it only briefly in relation to this Bill.
The airport started life as a small RAF fighter base at the end of the Second World War. It is remote from any road or railway or centre of population. That was convenient for the original base, and it remains little changed. In 1969, the AONB was formally designated and the airbase was subsequently much expanded by the building of hardened aircraft and ammunition shelters in a NATO programme to provide accommodation for units of the USAF. Hundreds of houses were built on an adjacent site and were still being built when the Americans left at the end of the Gulf War.
After some havering, the MoD decided that there was no further military use for the base. That was more than six years ago. After three attempts, the base was sold to
578
a foreign businessman for a sum believed to approach £10 million. I wonder why the amount and terms of such sales of public property are not announced. That has never been disclosed. Apparently, the buyer is mainly interested in turning his investment into a regular income stream and is anxious to promote as much civil aviation on the site as he can persuade the public authorities to accept.
The Countryside Commission, the Government's own agency, with particular interest in the AONBs and responsibility for them, has issued some formal advice. Its considered and consistent view has been that development of a site necessary for national defence should never be the basis for future development planning. Redundant sites should be fully decommissioned and cleared, unless there is a national need for their continued use in developed form. The commission says that future use should be determined on the objectives of good conservation management and public access. It also states—this is the heart of the matter—that:
"when military land is declared surplus, it must lose its status of `national need' and should be treated in accordance with the Government's Policy Planning Guidance 7 and local development plans".
In a separate publication, the commission says that:
"the Government should insist on a return to greenfield status of the disused military base at RAF Bentwaters in the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB".
That is from the Government's own responsible agency. We await the report of the recent local planning inquiry, to which those remarks were delivered, and the Government's reaction to it.
As I see it, the difficulty is how the national policy planning guidance is implemented in practice by a district council in a rural area encountering that major policy problem for the first time. The council is subject to local pressures, particularly relating to employment and to the desire for development as such. As people think that a large local airport would, as they explain it, "put Suffolk on the map", there are tendencies to diverge from the national guidance, formulated with a quite different set of local priorities. For their part, the Government genuinely believe in a "plan-led system", which delegates detailed policies to elected local authorities.
Not surprisingly, the result is a mismatch between policy formation at the centre and its local execution. An added complication may be the difficulty which a local council may experience in handling a wealthy foreign entrepreneur with access to firms of professional advisers in this country, skilled at bending, or at least interpreting, the planning rules.
It is clear to me that the system is not working as it should, particularly in relation to Policy Planning Guidance 7. In that case, no proof has been offered—as PPG7 requires—of the existence of a national need for this airport; nor has any serious effort been made to investigate alternative sites, of which there are some. The apparent unwillingness of the department to become engaged seems particularly regrettable and is leading to

579
unfortunate consequences. I hope that when the noble Baroness replies she will be able to address that basic difficulty.
I believe I have said enough to indicate why I support the Bill in principle. The AONBs need greater protection and more resources in order to improve their management. Recently, in our AONB, I understand that the committee was obliged to cancel one of its twice-yearly meetings as the necessary funding had not been received from the county council. The Government's intentions may be good, but the means are scanty and the current result falls well short of what is desirable and necessary. I do not necessarily say that this Bill would solve all the problems that I have mentioned, but at least it addresses the difficulty, which I understand.
I had thought of concluding these brief remarks with some friendly advice to the noble Baroness who is to reply. However, on reflection, I realise that that may be the most dangerous form of advice for her to receive. So, in my closing words, I shall speak in the form of a friendly warning. Do the Government realise that if they allow the airport to go ahead they may be guilty of breaching the terms of the Ramsar Convention? Part of the site is designated under the Ramsar Convention. I am reliably informed that the heathland adjacent to the airport is about to be designated as an SPA and, therefore, there is the risk that the Government could end up in the European Court.
I have thought long and hard about the attitude of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions—and not, I hope, unsympathetically. It seems to me that it can be summed up in the phrase "watch and pray", or perhaps just "pray". I do not for a moment wish to minimise the power of prayer, but I believe that rather more is required on this occasion. I hope that it will be possible for the Government to approach this Bill in a positive way and to strengthen it, if they feel that that is necessary, in order to meet some of the deficiencies that I have pointed out.
1.54 p.m.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I too want to thank my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry for introducing this Bill and at least giving us the opportunity of discussing AONBs and their future.
I must declare an interest in that at the moment I live in a rented house on an AONB and I am attempting to build a house on an AONB. I can assure noble Lords that I have encountered the full rigours of the local planning powers. They do a very persuasive job. We have had our disagreements, but I am delighted to say that we have finally come to a satisfactory conclusion.
I wholly support the principle of improving the conservation status of AONBs. Indeed, I wholly approve of the principle of supporting the wider countryside. It undoubtedly has suffered over the years, largely due to unsympathetic support in various subsidy forms. None the less, we have much to do to redress some of the difficulties of the past.
580
Whereas I entirely share my noble friend's enthusiasm to protect and enhance AONBs, I am far from convinced that the methods suggested in the Bill are the right way forward. My noble friend Lord Marlesford was right when he said that it is a question of determining how best those objectives can be carried forward. I entirely agree with him. However, I differ from my noble friend in the fact that I believe that the local authorities should at the very least be given the opportunity of seeing whether they are capable of carrying out any further duties imposed upon them as far as AONBs are concerned. It would be quite wrong to impose a new board without giving the status quo a chance to see whether it can work effectively. I believe that it can.
Clauses 1 and 2 impose a duty upon local authorities to have regard to the need to conserve and advance the natural beauty of AONBs. I have no problems with that, but it is easy to say that by having a further designation, a further committee or a further board, somehow we shall resolve the problems of land management and nature conservation. In reality, it does not work like that.
As I have said, having seen at first hand the stringent control exercised by local planning authorities, I seriously question whether they need any extra encouragement or support. At the end of the day, I would have thought that the Government's guidance through PPG7, if drafted correctly, should be able to direct local authorities to deal with those problems.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, made reference to PPG7. He asked whether any of your Lordships had a copy next to your bed. No, I do not have a copy next to my bed, but I have one in another appropriate room in my house.
With regard to the remainder of the Bill, I cannot support my noble friend. The prospect of yet another tier of bureaucracy being imposed on the countryside fills me with dread. Like my noble friend Lord Jopling, I live in the north of England, I have lived in a national park and I have experienced all the difficulties to which my noble friend referred. Such matters are not as easy as many noble Lords believe. The problems that local people have to incur when dealing with the various tiers of bureaucracy at times are most frustrating and difficult. Furthermore, they impose additional costs, burdens on the taxpayer, more red tape and, for those living and working in the countryside, even further delays in decision-making.
There is little doubt that in rural Britain at the moment we are at a watershed. Although farming is always likely to be a major economic force in most rural areas, it is unlikely to have the dominant role that it had in the past. There is plenty of evidence of that today. Landholders of all descriptions will have to diversify more and more and sensible and imaginative use will have to be made of redundant buildings.
Planning policies will be vital in ensuring that new enterprises develop and the rural economy is stimulated. That needs to be embraced enthusiastically and sympathetically and with real expertise. I acknowledge that in many cases in local areas that expertise is perhaps

581
not as rounded as it should be. That needs to be addressed, but it does not require a whole new tier of bureaucracy in order to do that.
Yesterday I read a report in The Times that the Government are to encourage the development of run-down barns and farm outbuildings for light industrial use. That is a major change in policy and I welcome it. I am sure other noble Lords will agree that it is a sad sight to see redundant barns collapsing in the countryside without being put to any constructive use. I congratulate the Government on taking that positive step.
The difficulty is that there are already far too many delays and petty details getting in the way of progress. I cannot accept that yet another body on a further 13 per cent of land in England and Wales could possibly help. It can only hinder. In fact, if the Bill were to go on to the statute book there would be yet another body because I see that there will be an advisory council to advise the conservation board. Where will it stop?
My noble friend Lord Kimball gave us an illustration of all the various designations there are in the countryside. But on top of all those designations, in addition to local councils, we have the new regional development councils, the Ministry of Agriculture, the DETR, the Environmental Agency, English Nature, the Countryside Agency, English Heritage: all of those bodies have to have their say; they must all be consulted. As a result the process of getting anything done is cumbersome.
No one believes more than I do in the well-being of rural Britain. I despair at times at the demise of some of our most precious habitats and their associated species. But the dead hand of bureaucracy is in no way a remedy to overcome these problems. Of course there must be controls. Of course there must be site designations. But along with controls there should be incentives, and a lot more of them. English Nature, for example, has done some excellent work through positive management schemes with farmers and landowners, and the Countryside Stewardship scheme, although suffering a few problems at the moment, has great potential. And, of course, environmentally sensitive areas, which were introduced by my noble friend Lord Jopling when he was Minister for Agriculture, have been a huge success. This is the way we should be trying to develop the improvement of the countryside—not by imposing boards and councils but positive environmental schemes administered by those many bodies that already exist.
Far too much of our rural resources are going into administration. If we could take those resources and streamline them, the system would improve and we would have practical conservation schemes which would be implemented on the ground. That is the way to make progress and to start redressing the balance in the countryside in favour of environmental objectives, maintaining landscapes and promoting jobs.
I support the principle of improving the status of AONBs but I believe that we already have the mechanisms in place to do that. I should add that, if this Bill were to go further, it would have to include an equal status for the economic and social well-being of local
582
communities, as identified already by a number of noble Lords. We managed to get it into the National Parks Bill in 1995. If it is good enough for the national parks, it is good enough for AONBs.
In conclusion, I cannot support my noble friend to the extent that I should have liked. But I hope he will accept my criticisms in good faith coming from someone who wishes only the best for the countryside. My noble friend once said that farmers are becoming disenfranchised by red tape. That is an apt way of describing the situation in which we find ourselves; I do not wish to see it get any worse.
2.5 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I welcome the spirit of this Bill. There is no doubt that areas of outstanding natural beauty need further protection. I do not wish to trespass into the "To be or not to be" question, as I now regard it, in relation to the South Downs. There does not seem to be a consensus even locally over whether it should be considered for national park status, so far be it from me as an outsider to comment on that.
However, above my village I can see three different AONBs—the Quantocks, the Mendips and the Black Down Hills. They are all extremely different from each other and are all, no doubt as are all AONBs mentioned today, equally worthy of protection. But the solutions for each one are very different. Where the Bill succeeds is in the spirit of further protection. As many noble Lords mentioned today, funding will be a key issue as to whether or not those areas can expect in practical terms to be able to implement the action that will lead to that protection. I should therefore like to highlight those areas of the Bill which, if it did proceed further, need considerably more thought.
In terms of funding, it is not enough to leave it to local authorities to decide whether or not they want to contribute to the funding of their AONI3. The Minister's reply on 8th December in col. 809 was not very reassuring. I asked whether funding would be put on a more secure basis and he said that only an extra £2.5 million would be available this year through the Countryside Agency. That is very welcome, but it does nothing in terms of future security. Local development plans need to be put in place for funding to be secured. Management plans for all AONBs are absolutely essential and consultation on those plans must be very wide among those living and working in the AONBs in particular.
However, if the public are to be expected to come together in those areas and to work through a management plan which will be meaningful and implemented over a long time-scale, definite funding must be available. People will then be prepared to put in the time and effort to decide what they want to happen in an area because they will be able to see it come about.
The consultation needs to include those living and working in the area. However, nobody today has mentioned whether or not we have consulted all the various local authorities which have AONBs within

583
their districts or counties on how they see this working. I think that two-way consultation is essential. By and large, many local authorities have done a good job for the AONBs. The boards have been mentioned, but there are other models of how the AONBs can be managed. Some areas have joint consultative committees; some have joint authority committees. There are elected representatives from the various authorities on those committees or boards. In addition, other people are co-opted who contribute substantially.
If this Bill progresses further, another change that I should like to see in the way in which a Secretary of State appoints people to the boards or committees. I do not believe it is appropriate that people are sometimes appointed who live 50 or 200 miles away from the place in question. I recognise that they are representing the national interest, but at the same time there must be a sufficient pool of people who could represent that interest living probably within the area or certainly locally enough to be a regular visitor to it and to converse with people from it on a day-to-day basis and not just when they make occasional visits to serve on the board. That change could be made for the national parks also.
The next improvement that I should like to see has been mentioned by a number of noble Lords. I refer to the area of social and economic well-being. That clearly has to be a part of any plan or improvement to the way in which AONBs are looked after.
I turn now to the issue of development control or "planning" as it is commonly known. I do not believe that that can be delegated to a conservation board because it cannot be divorced from other local authority issues. If the AONB board is to have a say over planning issues, it will be considering those solely on their merits without looking at all the other relevant issues. By the time we have tied in all those other issues, such as housing and tourism, we shall have another whole set of mini-local authorities.
There are far more robust models for conservation boards which work with local authorities. We have such models in my own county, for example, where development control is, in effect, delegated to the planning officer in consultation with the parish council. The matter comes back to a committee of the local authority only where there is disagreement. That not only streamlines the process, but means that the parish or town council (in this case) or, in the case of the AONB, the conservation board, has far more influence over the outcome of the planning decision. That is absolutely right. I do not believe that merely giving them the status of a statutory consultee (by enhancing their powers) will create the sort of dialogue which will move this issue forward in the best way.
While we are in the area of development control with relation to AONBs in particular, I found it a pity, when I glanced down the written list from the Audit Commission of suggested indicators that should be applied to planning decisions under the new best-value regime, that I did not see the words "sustainability" or "environment" in any of those 10 indicators. As the Minister will know, the discussion as to whether or not
584
there should be sustainability indicator in best value is something that concerns me very much at the moment. This is a good example of where it should be introduced. When the Audit Commission draws up a list of indicators that are important in planning terms, I believe that it should include that extremely important one.
Therefore, there are a number of major issues to be addressed should the Bill progress any further. Noble Lords have mentioned a number of matters which I shall not repeat except that I wish to refer to the phrase,
"land in or adjacent to".
We cannot have something which is not quite in or out. That needs to be made clear, especially in relation to planning issues. If there is to be a higher standard, it is only fair that applicants, who are perhaps thinking of starting a business or buying a house there, should know whether it is in or out of such an area. I do not believe that we can have,
"land in or adjacent to",
even though I understand the noble Lord's reasons for including that phrase.
The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, referred to tourism. Rather than simply being seen in terms of protection, this measure must be permissive in terms of enabling things to happen. However, I certainly share the nervousness of the noble Viscount, Lord Hampden, about spherical balls. I was reminded of that series on television called "The Prisoner". Some of your Lordships may remember that spherical balls bounced around to keep the "Prisoner" in.
However, I welcome the spirit of the Bill. I hope that there is a Committee stage because there are many matters which we could usefully discuss then. I hope that the Government will find time for that. to be done.
2.14 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I too congratulate my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry on introducing the Bill. Noble Lords may recognise that it is not my normal brief to speak on these matters. Sadly, my noble friend Lady Byford is not able to be with us today and I stepped into the breach only late last night. It is an extremely interesting debate. I may not be alone but I am, perhaps, fairly unusual in not having an interest to declare in that I am not a resident of the Sussex Downs; nor do I live in any other AONB; nor am I a member of the CLA, the NFU, the Ramblers' Association or practically anything else which has been mentioned.
Nevertheless, the debate certainly seems to have caused some controversy this afternoon. I must agree with my noble friend Lord Jopling that it is perhaps rather too controversial for a Private Member's Bill. Therefore, I wonder, to myself only, how much further progress it will be able to make. I am aware, as will be my noble friend, of the pitfalls that can befall a Private Member's Bill in another place if it does not receive complete support from all quarters.
On these Benches, we all agree that it is important to identify and care for our AONBs. Where I suspect some differ is as regards the approach taken in caring for

585
them. A number of noble Lords have emphasised that the protective legislation needs to be strengthened. This Bill introduced by my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry seeks to make new provisions in relation to AONBs. It is driven by my noble friend's knowledge, care and concern for the Sussex Downs which, until now, have been overseen by their conservation board whose role is to come to an end in 18 months' time.
I understand my noble friend's desire to protect such an area, but I suspect that this Bill raises implications for other existing areas of outstanding natural beauty which have been dealt with by other noble Lords.
As I said, the board of the Sussex Downs AONB has done a good job. It feels that the best possible use should be made of its legacy, and this Bill is its attempt to enforce the lessons learnt upon everyone else. Unfortunately for the board, it is one of those situations in which no one answer is right.
The implication that the other 30 AONBs in England and Wales are somehow failing to reach the highest standards does not agree with the reports and other material which I have received. It may even be that the imposition of a new organisation will, in some areas, so disrupt established effective ways of working that their performance would be impaired. Certainly the protection afforded to AONBs is overdue for review and it is likely that greater control of both the motor car and the heavy goods vehicle will be welcomed in much of our most beautiful countryside. Moreover, planning guidelines may well need to be strengthened to recognise the need for greater flexibility in providing jobs in our more rural areas, a subject which has been debated on several occasions recently by your Lordships.
However, the Bill does not mention those practical matters. Instead, it concerns itself entirely with creating a further layer of bureaucracy and proposes that even more unelected, unaccountable officials be appointed without parliamentary scrutiny by a Secretary of State who already has vast powers. Moreover, it fails to specify the conditions under which a conservation board will be established for an AONB, although there is a hint, in Section 88B(1) and (2), that not all of them will be so embarrassed.
I am further concerned that the Bill seems to cut across the Countryside Commission's programme of land management initiatives. There are a clutch of experiments using alternative mechanisms and approaches for long-term management of the countryside. They will run for between three to five years and it is intended that some of the results will shape government policy. Most importantly, it is expected that the successful land management initiatives will result from local people and land users working together to bring about the necessary changes and benefits. A typical LMI is divided into six sectors, each of which has two or three basic objectives. The latter vary from project to project, but the six divisions are: agriculture and the environment, farm diversification and business development, skills and training, inward investment, social needs and, lastly, family farms and new entrants.
586
Access, conservation, planning and sustainability will all be covered more than adequately in all six. At the very least we should await the outcome of these trials before putting yet more legislation onto the statute book.
I endorse the general drift of Clause 1. Several noble Lords have emphasised that the protective legislation needs to be strengthened. Clause 3 proposes that conservation boards should have powers to levy local councils. The basic idea is anathema to me, but I am also concerned that the Bill makes no reference to how these sums will be determined. Will they be calculated under a national formula, or merely collected according to the system used by erstwhile de facto rulers of large areas of rural England? Clause 3(5) states:
"A conservation board shall have the powers of ownership and acquisition of land".
Clause 4 introduces the management of one area having the right to determine what happens outside that area. Not even the European Commission has tried that one on yet. Several noble Lords have, indeed, dealt more than adequately with the substance of this part of the Bill. However, I repeat my concern that all these provisos will inevitably cost planning applicants a great deal of money and effort. That may well be fair enough where an application is rejected, but people already live and work in these areas, and development is an essential part of conservation. Not all applications would be turned down, but I should hate to see an exodus caused by excessive costs and bureaucracy.
The Bill seeks to preserve and protect areas of outstanding natural beauty. However, I fear that it does not fully consider those who farm and work the countryside. Areas of outstanding natural beauty do not just happen, they are the result of work and care by numerous farmers, whether land managers or tenant farmers. This week, again, the dire plight of farm incomes has hit the headlines. Surely whatever the Government propose to do about our areas of outstanding natural beauty, they must recognise that our farming community is going through a dreadful crisis. Additional restrictions, bureaucracy or requirements must be kept to a minimum if our farmers are to survive in world competition.
It is crucial that those who earn their living from the countryside should not be so restricted that they are financially unable to continue to farm our land. It is they who have created, kept and looked after our areas of outstanding natural beauty. I therefore look forward to hearing what the Government intend to do, and I hope that whatever direction they take, they will appreciate that rural areas must be allowed to grow and thrive.
2.22 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, and, like him, I should like to express my sympathy for the fact that the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, is unable to be with us today. The noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, has been much involved in the current debate on the future of the South Downs. In his capacity as chairman of the Sussex Downs Conservation Board he

587
is well qualified to speak on these matters. Along with the noble Lords, Lord Monk Bretton and Lord Dholakia, I pay tribute to his commitment to this cause.
The Bill's proposals clearly reflect a keen interest in the proper management not only of the Downs but of all areas of outstanding natural beauty. As has been confirmed today, there is a great range of expertise among noble Lords on many aspects of managing these beautiful areas.
I am glad to have the opportunity to respond to the debate. I was about to say that I was going to repeat the lack of interests of the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, but was worried that the "s" might get left off. I, too, have no personal interests to declare but I share the interests of all in this country in the success of the work done within the areas of outstanding natural beauty.
The Government are firmly committed to protecting and enhancing our countryside. In response to my noble friend Lord Morris of Castle Morris, I should say that there are 37 areas of outstanding natural beauty in England and four in Wales. I am advised that that includes the predominance of the Wye Valley being counted as in England because that is the larger part. No doubt there will be correspondence with the CLA to find the missing parts.
The same legislation, the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, created both AONBs and national parks. We recognise the 50th anniversary of the Act as an important milestone. Many celebrations are taking place this year.
The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, referred to the fact that both national parks and AONBs have a high level of planning protection—the same or similar in almost every respect. But I can assure him and the noble Earl, Lord Peel, that we are looking carefully to see whether any clarification is required. We note the experience they have had. It is useful to remember that the legislation recognises no distinction in the landscape quality between the two national landscape designations of national parks and AONBs. Both are regarded as equally beautiful. The difference lies in the requirement for national parks to provide significant recreational opportunities. As the noble Earl, Lord Peel, said, they have been traditionally designated in our more remote upland areas.
The purpose of designating AONBs is to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the landscape. They also play a big part in meeting the growing demand for visits to the countryside.
Many noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, and the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, referred to the issue of economic and social well-being within AONBs. Of course the interests of the local communities living or working in these areas are vitally important. As the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, said, the contributions of farmers and other landowners towards maintaining the landscape are of particular importance. There are special considerations in AONBs because of the recognition that their landscapes are of
588
sufficient importance to have particular value to the nation as a whole. As the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, said, we need to maintain a balance. The Government's policy towards the countryside recognises the need for living and working communities. I agree with the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, that we should not foster a chocolate box approach.
My noble friend Lord Morris of Castle Morris quoted from Keats. With regard to the countryside, it must live, evolve and change. It cannot be similar to Ode on a Grecian Urn, which reads:
"Fair youth, beneath the trees, thou canst not leave, Thy song, nor ever can those trees be bare".
We have to maintain the balance. While we recognise that the countryside is alive, it is not in a fixed, fossilised state. As the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, rightly emphasised, we have to do this in the context of proper protection. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, made an important contribution about the importance of economic activities, encompassing in particular tourism and farms and the need to give families access to this facility. I join her in paying tribute to Farms For City Children.
The Government intend to do more to provide a positive approach to the management and protection of AONBs into the next century. We have already started. As a first step, we have provided the Countryside Agency with an additional £2.5 million for work in AONBs and other similar landscapes this year. This more than doubles the former Countryside Commission funds available to them and will allow a considerable degree of progress in putting in place new management plans and new programmes and in helping to attract additional expert staff. Of course we will consider carefully the views put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, that a great deal has been achieved already through the enthusiasm and commitment of local people, by local authorities and by other local partners working together. I understand that 24 of the 37 AONBs in England currently have a management plan in place, and a great many have an AONB officer or a joint advisory committee set up by their local authorities.
Many noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, and the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, referred to the fact that AONBs are very different in size, nature and circumstance. As the noble Lord, Lord Nathan—and I add my tribute to the work that he did—and the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, said, there cannot be just one way of managing them or caring for them.
The noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, contributed from the perspective of someone with a particular interest in aspects of such areas. Some of these lie solely within the area of one local authority which may be best placed to co-ordinate a management programme. Others stretch over long distances, such as the Sussex Downs, with considerable numbers of local authorities involved.
The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, referred to Suffolk. He referred to it very eloquently: I could close my eyes and picture the beauty of the Suffolk countryside. I know he

589
understands that I am unable to comment on this planning application because at the moment it is sub judice.
I pay tribute to the Sussex Downs Conservation Board. It was a unique experiment set up in 1992 by the Countryside Commission and the local authorities concerned to show what could be done under one model to manage and protect an AONB. It has achieved a great deal, as the noble Lord, Lord Monk Bretton, said.
Unlike the national parks, there is no provision for a comprehensive set of powers and duties for AONBs, for dedicated statutory bodies to look after them or for an extensive system of central funding. The former Countryside Commission, now the Countryside Agency, recognised this last summer in presenting its advice to government.
Advice on the protected landscapes included proposals for the future management and funding of AONBs and consideration of possible national park status for the South Downs and the New Forest. In Wales, the Countryside Council for Wales has recently submitted advice on AONBs which is broadly similar to that provided by the Countryside Agency, except that it does not envisage statutory conservation boards.
The key recommendations advanced by the agency are similar in most ways to the proposals in the noble Lord's Bill. The agency's advice sought new primary legislation to strengthen the administration and management of AONBs, including a recommendation that local authorities should be required to pursue AONB objectives and to produce management plans and for all relevant authorities to have regard to the purposes of AONBs.
The Government, in considering this, have paid high regard to the advice that they have received, including the agency advice, seeking core management costs to be met by 50 per cent government grant, although Ministers have received a number of representations that central funding should be at 75 per cent, like the national parks. We will consider these points.
We have a great deal of sympathy with the overall objectives of the Bill. We share the same goal in wanting to achieve the best for the future. There are complex proposals involving significant implications for local government, the planning system, development control and financially. All these questions need to be considered properly. Ministers have been studying the advice that we have received on the options for change. I understand the impatience of the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, but there are implications which need to be carefully balanced. We want to make the right decision.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, I can say that the proposed management plans require further consideration, as does the interplay as regards the system of statutory development plans. I believe that all speakers made clear that they support the Government's objective for simple and transparent procedures. We wish to ensure that planning guidance, as well as planning legislation, is clear and that the protection of AONBs is paramount within the system.
590
On funding of the AONBs, to which many noble Lords referred, the Government are looking carefully at whether additional central funding is warranted in addition to the extra £2.5 million. We are considering further the views of the Local Government Association on the proposals within the noble Lord's Bill which would have implications for the RSG. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, I should point out that it is extremely important to note that the Government would not in any way want to accept any proposal which would take away the right of the Secretary of State to make the final decision as to whether a particular planning case should be called in.
On the question of the particular status of the South Downs, I think that noble Lords will see from today's debate that the Government are being offered a wide range of advice containing very strongly held views which are not always compatible. Indeed, as regards the conflicts that can arise, I have in mind the words of the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, with his reference to what happened with the Eden Valley proposal. That is a very important consideration. I give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, I am much obliged. Before the Minister sits down, can she either confirm or deny a press report that the Government had proposals ready to deal with AONBs as a whole for a forthcoming Countryside Bill in the next Session of Parliament but that that Bill has now lost its place in the legislative programme?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton:: My Lords, I do not believe that the noble Lord expects me to comment on the preparation of the next legislative programme. The noble Lord has raised a very important point; indeed, I do not seek to minimise the issue. However, such a process is ongoing. The noble Lord will be made fully aware of the Government's view at the appropriate time.
We will consider what is the best way to secure the future for the Sussex Downs Conservation Board. As for those like the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, who have only national park status in mind, we are making their views known so that they can be considered in the representations. The noble Viscount, Lord Hampden, referred to the important issue of conflict of use and transport issues. I hope that he will agree that that demonstrates the importance of a carefully thought-out strategy to protect the area for the future.
I am trying to finish my response quickly. The noble Lords, Lord Beaumont of Whitley and Lord Kimball, among others, raised the issue of representation. The Government will encourage wide-ranging representation of various groups with a legitimate interest, including those owning and managing land. The noble Lords, Lord Jopling, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, Lord Chorley and Lord Monk Bretton, together with my noble friend Lord Morris of Castle Morris, among other speakers, asked about compulsory purchase powers. We would not expect such a power to be used very often and will consider whether it is at all necessary.
I am sorry to disappoint noble Lords in not being able to tell the House today of any final decision on any of these matters. Ministers intend to be in a position to

591
make an announcement soon. Today's debate has proved extremely useful in giving a range of informed opinions for us to consider when taking advice, including the wise words of advice from the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, about future procedure.
The noble Lord, Lord Monk Bretton, referred to the detailed analysis and consideration which need to be given to Clause 4. I can say from personal experience that discussions on Clause 4 may take a long time! The noble Viscount, Lord Addison, also asked what would be included in next year's programme. The decisions remain to be taken but today's debate has provided valuable ground for that consideration to be well informed.
2.40 p.m.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, I thank all those who have taken part in this debate which has been interesting, illuminating arid at times controversial, but none the worse for that. I include in my thanks the Minister, even if she continues to keep me and others dangling on a thread of suspense as to when we shall see the legislation which has been promised for so long. I am sure I speak for the whole House when I speak of my sympathy for the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, who has been prevented from attending the debate today by family circumstances. I thank my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara for taking her place. I shall not "tweak" him about his speech, as I might have done otherwise, because I know that he inherited it only about an hour-and-a-half ago and it would not be fair to do so.
Your Lordships will be relieved to hear that I intend to speak briefly and to pick up just two or three of the points that have been made in this long debate. I hope that there will be an opportunity to move amendments in Committee, which I would welcome—I shall take careful account of the points that have been made before that stage—which would enable us to consider some of the points that have been raised.
I must comment on the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, as regards the 77 per cent who voted in favour of a question put by the Ramblers' Association in favour of national park status. I wish to place on record exactly what the question asked; namely,
"If the South Downs was given National Park status it would be run by an organisation whose duty would be to conserve and enhance wildlife, natural beauty and cultural heritage, and to promote opportunities for public understanding and enjoyment of the South Downs' special qualities. Do you, yourself, think the South Downs should be given National Park status or not?"
How can anyone answer no to that question? I am amazed that even 7 per cent did answer no. If ever there was a loaded question, it is that one. It is exactly the same as being asked whether one has stopped beating one's wife. I do not think that was a fair or particularly important point for the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, to make.
My noble friend Lord Rotherwick and others understandably spoke of their wish to have representation of farmers and landowners on the conservation boards that the Bill proposes. I wholly agree with that. There are farmers and landowners on
592
our existing conservation board who are nominated by the Countryside Agency. I am sure that that practice will be continued. The Bill also provides for an advisory council. My noble friend Lord Peel views that as yet another piece of bureaucratic interference. The only reason I included that provision in the Bill was in order that there should be an opportunity for representation of more interested bodies in the working of the conservation board without having to increase the number of members of the board itself. That is the only reason I included that provision.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, became rather lost with regard to the number of AONBs. I am pleased that the Minister set him right. The figure is, of course, 37 in England, including the Wye Valley. The missing ones that the noble Lord sought comprise his neighbours in Wales. He will have to leave Castle Morris and find the three missing AONBs. As regards his view that the Brecon Beacons are analogous to the Sussex Downs, the best thing I can do is to invite him to spend a weekend with me. We shall walk over the Sussex Downs together and I will show the noble Lord with great pleasure just how different the Sussex Downs are.
Many other points of interest and controversy have been made. I hope that there will be a Committee stage and that noble Lords from both sides of the House will put forward amendments. The words of Keats' Ode on a Grecian Urn have been quoted to us; we will have the opportunity, in the words of Milton's Paradise Lost, "To spurn delight and live laborious days", in considering the amendments in Committee. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Protection of Children Bill [H.L.]
2.46 p.m.
Lord Laming: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
I regard it as both a great honour and a responsibility to sponsor the Bill, which is specifically designed to strengthen the arrangements determined by the Government to protect vulnerable children and young people from the danger of abuse or exploitation.
I am sure that every Member of your Lordships' House has been shocked and dismayed by the steady stream of reports over the years which have catalogued the suffering of young people, often at the hands of those who have been entrusted with the responsibility to protect them from harm. Having been a director of social services for many years, I have no doubt not only of such practices but also of how sometimes weak and ineffective managers allow staff to leave, often with a reference, rather than

593
confront their unacceptable behaviour. As the former Chief Inspector of the Social Services Inspectorate, I both set up inspections and reported to Ministers on serious failures to protect children.
Over the years, Ministers set up a number of inquiries into the reasons for those tragic events. The noble Lord, Lord Warner, produced a detailed and practical report in 1992 on the need for better safeguards, entitled Choosing with Care. I hope that he arrives in time to share with us his experience. My predecessor, Sir William Utting, was commissioned by the Government to produce two reports on the subject.
So, the issues are not new. But the good news is that today we have before us a positive Bill, which has been initiated and very ably piloted through another place by the Member for Stourbridge, Debra Shipley, who came top in the ballot for Private Member's Bills. I should like to pay a warm tribute to her for choosing this topic and for making such great progress through her skill and determination. We are indeed grateful to her.
It must be acknowledged that most people working with children and young people are dedicated to their task and many demonstrate daily their commitment and integrity. The challenge before us is to root out of the system the minority who are unsuitable.
The Bill cannot cover every issue, but your Lordships will know that the Government have established an inter-departmental working group and I feel sure that other matters will be included in future legislation. The Bill—on what is a complicated subject—addresses recommendations from earlier reports and will, when put into operation, afford a significant improvement on the current arrangements for safeguarding young people.
I am happy to say that when the Bill was originally placed before the House of Commons, there was a broad consensus from the outset in support of the principles it embodied. There was, however, concern over the implications it held for the rights of the individual within these proposals. There was also some concern that the Bill would not capture those individuals who had moved on after harming children, when such incidents came to light only some time afterwards. However, by Third Reading in the other place, there was a general feeling that the concerns which had been raised at Second Reading and in Committee had been comprehensively examined and fully addressed in the amendments made, with the result that the Bill had emerged considerably strengthened and improved. There was a markedly positive and co-operative—though still testing—all-party approach to the Bill, which I have every reason to believe will continue in your Lordships' House.
I now turn to the objects of the Bill. It has four main aims. The first is to place the Department of Health's current administrative "Consultancy Service Index"— which lists individuals considered unsuitable to work with children—on a statutory footing; and to require regulated organisations, and to permit other organisations, to refer such names for inclusion on the new list.
Secondly, it seeks to provide rights of appeal against inclusion on both the Department of Health list and the similar "List 99" of the Department for Education and Employment, which has always been a statutory list.
594
Thirdly, the Bill seeks to require regulated childcare organisations, and to permit other organisations, to check the names of anyone they propose to employ in posts involving regular contact with children against both of the departmental lists and not to employ them if listed—although in List 99 cases only if listed on certain grounds.
Fourthly, it seeks to amend Part V of the Police Act 1997 to allow the Criminal Records Bureau to act as a central access point for those applying to work with children to criminal records information, List 99 and the new Department of Health list.
These objects are realised as follows. The first group of clauses—Clauses 1–4—transform the current Department of Health consultancy index into a new statutory list, with rights of appeal against inclusion and, in certain circumstances, with the leave of the tribunal, the right to have the tribunal instead of the Secretary of State make a determination on listing.
To follow the structure of the intended proposals, it is important to bear in mind two key definitions; namely, "child care organisation" and "child care position", both of which are set out in Clause 12 of the Bill. The definition "child care organisation" in Clause 12 includes the regulated public, private and voluntary sector providers of the services concerned. "Child care position" means a position concerned with the provision of accommodation, social services and health care services to children for which any organisation—that is, not merely a "child care organisation" as defined—is responsible, and is such as to enable the holder to have regular contact with children in the course of his duties.
It is important to distinguish between regulated organisations—that is, "child care organisations" which are within the mandatory scheme of the Bill—arid other organisations, separately and differently defined in Clause 12, which are placed within the parallel permissive scheme. For example, they do not have to refer names for listing; they do not have to check proposed appointees against lists; and they are not obliged to refuse employment. In practice, it is expected that they will want to do all of those things since they will have the means of checking names more easily and efficiently available as a result of this Bill.
Turning to the detail of the Bill, Clause 1 requires the Secretary of State to keep the list, and confers discretionary powers upon him to remove names from the list.
Clause 2 specifies by whom names may be referred for inclusion; the circumstances in which reference may be made, including whether or not an employee has already left or transferred from the childcare position; and the procedure that the Secretary of State must follow in determining references. Regulated organisations—that is, those defined as "child care organisations"—"must refer" names; and other organisations, for example in the unregulated parts of the voluntary sector, "may" refer names.
Your Lordships will wish to know that Clause 2 as now drafted has been affected by two direct alterations and one indirect alteration following amendment in the

595
other place. First, incompetence has been removed as a ground for reference of a name, with the result that misconduct is now alone the relevant ground.
Secondly, in the light of concerns over individuals abusing and moving on well before their deeds are discovered, the Bill has been extended to make the provision under Clause 2(3) for referring names when information subsequently comes to light, although at the same time making it clear that no childcare organisation will be obliged to refer a case where the incident was concluded before the commencement of the clause.
Thirdly, the indirect change is the one which, now, in Clause 4(1)(b) gives an avenue of approach to the tribunal for individuals who have been included provisionally in the list for particular lengths of time. There was understandable concern that people in that category should not be in danger of languishing for indefensible periods without the possibility of review.
Clause 3 sets out the procedure for transferring names from the existing Consultancy Service Index to the new statutory list created by Clause 1. Clause 4 provides for appeals to the tribunal against any decision of the Secretary of State to include a name permanently in the list or, with leave, against his refusal to remove a name once included.
Clauses 5 and 6 relate to the Department of Employment and Education's List 99. This is a list similar to, but not identical with, the Consultancy Service Index. The primary difference is that List 99 contains individuals entered for a greater variety of reasons, for example on medical grounds or in connection with types of misconduct unrelated to inappropriate behaviour towards children. In order to make the "one-stop shop" arrangements work, it is necessary to separate out the various grounds for inclusion so that a category may be identified which covers only unsuitability to work with children. This is achieved by the amendments in Clause 5 to the 1988 Education Reform Act. Clause 6 then goes on to amend the 1988 Act to empower the Secretary of State to make regulations giving similar rights of appeal to the new tribunal in List 99 cases as Clause 4 permits in health department cases.
Clause 7 is one of the most important clauses in the whole Bill because it prescribes what the effect of inclusion in the lists will mean. It requires childcare organisations to check both the health department list and the relevant part of List 99 before offering employment in childcare positions and to refuse to offer employment in such positions if the individual's name appears in either list. Subsection (2) makes special provision for employment agencies so that their operations are caught by the Bill's provisions.
Clause 8 enhances this protection as it paves the way for accessing both lists and criminal records simultaneously when the Criminal Records Bureau is up and running. It achieves this by inserting amendments into Part V of the Police Act 1997 which makes searches through those procedures possible to all organizations—not just regulated childcare organisations—in respect of childcare positions so that both criminal record certificates and enhanced criminal record certificates may
596
be obtained which also include the result of searches on the two departmental lists. Until Part V of the Police Act 1997 becomes operative, Clause 13 makes it clear that organisations may access the departmental lists direct.
Clause 9 and the schedule provide for the constitution and operation of the tribunal. In particular, Clause 9(2) lists examples of the areas that the regulation-making power may be used to cover. The joint effect will be to produce a type of tribunal which is markedly independent. It is the Lord Chancellor who will appoint the president of the tribunal and all the panel members. In addition, by virtue of paragraph 8 of the schedule the tribunal is placed under the supervision of the Council on Tribunals.
Clause 10 contains a power by affirmative order to extend the protections of the Bill to adults suffering from mental impairment. Although it was not feasible to hope that this Bill could include al the categories of vulnerable adults, adults in this particular group are generally acknowledged to be particularly at risk. For this reason, it is right to include the possibility of extending the Bill's scheme to benefit them.
The remaining provisions of the Bill do not require lengthy introduction. Clause 11 sets out the necessary financial provisions. Clause 12 contains the definitions. Clause 13 provides for further transitional provisions to ensure that cases referred to the Consultancy Service Index where no final decision has been taken on inclusion at the date of commencement should be treated as if they were a referral under Clause 2 of the Bill.
The implementation of the Bill is dealt with in Clause 14. As a considerable amount of preparatory work will be needed, Clause 14 does not fix a date for implementation but provides for implementation by order on different dates for different provisions. The actual arrangements will be for Ministers to progress, but I hope, as I am sure will other noble Lords, that we can expect to see them taken forward as speedily as possible.
Finally, I should confirm that apart from amendments to Part V of the Police Act 1997, which extends to the whole of the United Kingdom, the Bill otherwise extends only to England and Wales. I understand that the authorities in Scotland are considering setting up a parallel system which will require separate legislation.
No one will, I think, doubt the case for the Bill. Events in recent years have underlined how imperfect society's defences have been in relation to the abuse of vulnerable children and adults which has rightly shocked the nation. At the same time, however, as the legislature is invited to respond with measures designed to control the abuse of young people, the legislature has also to ensure that its response is properly balanced. As might be expected, the debate in another place was principally, and rightly in my view, concerned with those questions of balance. In the ways I have sought to explain, significant efforts have been made to improve the balance of the Bill and they enable me more confidently to commend it to this House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Laming.)
3.1 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, I cannot resist beginning with the comment that the Second Reading debate on the Protection of Children Bill has nine speakers whereas the Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty Bill had more than double that number, 20 speakers. I think that that is a slight comment on this House.
I congratulate Debra Shipley on her excellent work in guiding this Bill through another place. It involved a great deal of hard work, and five Committee days; and that is unusual for a Private Member's Bill. We are lucky to have the noble Lord, Lord Laming, steering the Bill through this House. A more suitable pilot cannot be imagined. His introduction has demonstrated how ably he will conduct the Bill. His skill and knowledge came out clearly.
As vice chairman of the all-party children group, I wish to say how strongly that group supports the Bill. Having been a member of the group for a long time under the splendid leadership of Lady Faithfull, I am certain she would have been a strong supporter of the Bill.
In her Second Reading speech in another place, the present chairman of the group, Mrs. Llin Golding, explained that since 1995 she has been working for a coherent, cross-sector system to identify people unsuitable to work with children. In the past few years we have heard far too much of the maltreatment of children living away from home. There have been too many scandals. We have waited a long time for the publication of the Waterhouse report on the North Wales inquiry into the situation in Clwyd and Gwynedd. I should like to know, if possible, when we can expect that report, which I am sure will give us a good many shocks.
It is to the former government's credit that because of those scandals they commissioned Sir William Utting to write the report, People Like Us. It is on some of its recommendations that the Bill is based. This Government followed that by announcing in June 1998 that they had decided that the safeguards then in place to prevent those considered unsuitable to work with children from gaining employment with them should be strengthened and a more streamlined approach proposed. They set up,
"An Inter-departmental Working Group on preventing unsuitable people from working with children and abuse of trust".
That report was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Laming. It was published in December 1998. The Bill has taken up a number of its recommendations. For this Bill to have had its Second Reading so soon after the publication of that report in February this year shows a commendable determination to get on with the business as soon as possible.
The noble Lord, Lord Laming, has done an admirable job in explaining the aims and content of the Bill and it is quite unnecessary for me to do the same. Indeed, it would be otiose to do so. What I should like to do is air a few anxieties. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Laming, did that, too. What is the timing? How soon can we expect the one-stop-shop, which is so necessary and is to be provided by the Criminal Records Bureau,
598
to be set up and operational? The Bill enables this to happen by amending in Clause 8 the Police Act 1997. But I was a little daunted to see a Home Office press notice of December 1998 announcing that a self-financing CRB, under the management of the Passport Agency, would take two years to establish. Does this mean that the Bill, although passed this summer, will not be implemented until December 2000? It would be very sad if that were so.
When we hear how inadequate the present index is, that is a worry, too. According to Utting, there are only 750 names referred by employers on the DH index and some 4,000 other names have been referred by the police. Not all police forces send the information to the DH—the figures seem low—and one wonders how far the whole country is covered.
The department checked on its records to see whether the range of authorities referring names was what might be expected and it found that two large authorities very rarely made referrals. There is a good deal of planning to be done before a really satisfactory referral system is established. It is of course right that an appeals system should be there, but no doubt regulations will have to be passed before the tribunal conducting those appeals can start work.
The Bill is not quite so comprehensive in its cover as one might wish. It is estimated that there are about 100,000 nannies working in the UK and there is no statutory register to ensure the training qualifications or appropriate vetting of these individuals. Then of course there are au pairs. But what we must appreciate is that this Bill is a very much needed start in improving the present situation. And that, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, is a cause for congratulation and satisfaction. It needs our strong support. I wish this Bill a very speedy passage through this House.
I have to apologise that, owing to the number of speakers on the first debate and the Statement, I shall not be able to stay until the end of the debate. I have apologised to the Minister replying and he has been very kind about it. I do not like having to leave before the end, but as I very much wanted to speak of my enthusiasm for the Bill I broke my usual good intentions.
3.7 p.m.
Lord Warner: My Lords, I rise strongly to support the Bill. I, too, offer my warm congratulations to Debra Shipley on taking it through the other place. I support the Bill as someone who for six years ran one of the largest social services departments in the country and who chaired the previous government's committee of inquiry into the selection, development and management of staff in children's homes. In 1992, that produced a report called Choosing with Care. Since 1992, I have worked closely with the noble Lord, Lord Laming, in trying to progress the implementation of the recommendations set out in that report. I am delighted to be here with him today to help progress the Bill. I am sorry that I missed the beginning of his speech, but I can assure your Lordships that there is no one better equipped to take the Bill through your Lordships' House.

599
I have seen at first hand the serious consequences for vulnerable children of their contact with people who are completely unsuitable to look after them. One of the features of the past decade has been our growing awareness of society and our understanding of the lengths to which some men—I am afraid that it is overwhelmingly men—go to get close to children so that they can abuse them. Home Office figures show that there are well over 100,000 men with convictions for sexual offences against children. A study of 92 convicted paedophiles showed that about one third of them had abused between 10 and 400 victims each. So some paedophiles are very prolific.
Fortunately, we have tightened up the law, and its enforcement, on sex offenders in recent years. Anyone now gaoled for a sex offence must undergo supervision by probation officers and must notify changes of address to the police. However, there are still many paedophiles around who fall outside those controls because they do not have convictions or their convictions relate to a much earlier period. I am afraid that they are attracted to vulnerable children like wasps round a jam jar. That is why this Bill is so important.
Regrettably, I have found, particularly in my time in local government, reluctance by some public bodies to face up to their responsibilities when a professional person has been found to be abusing their position of trust with a young person. I have seen many cases of organisational denial when teachers, doctors and social workers have been found to have abused that trust. Too often, such people have been quietly hustled off the premises without much regard being given to where they go. As we tried to demonstrate as a committee in the Choosing with Care report, too many local authorities did not have robust enough checks in place to stop them employing someone who had been found by another employer to be totally unsuitable for work with children. An area of greatest weakness was employment agencies, where sometimes quite inadequate checks were carried out, but employers assume that full checks had been made.
I welcome the commitment of the Government to apply and enforce the principles of Choosing with Care to the recruitment and selection of staff working with any children who live away from home. I am pleased that that will be done not only in social services departments but also within many other settings such as prisons.
Many directors of social services have shown strong personal commitment to ensuring robust vetting and selection procedures for staff and other senior professionals. However, many others would do well in their particular capacities to emulate their good example. I am certainly glad that in my capacity as chairman of the Youth Justice Board I shall be able to oversee the application of tougher procedures across the juvenile secure estate.
The provisions in the Bill will plug some of the gaps that we identified in Choosing with Care, when new legislation was required. We wanted to see those employed to work with children being required to notify
600
a central list of staff who have left in circumstances which demonstrated their unsuitability. We wanted those same employers to be required, by law, to access those lists before employing a person to work with children, whether or not they came through an employment agency. I am pleased to see that this Bill delivers those requirements and goes further by linking employer information on unsuitability far more effectively with criminal record checks.
In the past there has been a problem in the delays and difficulties of access to police checks in some parts of the country, together with the need to access separately the Department of Health consultancy index and the DFE list 99. Unfortunately, that has led to people being employed to work with children before any vetting has taken place. It has been possible, for example, for residential childcare staff to be employed through agencies and then to move on to another job before the first lot of checks have been made.
The provisions in the Bill to bring all the checks together through the new criminal records agency should close that rather glaring loophole, especially the provision in Clause 7. I do not wish to make a party political point, but I want to respond briefly to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady David, about the time taken to introduce the criminal records bureau. Part V of the Police Act was not funded under the previous government's public expenditure provisions, so it has taken time to put in place the money to bring that agency into force.
As a society we have had to learn some painful lessons over the past decade or so about those who abuse children. I am afraid that there are a significant number of men who like sex with children. Many of those men are prepared to target vulnerable children and to groom them carefully for their own purposes. Some such men have been found to be in positions of professional trust. There have been mortifying episodes of men who have been seen as experts in childcare abusing children over many years. The idea that paedophiles are all sleazy characters in greasy raincoats, hanging around school playgrounds, I am afraid is a myth. If we are to protect vulnerable children from abuse by those whom they should be able to trust, we need robust legislative provisions of the kind set out in this Bill.
The Bill provides safeguards against people being labelled unfairly, with a good system of hearing appeals. But we must always remember to err on the side of those who are most vulnerable; that is, the children rather than the adults. At the end of the day, the adults can go and get another job not working with children. But the children can have their lives ruined through abuse from powerful adults in positions of trust. Children who are looked after away from home for the most part did not choose that option but were placed there by public services. They are entitled to the protection that this Bill confers. I strongly support its speedy passage.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Rix: My Lords, I am delighted to speak in support of this Bill, so ably moved by my noble friend Lord Laming this afternoon. At the risk of over-egging the pudding, I too should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the honourable Member for Stourbridge, Debra Shipley, for using her good fortune in the Private Member's Ballot in another place to bring forward such timely and constructive proposals.
As the president of Mencap, I particularly welcome the Government's acknowledgement of the vulnerability of disabled children to all forms of abuse. Learning-disabled children are especially likely to be abused, for many reasons. They range from the very general, such as the lack of value placed on disabled children by society and the lack of choice and control which disabled children have over their own lives—to much more specific considerations, such as the fact that children with learning disabilities are three times more likely than other children to be cared for away from home. Disabled children may also face an increased exposure to medication, which has scope for misuse. They may also rely upon multiple carers, and children may face the additional problem of a very limited ability to communicate about abuse. Unlike other children, learning disabled children often cannot run and tell; they may not be able to run and they may have absolutely no speech.
The Protection of Children Bill is particularly relevant in view of disabled children's reliance upon services provided in a wide range of settings; for instance, health, education, social services, and those provided by the voluntary sector. A child with a learning disability may attend a school provided by the local education authority, go to an after-school club managed by a voluntary sector provider, during the holidays attend a play scheme run by social services, and stay once a month in a respite centre run by a health trust.
This Bill will, for the first time, safeguard against offenders moving undetected between jobs in a variety of care settings. The Bill creates a national register of offenders against children, to which employers will have a statutory duty both to contribute and consult. One would expect employers to consult existing registers in advance of recruiting childcare workers, and not to employ candidates with a history of abuse. But this Bill will strengthen the quality of the recruitment of staff who encounter children on a regular basis by making this a statutory requirement. It has, in the past, been more difficult for employers to make a contribution to such lists, particularly in cases where suspected employees resign while under investigation.
I do not want to trouble your Lordships by recounting tragic and unpalatable details of the numerous incidents of abuse which have been brought to my attention over my years at Mencap. Independent investigations such as the Longcare inquiry made public the honors of abuse against people with learning disabilities, and highlighted the frustrations experienced by families who realise that earlier allegations of abuse in other settings were never acted upon. It is sufficient, as president of Mencap, to state categorically that had this Bill been on the statute
602
book earlier, some of the crimes committed by serial perpetrators could have been prevented. We cannot rewrite history for those who have suffered in the past, but we can seek to improve children's safety by reforming the system of checks and safeguards.
A more comprehensive register will offer more comprehensive protection for children. But the Bill also has an additional advantage in protecting the civil liberties of those who are referred on to the register. At present, there is no mechanism for challenging inclusion on either the Department of Health's Consultancy Index or the Department for Education and Employment's List 1999.
This Bill introduces a right to appeal against inclusion on either register. The protection of children inevitably has to be weighed against the civil liberties of individuals who are suspected of abuse. I believe that this Bill achieves the right balance. It errs on the side of caution by placing known abusers and those suspected of abuse on the register, but it allows a right of appeal for all.
Since the Government sought to encompass the European Convention on Human Rights into British law, there can be no laxity in these matters. The strong independent appeals procedures proposed in this Bill provide a forum for the re-examination of evidence afresh and that forum will be charged to make its own decision on the merits of a particular case. It will also be able to review the way in which departmental decisions have been reached.
This Bill is fully compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights, which provides assurance that it has already been subject to detailed scrutiny on the issue of civil liberties.
This Bill is by no means all-embracing, but it provides a solid basis for the expansion of the safety of children by closing some of the current loopholes which are exploited by people who physically or sexually abuse children. The Bill improves the safety of some of the most vulnerable in our society. I therefore warmly welcome the protection this Bill will afford children with learning disabilities, and I wish it Godspeed through your Lordships' House.
3.21 p.m.
Baroness Thornton: My Lords, protecting children from those who would do them harm must be a priority for our Government and for every decent member of society. I am pleased to be able to contribute to the Second Reading debate on the Bill. I join noble Lords in expressing thanks to our good friend Debra Shipley for using her position in the Private Members' Ballot to bring forward this Bill, steering it through the other place and bringing it to us in its present form. It is also important to recognise the important part that the Government's positive response to this Bill has played in its passage.
The context for this Bill is that at the moment the various lists which contain the names of people who might be a risk to children are split up in various places. The "Shipley Bill", if I might call it that, is part of a multi-staged process for rationalising the system. It will

603
consolidate "List 99" held by the DfEE and the DoH Consultancy Index and put the new index on a legal basis.
The Bill also establishes the foundations for the next stage in this process: the creation of a "one-stop-shop" access point for checks in the form of the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB). Once that is up and running—I am told that that will be in two or three years' time—anyone who employs staff with "substantial unsupervised access" to children will be able to go to the CRB to check potential employees against the Police National Computer database of convictions. Those are the two indices.
The voluntary organisation, NCH Action for Children, with which I have an association, in common with some of the other major voluntary agencies which deal with children and young people currently, has an arrangement by which it can access such information through VOCS—the Voluntary Organisations Consultancy Index—which is funded by the DoH and run under the auspices of the NCVCCO, the National Council of Voluntary Child Care Organisations.
One of the important features of the proposed new scheme is that all voluntary agencies will be able to use it, including small ones. That is important, especially given the Government's projected increase in childcare provision. My understanding is that once the CRB is established, VOCS will be wound up.
Until the CRB is up and running, which will not be for at least two years, the significance of the Shipley Bill is that it simply consolidates the two government indices and puts them on a proper legal footing. Those whose names are on them will be able to make representations to the Secretary of State if they believe that they should not be included on the new index.
I know that some of those in the civil liberties lobby have expressed concern about the notion that the index will include the names of people who are believed to be a risk to children yet have never been convicted of a criminal offence. As a result, it is understandable that the Bill was amended along those lines during its passage through the Commons. However, it is important that, in due course, primary legislation is passed so that it will become a criminal offence for someone to seek work with children if he has a specified conviction.
This is a good Bill and it should not be watered down any further. It is right to take into account civil liberties considerations, but the balance should not be tilted any further away from child protection concerns. I believe that the balance is about right now.
We must never forget that the provisions of the Bill are only one weapon, albeit a welcome and important one, in the battle to protect children from would-be abusers. The people whose names go on the index are a very small minority of actual abusers. There is no substitute for vigilance and intelligence-led policing to identify prospective abusers and particularly vulnerable children, and seeking to keep one from the other.
In recent years, it has often seemed that the abusers were one step ahead; that for many children, we came too late to the knowledge that many of those taken into
604
the care of the state were preyed upon by those who had responsibility for them. Now, with the presence of paedophile rings and those who trade in children on the Internet, I fear it seems that, again, the abusers are able to be one step ahead of us. I know that the Government are considering that issue which, I believe, needs urgent attention. In other words, the answer is that we must be as creative and resourceful as they are.
Finally, although I welcome the Bill, I should also like to raise one point. Once the new consolidated index is up and running, the demand on its services seems likely to increase. It is important that sufficient resources are invested in staff to make sure that that demand is met. I seek an assurance from the Minister that that will be the case. I welcome the Bill and I thank Debra Shipley for introducing it.
3.27 p.m.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, I commence by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Laming, on the excellent way in which he introduced the Bill today. I too offer my congratulations to Debra Shipley not only on her good fortune in winning first place in the ballot but also on her good sense of priority in her choice of subject matter for the Bill. The valuable work of the noble Lord and Debra Shipley is an important step forward in the protection of children.
In view of the expertise of many Members of your Lordships' House on this subject, expertise evidenced by the speeches already made, I was diffident about whether or not to speak. But I have decided to do so because the protection of children is not just a matter for our experts. It is a duty of us all. We all have a duty of care. Therefore, I shall demonstrate my lack of expertise in this matter because we all have that duty.
This Bill concerns the vetting element in employment procedures rather than the overall process of child protection. However, it is significant because it seeks to improve the identifications of persons unsuited to work with children and to create the foundations of a one-stop shop for single channel access to all relevant information.
At present, there are various registers of interest for a potential employer concerned about eliminating from employment with children those with a record which demonstrates their unsuitability. The noble Lord, Lord Laming, outlined the detail of those various registers with great clarity.
The mixture of statutory and non-statutory registers and criminal records is clearly an inadequate response to the view that society is obliged to protect its children. This Bill seeks to remedy that inadequacy.
In that fragmented situation, the dangers that exist and continue to exist are self-evident. Principal among those is that a child molester or abuser can slip through the extremely inadequate net, gain employment with children and then, from a position of trust, abuse the most vulnerable and innocent in our society—its children. Commenting on the Bill when it was in another place, the chief executive of the Children's Society said:
"It is crazy to leave the protection of children to chance. We need rigorous checks by law".

605
That is what the Bill seeks to do.
Childcare organisations will, under the terms of the Bill, have a mandatory duty to vet prospective employees for childcare positions. Even organisations that fall outside the definition of "childcare organisations" will be able to vet both employees and, importantly, volunteers. All these bodies should refer names of abusers to the list. Fundamental to the protection of children is the element of a strong, mandatory framework of vetting and, equally important—which the Bill addresses—is the right of appeal to an independent tribunal to challenge inclusion on the list by those who believe that it is not justified.
The Bill puts the Department of Health Consultancy Service Index on a statutory basis. It requires checks to be made, and childcare organisations are required not to employ listed persons. The Bill requires regulated bodies to refer names for inclusion on the new list, and amends Part V of the Police Act 1997 to allow eventually the Criminal Records Bureau to act as the central access point for all data, be they criminal records, List 99, or the new Department of Health list.
The Bill deserves our attention and support. In supporting it, we shall be taking an important step forward in giving protection to those who need and deserve it, and those who are all too frequently denied it—our children. I give the Bill my warm support.
3.31 p.m.
Lord Freyberg: My Lords, I should like to be brief and to speak as a young person who works with young vulnerable people. I am grateful to the Government for the Bill. I wish that it had been around before. It is very welcome now, and I hope that it makes speedy progress through this House.
3.32 p.m.
Lord Meston: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Laming, and its sponsor in another place on bringing forward the Bill. I support the Bill and those questions that I ask seek simply to ensure, where possible, that its mechanisms work as well as possible.
As has been said, the Bill received necessary improvements in another place in order to provide sufficient and proper safeguards for those who are, or may be placed on the new lists. Strictly speaking this is not a government Bill and so it does not require a statement of compatibility under Section 19 of the Human Rights Act, which was recently enacted. Perhaps that represents something of a lacuna in the case of a Private Member's Bill which has government support.
We had assurances from the noble Lord, Lord Rix, that he is satisfied that the Bill fully complies with the European Convention on Human Rights. Most of us would think that that is at least as good as a statement of compatibility by any Minister. However, I hope that the Minister can reassure us that the Government regard the Bill as compatible with the European convention.
Although we should not look uncritically at those aspects of the Bill in Committee, we should also be satisfied that the Bill operates as effectively as it should do. It will only truly live up to its title as a Bill to protect
606
children if it allows as wide a range as possible of employers and others access to information about as many people as possible who are reasonably thought to be a risk to children. That means looking at how the lists are to be compiled, what use can be made of them, and by whom. I prefer not to use the expression "one stop shop". It may be useful but it tends to suggest nothing more than mere consumer convenience, and to understate the necessity for a single point of reference as just part of the attack on the serious problem described by noble Lords.
This Bill is not confined to dealing with paedophiles. It sensibly adopts the wide meaning of "harm" in the Children Act 1989. However, child sexual abuse is the main problem with which it will have to deal. Inevitably, child sexual abuse is an under-reported crime. In the course of a fairly grubby career in family law, I suspect that I have met rather more paedophiles than most people. They are devious and manipulative and they can be plausible and skilled at self-justification. Paragraph 13.23 of the Utting Report correctly pointed out that people who wish to exploit children, particularly career abusers, will seek out weak points in any system, wherever they occur. So I welcome the extension of this Bill to cover people supplied by employment agencies, a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Warner.
As noted in the Utting Report, agency work can provide cover and opportunity for abusers. It is not unusual for people to be on the books of several agencies at the same time, and sometimes the agencies concerned may not have a strong incentive to report suspected misconduct. At Paragraph 14.6 the Utting Report also noted the confusion as to who is responsible for requesting checks in the case of agency staff. I therefore hope also that the amendments to the Employment Agencies Act 1973 proposed in the current Employment Relations Bill have been drafted with this Bill in mind.
The point about agency staff is just one aspect of the need to ensure that the Bill covers as many potential employees as reasonably possible. The definition of "employment" in Clause 12 is wide enough to cover volunteers and those who might claim to be self-employed. But I rather wish that that extended meaning received more prominence and that one did not have to get to the interpretation clause at the end of the Bill before that point was made clear.
I am not clear that the definitions of "childcare organisation" and "childcare position" are wide enough to cover the provision of transport for children; for example, by coach companies running school buses. I was recently in a case in which a school bus driver befriended and "groomed" adolescent girls, to use the jargon, in order to have a sexual relationship with at least two of them as soon as their 16th birthdays were reached. One of the girls, vulnerable and immature, had two children by this man before she was 18 and the resulting care proceedings in respect of those children were very sad. I should like to be reassured, if it is possible to be so, that drivers of coaches technically employed by independent contractors could be covered by the provisions of the Bill.

607
Another technical question relates to the circumstances in which people might be referred for inclusion on the lists. Clause 2 commendably covers a wide range of situations but it probably does not include either the non-renewal of a fixed-term contract of an employee or the decision not to re-use a particular agency worker when the organisation concerned has good reasons not to do so.
Clause 2 of the Bill provides that childcare organisations shall refer certain individuals and Clause 7 provides that such organisations shall ascertain whether those they wish to employ are included on the lists. Although those obligations are stated in mandatory terms, the Bill does not appear to state any sanctions. Under Clause 2, other organisations have an option rather than a mandatory obligation to refer individuals. Although conscientious organisations will welcome the Bill, other organisations, perhaps tempted to cut corners through pressures of time or money, may need incentives to use this new system. In any event, it is a system which will require to be publicised to ensure that it works to best effect.
Clause 14 limits most of the Bill to England and Wales. The noble Lord, Lord Laming, mentioned that there is or will be a parallel system to run in Scotland. That rather mystified me. It suggested a parallel system running alongside but not actually merging with this new system. It does not need me to say that paedophiles in particular are no respecters of national boundaries. Therefore one would ask, will there in fact be a United Kingdom-wide single point of reference and database? Will an organisation in England or Wales seeking information about an individual know that the answer to the inquiry covers anything which may be recorded in Scotland or Northern Ireland? Similarly, will those who inquire in Scotland and Northern Ireland be assured that the search will extend to all lists throughout the United Kingdom, and indeed the British Isles? I say "the British Isles" because I recall a case in which the paedophile concerned started his career in the Channel Isles. Will responsible childcare organisations, including schools, outside the United Kingdom, which are proposing to offer employment to someone from Britain have access to the information on the lists?
Will local authority social services departments concerned with childcare cases, and also family court welfare officers and guardians ad litem, have access? Quite often in such cases a mother involved in proceedings concerning her child or children will start a relationship with a new male partner who she puts forward to the court or authorities as a reliable potential step-parent. Normally the court welfare officer or social services will do a criminal record search. In a case I was recently involved in, a convicted paedophile sought out children by forming relationships with their mothers or women in the extended family by using dating agencies to meet these women. In the subsequent care proceedings he was discovered to be a so called "Schedule 1 offender", that is, under the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, and a very real menace. Will
608
a court welfare officer be able to search not just for criminal records but also for the wider category of information to be entered on these lists?
I ask how long it will be before this Bill, when enacted, will become fully operational. I know that that concerns other noble Lords. Is the computer technology in place? When it is operational, will the system work quickly? The Utting report noted that credit organisations can check a person's creditworthiness almost instantly, by way of contrast to the time it can take to discover a criminal record—although I accept that that has recently improved.
The same questions as to timing apply to Clause 10. There is a similar need to protect older people with mental impairment. In several cases involving residential homes I have seen employers who have taken on unsuitable staff failing to notice obvious inconsistencies or unexplained gaps in the CVs provided by job applicants, or failing to take up references which turned out to be bogus or worthless. Such employers are often reluctant to recognise or admit that they could or should have been more careful. That reminds us that this Bill, although potentially most valuable, is only part of the attack on abuse. It serves to reinforce the ultimate duty of care resting with employers and employment agencies and the duty to adopt rigorous employment practices.
3.44 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, may I, first, add my name to the burgeoning membership of the Lord Laming appreciation society by congratulating him on having introduced this Bill and on the exemplary way in which he did so. Congratulations are also most certainly due to the honourable Member for Stourbridge in another place.
Having listened to the debate, I am in no doubt that this is a Bill that commands a very wide measure of cross-party support. I should like to take the opportunity of saying at the outset that from these Benches we welcome it warmly. As has been emphasised by a number of noble Lords, it is a measure that aims to tackle what for all of us has been a shameful and wholly unacceptable feature of our national life; namely, the absence of an adequate vetting procedure to prevent unsuitable and dangerous individuals from working with children.
This subject was examined in depth by the inter-departmental working group that reported last December. The study took its cue, at least in part, from the conclusions of the review chaired by Sir William Utting and commissioned by the previous government, which recommended a whole range of improvements in the safeguards for children living away from home.
The need for such improvements should not be doubted. Other noble Lords have expressed their feelings on this issue more eloquently than I can. I do not think that we could seriously have contemplated carrying on exactly as we were, in the face of the most appalling succession of scandals involving the abuse of youngsters in children's homes and schools by members of staff whose previous records had remained

609
undiscovered for long periods of time. There are many tens of thousands of such individuals and often they have been able to move around from job to job with complete freedom and impunity.
This Bill seeks to put a stop to that. As has been said, no Act of Parliament will be able to prevent child abuse altogether. Indeed, this measure attempts to tackle only part of the problem, bearing in mind that a high proportion of child abuse takes place not in the workplace but in the home. Nor should any new system of centralised record keeping be seen as a substitute for the normal processes of checking and reference taking that any prospective employer needs to undertake. But a co-ordinated, national system of employee vetting, such as is envisaged here, must surely play a key part in any government-led initiative to protect children.
The difficulty in framing a Bill of this kind is the balance that it strikes between protecting children and protecting individual civil liberties. There are a number of issues on that theme that, no doubt, we shall wish to explore in Committee. I think we need to bear in mind constantly that the creation of statutory blacklists, however desirable the underlying motive, brings with it the potential for injustice. One of the fundamental freedoms of our society is the freedom of being allowed to do the work that you want to do. We remove that freedom from a man or woman only in the most compelling of circumstances; and in a way which, as far as possible, safeguards their remaining civil liberties. I am quite certain that it is not part of this Bill's purpose to stigmatise a group of people or to make those people permanently unemployable in any possible sphere of work. Its aim is to protect children.
I hope, because of that, that each of us in his bones resists instinctively the notion of a statutory blacklist that is compiled by an administrative rather than a judicial process. That of course is the notion enshrined in this Bill. Despite those natural instincts, I am in this case wholly persuaded that it is right to proceed along that path; not simply for the compelling reasons of which we are all aware, but because of the checks and balances incorporated into this Bill designed to minimise the risk of injustice. Chief among these is the provision for an appeal against inclusion on either List 99 or the Consultancy Service Index. The independent appeal tribunal, quite separate from the executive, is a most important innovation.
Another welcome safeguard is the statutory limit on the length of time that someone's name can remain on the provisional list without that person having access to the tribunal. It is important, too, that access to the list is confined to those organisations with a legitimate need to know. My understanding is that these will consist only of those childcare organisations defined in the Bill, and other recognised businesses, whether incorporated or not. But it would be helpful if the Minister could clarify this issue when he comes to speak.
I should also be grateful if the Minister would reassure me, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Meston, that, in the opinion of the Government, the Bill complies fully with the requirements of the European Convention on Human Rights. Given the quasi-judicial nature of the
610
proposed appeal mechanism, I would very much hope and expect that it does; but the issues are perhaps not completely straightforward.
One puzzle that I have is the apparent difference in emphasis between this Bill and the conclusions of the inter-departmental working group, which reported last December. The whole tenor of the group's report, it seemed to me, was to favour a system that was essentially voluntary and permissive; for example, in paragraph 5.32 the group says that it may not always be necessary for a prospective employer to check the list; and in paragraph 5.14 it thinks it is right for the decision on employment to rest with the employer in the light of the information provided by the check. In other words, it was not a case of saying that the inclusion of someone's name on either list should be an automatic bar to that person being employed—which is the stipulation in Clause 7(1) of the Bill. More generally the group specifically recommends at paragraph 4.6 a voluntary system apart from,
"a few areas which are required under existing provisions to make certain checks".
As I say, I do not dissent from the thrust of the Bill as drafted but it is unclear to me why there has been this change of mind on the part of the Government.
One feature of the Bill that to me is less than satisfactory is the absence of any new criminal offence, as recommended by the interdepartmental group, of knowingly applying for or accepting work with children when deemed unsuitable for such work. Will the noble Lord, Lord Laming, comment on that and on the fact that the Bill includes no sanctions on childcare organisations that fail to comply with its provisions'? What sanctions are already available that could be deployed if required?
On a more practical note, can the Minister say when the Government intend to set up the Criminal Records Bureau? Can he also say how long it is likely to take for the Bill to come into force, assuming that it is enacted? In that context I am not at all clear how the Government see this Bill interrelating with their wider programme of social care reforms. Perhaps the Minister will say something about that.
It would be helpful too if we were to hear a little more about how the one-stop shop is intended to work, particularly during the period prior to the setting up of the Criminal Records Bureau. It is not entirely clear from my reading of the Bill whether, for example. a request by a school or LEA for a check against List 99 will automatically elicit a check against the other lists as well, including the lists that we understand will be established in Scotland; nor how it will be possible for that school to establish—in the absence of the Criminal Records Bureau—whether the individual concerned has a criminal record. Similarly I take it that only the relevant sections of List 99 will be checked in response to a request from, say, a childcare organisation that wishes to access that list and the Consultancy Service Index. In other words, am I correct in understanding that the proposal is not simply for a one-stop shop as ordinarily understood but for an automatic, comprehensive check against each list?

611
The concerns that I have on the Bill, which in the context of the whole are relatively minor, fall into two camps; the first being whether it contains all that it needs to in order to ensure that the safeguards for children work as intended; and the second being whether the safeguards for individuals are as secure and comprehensive as they ought to be. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Laming, will say that he has not closed his mind to the possibility of some improvements to the Bill if the case for them is convincingly made. Knowing him as I do, I would be surprised if he did not take that approach. The objective that we must all want to achieve is to create legislation that is durable and that commands general support. Bearing in mind the sensitivity of the issues which the Bill addresses, in my respectful opinion that objective can be achieved only by our focusing hard on the consequences that may flow from each part of the Bill and on ensuring that we are satisfied with them. I look forward to our further debates on these matters with much interest and to the speedy passage of the Bill through the House.
3.53 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Laming, on his initiative in bringing this Bill forward. As I believe all noble Lords will know, he has a long and distinguished career in the field of social services. I can think of no one in your Lordships' House who is more appropriate to bring this Bill forward. Like other noble Lords I wish to acknowledge the initiative of my honourable friend Debra Shipley MP. I am glad that she has been able to listen to our debate this afternoon.
We are all aware of the history in this country of official reports gathering dust on shelves. It is good that the noble Lord, Lord Warner, was able not only to speak in the debate but to encourage us to see through the implementation of one of the very important areas discussed in his report.
There is no doubt that this is a very important Bill. It aims to make significant advances in the way in which our society seeks to protect its most vulnerable members. My noble friends Lord Tomlinson and Lord Warner very much made that point. The noble Lord, Lord Rix, made the point that we need to keep carefully in mind the particular vulnerability of children with disabilities and learning difficulties as we take the Bill through its various stages in your Lordships' House.
It has been evident from the tone of the debate that your Lordships are fully seized of the Bill's significance and that there is a significant and perhaps unanimous degree of all-party support for the aims of the Bill. Understandably, there is also a very proper and welcome concern that the means should not ride roughshod over the rights of those individuals who might be identified for inclusion on either of the departmental lists, with all the consequences that can flow from such listing. As so often with legislation of this kind, the question is how best to strike the right balance, a point made by the noble Earl, Lord Howe. The need to be persuaded that it has been struck is there even where, as in this case, we
612
are dealing with the very emotive subject of protecting children. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that our deliberations in Committee will be an appropriate point to tease out some of those issues.
The noble Lord, Lord Laming, has already given a very full explanation of the contents of the Bill. It will not be necessary for me to repeat what he has said. It is clear that he is concerned to ensure that the Bill's strong measures are matched by strong protections. No one will doubt that the changes made in the other place, which were described by the noble Lord, Lord Laming, have improved the balance of the Bill and have gone the distance to satisfy the doubts expressed in Committee.
I can confirm that the changes have been equally welcomed by the Government. The burden of administrating the Bill's proposals will fall upon the Government. It is no part of the Government's wish that the aims of the Bill should have doubt cast upon them because of well-founded reservations about the means by which those aims are to be achieved. That is one of the main reasons why we have been keeping a close eye on the human rights implications of the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Meston, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, raised the matter of the European Convention on Human Rights. I shall now deal with that issue. As was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, since this is a Private Member's Bill, Section 19 of the Human Rights Act 1998 does not apply; that is, there is no statutory requirement for it to be accompanied with a statement about compliance with the Convention. On the other hand, I appreciate that the House would expect some clear expression of view from the Government. On that basis, I am glad to be able to say that the Government believe that the Bill is fully compliant with the European Convention.
One of the key elements in the Bill is the provision for appeals against being placed on either Department of Health or Department for Education and Employment lists. It may be easy to underestimate just how far the Bill improves the present situation, in which, although both lists have been in existence for a long time, there has never in either case been any system of appeal, let alone to an entirely independent tribunal. For the very first time, it will become possible for people placed on the list to appeal against listing to an independent body appointed by the Lord Chancellor. Nor will the tribunal be concerned simply with looking again at what was before the Secretary of State when he made his decision. Rather, its task will be to examine the evidence afresh from the beginning so as to make its own decision. Subject only to appeal to the High Court on a point of law, the tribunal's decision will be final. Your Lordships may agree that that is as great a degree of independence for a tribunal as is necessary.
The House may also consider it helpful that the tribunal will, by virtue of the final paragraph of the schedule to the Bill, be subject to the oversight of the Council on Tribunals—a body whose own independence and the experience it has built up over a number of years have established it as one of the indispensable influences in raising and maintaining high procedural standards in tribunals generally.

613
A number of noble Lords asked about the Government's intention concerning the implementation of the Bill's proposals if the Bill is, as I very much hope, successful in this House. Although, as I have already said, the Government welcome the burdens placed upon them by this Bill, they are not light ones or ones that are easily discharged.
Setting up an entirely new tribunal will require the drawing up of the substantial detailed regulations forecast, not only in Clause 9 but also in respect of the Education Reform Act pursuant to Clause 6. In addition, the Lord Chancellor will be charged with making important appointments of legally qualified and other people with relevant experience to operate the tribunal. Elsewhere, not only will the Department of Health have to institute a new list under new rules, but it will also have to examine the 900 names on the present consultancy service index for possible transfer to that new list. Granted the right of appeal that will be available to individuals in these circumstances, it is evident that the tribunal will need to be up and running before the provisions of Clause 7 can be introduced. The one-stop shop itself cannot, of course, function until the criminal records bureau becomes operational.
On that basis, I hope it will be understood that it is not practicable at this juncture to give any firm estimate of when implementation can reasonably be expected. Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Meston, suggested, one of the key practical issues in relation to the bureau relates to the need for appropriate IT services. In addition, a number of statutory orders will need to be made before the bureau can come into operation. There will also need to be consultation with various employers and other organisations to draw up codes of practice under the Act. That said, I know that colleagues in the government departments principally concerned are glad that the prospect of this project has been advanced by the Bill's promoters, and they will be determined to grasp the opportunity to gather in its benefits as soon as they can. We hope that the criminal records bureau will be in place by the end of the year 2000, with the one-stop shop being brought into operation at the same time. As regards the new Department of Health list, we hope that it will be operational by summer 2000.
The noble Lord, Lord Meston, asked about the organisations that would come to be covered by the Bill's provisions. As the House will know, for the purposes of the Bill a "child care organisation" is an organisation whose activities are in some way controlled or regulated by statute. So that definition would cover all local authority social services functions relating to children; all children's homes, whether local authority, voluntary or private; adoption and fostering services; nursing homes or mental nursing homes accommodating children; registered child minders; and NHS trusts providing certain services to children.
Other organisations which are not subject to statutory control but which provide services for children, such as the Scouts, the Cadet Force and youth clubs, while not being covered by the mandatory provisions of the Bill, will be able to refer names and carry out checks on a voluntary basis. I may add that they will be urged, in
614
guidance to be issued later by the Department of Health, to do so and not to employ anyone whose name is on the list.
The noble Baroness, Lady David, asked when we can expect publication of the North Wales inquiry. That is a matter for the independent inquiry. However, my understanding is that publication is expected in the next few months.
The noble Baroness also suggested that this Bill is not completely comprehensive. That is absolutely right. It has to be seen as a building block. She mentioned issues to do with nannies and nanny agencies. It is true that nannies are not regulated under the Children Act 1989. The Government do not support the introduction of a national register for nannies.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, asked about the VOCS. She is absolutely right. That will be wound up when the one-stop shop is up and running simply because it will no longer be needed. The noble Baroness also asked for an assurance that sufficient resources would be made available to ensure that the new arrangements worked satisfactorily. As to the bureau, it will be self-financing. The Government have given a firm commitment to provide sufficient resources overall to make the Bill work well. As to the Department of Health, the additional manpower costs associated with increased activity within the department will be absorbed within current provision.
The noble Lord, Lord Meston, asked about the position of bus and taxi drivers. I refer him to DfEE regulations made last year which may be relevant. Parts of those regulations embrace staff employed by contractors and volunteers. The effect is that, if a school or local education authority contracts with a bus or taxi firm to provide transport for pupils, a check must be made of the drivers used by the company to ensure that they are not on the DfEE List 99. I hope that that meets his point.
The noble Lord also asked about Scotland and the British Isles generally. The interdepartmental working group to which the noble Lord, Lord Laming, referred is looking primarily at the establishment of an integrated scheme of protection for children in England and Wales. While I take the point made by the noble Lord, it will be considering the wider application of such a scheme to Scotland and Northern Ireland and will make recommendations on those issues. Representatives from Scotland and Northern Ireland are members of the working party, but we shall ensure that the noble Lord's points are put to them and considered. The noble Lord, Lord Meston, also asked about court welfare officers and whether they could check step-parents. They cannot. Step-parents would not fall within the employment definition in the Bill.
No doubt the noble Lord, Lord Laming, will wish to respond to other points that have been made. Perhaps I may finish by picking up the question raised by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, about how the one-stop shop would work. When someone applies to work with children, the employer will ask for checks to be carried out on List 99 and the DH list. The certificate issued

615
which is to be sent to both the employer and applicant will record whether or not the applicant is included on either list.
In conclusion, it has been clear from the debate and the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Laming, that the Bill cannot cover every issue. But your Lordships are aware that the interdepartmental working group is considering many of the issues that have been raised, and certainly there is the potential to address them in future legislation. This Bill is both a desirable and necessary measure. I end by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Laming, on bringing forward the Bill, which I hope will commend itself to the House.
4.8 p.m.
Lord Laming: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords, including the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, for this most interesting, instructive and very encouraging debate on this important Bill. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, for his very helpful response to the many points raised during the debate. I shall attempt to respond to a number of the points helpfully made by your Lordships. My experience in your Lordships' House is such that the very generous remarks made about me during the debate, however well intended, may prove to be ill founded. However, I shall do my best.
I was grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady David, for her indication of support for the Bill from the All-Party Children Group. I regard that as of great importance. I have been impressed by the support for the Bill from agencies outside Parliament involved in the provision of services for children. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, referred to such agencies.
It is a complicated but important Bill. Therefore, I am sure that noble Lords will understand that, once enacted, it will be necessary for the department to produce detailed regulation and guidance. That will take some time. It will clarify in detail some of the definitions to which the noble Lord, Lord Meston, referred.
Earlier I expressed the hope that the noble Lord, Lord Warner, would arrive in time for the debate. I am grateful that he was able to be present to give us the benefit of his great experience, in particular as regards his excellent work on the report, Choosing with Care, which enabled the Bill to be better informed and therefore likely to be more effective. The noble Lords, Lord Warner and Lord Meston, referred to our growing understanding of the lengths to which some men will go to get close to children in order to abuse them. It is a salutary lesson. It is important that none of us is complacent. We need to recognise that somehow abusers always find ways to get round the existing safeguards. That is why we need to keep the matter under review, to learn from experience and to put that experience into practice. The continuing work on the subject of the inter-departmental working group is of great importance.
I was grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Warner, drew attention to the inclusion of employment agencies. With all his experience, the noble Lord, Lord Rix, made a
616
helpful contribution on why mental impairment has been included. The noble Lords, Lord Rix and Lord Tomlinson, helpfully drew attention to the safeguards included. Several noble Lords drew attention to the need for balance in protecting the rights of individuals. The Bill is a considerable improvement not only as regards the protection of children, but also the rights of people who may be referred. A number of safeguards in the Bill are not currently in operation. It is important to recognise the balance achieved in the Bill.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, drew attention to the need to consider making it a criminal offence for those on the list to apply for a post involving care for children. It is comforting to know that that is a matter which continues to be addressed by the inter-departmental working party. I have no doubt that we shall return to that issue.
I support the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, on the staffing of the bureau. From the information I have received, I believe that the bureau will be substantially staffed. The commitment to make a success of this measure is so great that if it proves necessary to reconsider the matter I have no doubt that that will be undertaken.
I support strongly the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, to which I attach tremendous importance: that the protection of children from abuse is the responsibility of us all. The Government have a duty to set in place the framework. The Bill aims to achieve that. However, the responsibility remains with us all.
I took seriously the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, about the reference to the one-stop-shop perhaps underestimating the important meaning of this one point of reference. That is important because the Bill is intended to ensure that the provision of the information which is available to all organisations which have responsibility for providing services for children will be both efficient and effective. We ought not in any way to give the impression that it is simply a routine checking procedure.
It is also important to emphasise that checking, important though it is, does not reduce the responsibility, duty and accountability that is placed upon management not only to follow the procedures, but also to be vigilant and courageous in challenging inappropriate behaviour in people's work with children.
For the first time, the Bill eliminates confusion about who is responsible for the checking in that it places the responsibility quite clearly upon the organisation, in particular if it is a statutory organisation. Furthermore, it provides non-statutory organisations which corporately provide services for children with a clear and efficient way of carrying out the checks.
It is clear that the duty to consult the list is covered by other legislation. I refer in particular to the responsibility which the Children Act places on all statutory organisations to promote the welfare of children. They cannot achieve that unless they fulfil their duties to employ people who are suitable and not to employ people who are unsuitable.

617
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, made a number of important points, including a justifiable and concerned point about blacklists. As I have indicated, the point is well taken by the introduction in the Bill of safeguards which are not currently in operation. I hope that that will provide an assurance.
It is true that no sanctions against childcare organisations are incorporated in the Bill. However, under other legislation, statutory bodies clearly have responsibilities. These issues will continue to be reviewed by the inter-departmental working party.
Finally, I emphasise to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that the information provided will be that which is relevant to the person's suitability to work with children. That is one of the important safeguards provided in the Bill.
This has been an encouraging experience for me. It has also been an important learning experience. If I have failed to respond to important points made by your Lordships, I hope that I will be excused and allowed to do better next time. In the meantime, I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Obscenity Bill [H.L.]
4.18 p.m.
Report received.

Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (Amendment) Order 1999
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 30th March be approved [15th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 30th March be approved [15th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Social Security Commissioners (Procedure) Regulations 1999
4.19 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg)The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg) rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 21st April be approved [16th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, new regulations are necessary, in place of the Social Security Commissioners (Procedure) Regulations, to govern the procedure for appeals from decisions of unified appeal tribunals, created by the Social Security Act 1998.
Those draft regulations are, effectively, the final stage in a major programme of reform. I shall, first, set out the various legislative steps in the programme and, secondly, outline the changes. The major element is, of course, the Social Security Act 1998. That Act received Royal Assent on 21st May of that year. Detailed provision for the first two stages of the new system was made in the Social Security and Child Support (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 1999, which were debated in the House on 23rd March, with two sets of regulations relating to child support.
Two sets of regulations are necessary for consequential changes and modernisation in the upper tier of the appeals arrangements. Those draft regulations relate to the social security aspects of the work of the social security and child support commissioners. A further set, dealing with child support, and subject to negative resolution procedure, was laid last month.
I should also explain the main elements of both the old and the new system, so that we can see the place of those changes in the overall programme of reform. The current system for determining claims and resolving disputes in social security is too long and too complex. The new system looks to resolve disputes more quickly wherever possible or to progress them rapidly to, and through, the appeal stages. I regard that as entirely unobjectionable, provided that the procedures are fair.
The first layer of the decision-making system lies within the Department of Social Security. Hitherto, there have been several different decision-makers, with different official roles and procedures. Now all decisions will be made within the department on behalf of the Secretary of State. I acknowledge that decisions have also, in time past, often been set out in a confusing way. Now they will focus on what is important to claimants and notifications will be simpler and clearer. There will be a new internal DSS procedure to explain and, where possible, to resolve disputes over decisions at an early stage. The aim is to reduce the number of appeals entering the system in the first place.
After that, there will, as now, be two levels of appeal provisions. Here, major changes are made by the Act and the social security and child support regulations. Those were debated in March. There will be a single unified system of appeal tribunals under the Act, with a single consistent procedure. That will replace the five existing tribunal jurisdictions, each receiving appeals from different sources and each with its own procedures. They are the social security appeals tribunals, disability appeal tribunals, medical appeal tribunals, child support appeal tribunals and vaccine damage appeal tribunals. The new appeal tribunals will be administered by a new DSS executive agency, the appeals service.
I shall appoint a president of those appeal tribunals and I shall set up a panel of about 2,500 people qualified in the law, medicine, finance and the needs of the disabled. The members and qualifications of those constituting the individual tribunals will be chosen to match the needs of each individual case. There will also be a flexible panel composition. Panels will comprise, one, two or three members, as the case requires.
New powers are introduced to enable appeal tribunals to correct their own decisions, again reducing the number of appeals that need to be taken forward. The arrangements for those changes were also made in the earlier set of regulations.
Beyond the new appeal tribunals, appeals are possible only on points of law. The upper tier of the appeal system will continue to be for Social Security and Child Support Commissioners. The draft regulations which we are considering today make provision for a single, consistent route of appeal to the commissioners with common time limits. Further appeal on a point of law and with leave is possible to the Court of Appeal and beyond, but that is comparatively rare.
The commissioners normally sit alone. However, provision has been made in Section 16 of the Social Security Act for the chief commissioner to convene panels of three or more members to hear cases of exceptional difficulty and importance. That provision will be brought into force early next year.
Let me take this opportunity to thank his honour Judge Machin, the chief commissioner of the Social Security and Child Support Commissioners and his colleagues, all of whom will remain in place within the new system, for their valuable help in developing the regulations. I shall now explain the content of the regulations in more detail.
The new regulations replace the Social Security Commissioners (Procedure) Regulations 1987. They aim to improve procedures in two ways. Most importantly, they are simpler and clearer.
Many appellants represent themselves. It is therefore important that the regulations set out the procedures clearly. The current regulations were drafted in 1987 and although they were amended in 1992 and 1997, the language could have been clearer. We have taken the opportunity to recast them as best we can in plain English. The requirement for new regulations has also provided a valuable opportunity for a thorough review. That has allowed us to clarify a number of aspects of the existing regulations.
The provisions for time-limits have been simplified as part of the arrangements for a more consistent and streamlined appeals procedure. One of the problems that appellants faced was the confusing array of time-limits, first in the various tribunals which are being replaced, and then before commissioners.
Your Lordships have already considered the principles behind these changes when debating the earlier tribunal regulations. We have adopted a consistent approach for both the new appeal tribunals and the commissioners. The important thing for appellants to bear in mind is that they now have a month for each stage. This is expressed as simply as possible, in terms of a calendar month rather than by counting days. That means that, if the start date for a stage falls on, say, the 15th of a month, the completion date will be the 14th of the next month. That obviously means that some appellants will have a little more time than others as the number of days in a month varies. For example, in a "long" month, notice starting on the 31st
620
will have a completion date of the 30th of the next month. The new uniform limits are intended to be both administratively more convenient and easier to remember for appellants.
For the commissioners, this change means that the current time-limits of 42 days in which to apply for leave to appeal, where an applicant has not been granted leave at tribunal level, and in which to appeal where leave has been obtained, are both replaced by what is termed, "one calendar month". That does not mean that applicants will only have one month to decide whether or not to appeal. They will first be told the result of their appeal to the appeal tribunal. They will then have one month to seek a full statement of the reasons for that, and another period of a month to decide whether to appeal further—making two months in all.
A rather smaller such change of the same nature, made in the interest of consistency throughout the new system, is that the limit for submitting a written observation and making an application to set aside a decision will also be changed from 30 days to what is termed "one month".
Time-limits for notice, of the hearing and for notice to a witness, now 10 and seven days respectively, will both change to 14 days. These time-limit changes match the changes also in the new appeal tribunals.
The regulations contain their own transitional provisions allowing for the phased introduction of the new systems, ensuring that an appellant whose case is already pending should not be prejudiced by the new changes.
There is, finally, an important safety net. The commissioners also retain their present, completely unfettered, power to accept late applications for leave to appeal and late appeals, for special reasons. Any appellant with a good reason for missing a deadline will be able to put it to the commissioner where it will be considered with care and without restriction: not being circumscribed in any way.
To continue, the opportunity of the new regulations has been taken to make express provision, in Regulation 6, for a case to be dealt with by another commissioner if the original commissioner is unable to do so because of long absence or death, so removing a doubt which existed under the previous rules.
Procedural provisions governing the special jurisdiction of the commissioners under the Forfeiture Act 1982 have also been simplified. The 1982 Act requires any question of whether social security benefits have been forfeited in cases of unlawful killing to be determined by social security commissioners. However, such proceedings would not be covered by the Social Security Act 1998 without making special provision. The regulations therefore prescribe the Social Security Act as a relevant enactment for that purpose, in addition to the 10 Acts set out in the 1982 Act. Regulations 14 and 15 set out the relevant procedure.
We have also made some specific procedural improvements. In addition to the commissioners' current powers, the regulations will now enable the commissioners to strike out any proceeding for abuse of

621
process as well as for want of prosecution. In both cases, the parties will be given the opportunity to make representations before any such action is taken. The aim is to enable commissioners to dispose expeditiously of cases where either the appellant has failed to take the next steps in the case, despite repeated reminders, or where the proceedings have been improperly brought. Although the latter power is likely to be used extremely sparingly, there are a small number of appellants who repeatedly engage in hopeless manoeuvres, as they are merely vexatious litigants. The commissioners' new power will enable them to deal with those problems effectively.
In social security jurisdiction, many thousands of cases brought by individual claimants can sometimes depend on a point of law, a point of legal principle which has to await a test case ruling from the commissioners or from the higher courts. The 1998 Act therefore provides for handling appeals that raise similar issues and depend also on a "test case".
First, when test cases are identified, arrangements are in hand for them to be expedited if they are still before the commissioners so that decisions are taken as quickly as possible. In that regard, I am particularly grateful for the assistance given by the chief commissioner in working out new procedures to help appellants.
Secondly, the Act provides for similar cases to be stayed by the Secretary of State until a decision on the test case is reached. We intend that decision on the test case to be reached as soon as possible. Regulation 21 sets out the minimum procedural requirements on the Secretary of State to ensure that commissioners identify with certainty those cases already before them in relation to which the new procedure is to be operated.
I hope I have not wearied your Lordships by listing the main changes in the package. If I have, I shall not weary your Lordships further by going over each drafting amendment, especially as I have indicated that those amendments basically simplify the language of the existing regulations.
I believe that the new regulations should be easier for people to understand and to use. Therefore, I hope that your Lordships will accept them and I commend them to the House.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 21st April be approved [16th Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for his courtesy in coming to the House to move the regulations in person and also for the luminous clarity with which he presented the case.
I enjoyed his remarks about what is called "plain English". In large measure, his attempts have been successful. But since he is not particularly restricted by the argument "but we have always done it this way", will he look again at the acrostic method of arrangement which is used for setting out the order of the different parts of the regulation? Occasionally, that makes it more difficult to follow than it should be.
622
I am grateful to him also for his observations on what is called "one month". While the previous occupant of the Woolsack operated under the motto "never on Sunday", I believe that this occupant of the Woolsack operates under the maxim "never in February", the shortest month which allows the least time for lodging an appeal.
I shall not detain the House long on the substance. The matter was debated exhaustively during the passage of the Bill. I say only that I sometimes wish the Government would use some other word for describing their general programme than "modernisation". I have listened to too many estate agents to hear that word without a double-take.
One point which was made by my honourable friend Mr. Webb on the regulations, to which the noble and learned Lord has responded in part, was about the time limit of one month. I am interested in the further question as to when the clock starts to run on that one month. Under regulation 9(2), it starts to run from the despatch of the notice of the decision. I am particularly glad to see in regulation 28 that that notification must include reasons for the decision. That takes some account of the debates in the House because without reasons, one cannot know whether one has ground for lodging an appeal.
I understand that there is almost infinite discretion on special reasons. It would be interesting to know a little more about the circumstances of those who may be regularly employed. It is possible that some trouble may be saved if, in regulation 9(2), the specification were not to be the despatch of the notification but its receipt. That will require a system of recorded delivery. But it would catch instantly those people who are suffering from severe mental illness, in a coma after a car crash or otherwise obviously unable to respond. Therefore, in the course of creating some extra cost, it may also create some extra saving by eliminating a good deal of what would then become unnecessary argument. I hope that that point commends itself to the Government.
With that one observation, I welcome the general structure of what is here before us.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, makes several important points admirably briefly. I will certainly consider everything that he said. I shall do the best I can to respond now, but I may write to him further.
When I came across the concept of a month, my first reaction was that a month is of variable duration. Therefore the concept of one month could be regarded as odd. Months vary in duration. The saying goes,
"Thirty days hath September, April, June and November; All the rest have thirty-one, excepting February alone, and that has twenty-eight days clear".
As I recall, in a leap year it has 29. I also asked myself why a concept that involves variable time instead of a specific number of days is being used. It is quite right to say that it means that, according to the accident of the month in which one finds oneself, the period of time is either longer or shorter. Why is it not irrational? It is

623
certainly possible to maintain that it is irrational. Indeed, I have given the reasons why it is irrational. But the answer is convenience for ordinary people.
If the period begins on the 15th of the month, it ends on the 14th of the next month. If it begins on the 20th of the month, it ends on the 19th of the next month. It is an easy rule of thumb and, frankly, I do not much care whether, from a purist point of view, it really represents a month. It will work.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, expressed hostility to the word "modernisation". I hope that this Government will be remembered as a great reforming and modernising government. However, I called my Bill the Access to Justice Bill and not the modernisation of justice Bill. Mention was also made of the desirability of reasoned decisions. It is a principle of sound justice and good administration that reasons be given.
The concept of special reasons found in the regulations has also been mentioned. I shall resist the blandishment to offer a definition of "special reasons" beyond saying that they are those which do not arise in the generality of cases, and the discretion is untrammelled. I note the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that the trigger date should not be the date of the dispatch, but the receipt of notification, and I will write to him on that point.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, I have listened with great interest to this matter of a month. What is a month after 31st January?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, a month after 31st January has got to be 27th February.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, the 27th?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, yes.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Social Security and Child Support (Decisions and Appeals) (Amendment) Regulations 1999
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Amos Baroness Amos rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 4th May be approved [18th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the two draft amendments before the House are both to Regulation 36 of the Social Security and Child Support (Decision Making and Appeals) Regulations 1999. Your Lordships may recall that when we debated these regulations on 23rd March, my noble friend Lady Hollis of Heigham said that we were looking again at Regulation 36. We wanted to make sure that it delivered our intention that all appeals which involved the all-work test would be heard by a doctor and a lawyer. This draft amendment corrects the omission.
The president of the Independent Tribunal Service, Judge Michael Harris, has asked the Government to make a further amendment to Regulation 36. The president has requested that the regulation be amended to give him discretion to appoint a second doctor as a member of the tribunal where the appeal is sufficiently complex; for example, because the appellant has multiple disabilities. The second draft amendment to Regulation 36 would allow the president that discretion.
Both of the proposed amendments are wholly beneficial and I hope that your Lordships will accept them. I commend the regulations to the House.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 4th May be approved [18th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Amos.)
Earl Russell: My Lords, I should like to give an unreserved welcome to these regulations. They are an amendment to an amendment—a necessary and a useful one. I thank my honourable friend Mr. Rendel for his part in bringing this about and I should like to pay tribute to those involved in bringing about the initial process of amendment: the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St. Johns, who proposed the compromise during the course of the proceedings on the Bill from which all this originates; the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, for responding so warmly and so sensibly to it; and this House for discharging its duty as a revising Chamber as it should.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his comments and for his unreserved welcome of the amendments.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Unfair Dismissal and Statement of Reasons for Dismissal (Variation of Qualifying Period) Order 1999
4.47 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 28th April be approved [17th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on 10th May the House debated the Second Reading of the Employment Relations Bill which will implement the bulk of the Government's proposals set out in last year's Fairness at Work White Paper. This straightforward order concerns a remaining element of that package, one which is fundamental to the Government's aim of achieving a proper balance between employers' flexibility and employees' security. The order reduces the qualifying period for complaints of unfair dismissal from two years to one, taking it back to the period specified before the previous administration doubled it in 1985.
A year is a reasonable length of time for an employer to decide if a recruit is suitable for the job. It is not reasonable for employees to be left in a state of uncertainty about the security of their employment when they have been in the job for as long as two years. That

625
view was shared by the great majority of respondents to our consultation, including the majority of employers and their representatives.
The regulatory impact assessment which accompanied this order pointed out that 90 per cent of companies already have written procedures. This order should encourage those without such procedures to consider introducing them. Although having procedures is not always a guarantee of fair treatment, it is certainly good practice, and employers who end up losing cases before a tribunal are most likely to be those without procedures. The reduction in the qualifying period will not only encourage employers to think more carefully about dismissing people; it may lead to improvements in recruitment procedures, too. This was a noticeable effect when unfair dismissal protection was first introduced. It is not a heavy burden for businesses to use proper recruitment and probation procedures and it repays them in terms of achieving more suitable and better skilled recruits. If the employee subsequently falls short of the required standard, the employer will remain free to dismiss, provided the treatment is fair.
This order will also reduce the length of service employees will need before they can request written reasons for dismissal. This is an important complement to the unfair dismissal qualifying period. It is important that employees know the reason for their dismissal in order to decide whether or not to make a claim of unfair dismissal. Giving a written statement of these reasons on request is a simple matter of good practice. It is very useful to employees, providing them with basic information which can help to resolve disputes and prevent unfounded tribunal claims. This measure will continue the Government's programme of combining flexibility in the labour market with security and minimum standards for employees. I trust that your Lordships will agree that this is a reasonable step to take and will approve the order. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 28th April be approved [17th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
Lord Razzall: My Lords, I do not want to detain your Lordships for very long, but I should like to make one brief comment. I welcome from these Benches the reduction of the relevant period from two years to one year. As the Minister will be aware, there is no particular magic in one year. From 1971 to 1975, the period was one year. From 1975 to 1979, it was six months. It then went up to one year/two years, for small and large businesses respectively.
There is significant evidence, as the Minister will be aware, particularly from the citizens advice bureaux, that quite a large proportion of the cases that come to them are from people who believe that they have been unfairly treated although they have had less than one year's employment. In the view of the citizens advice bureaux, quite a lot of those cases involve circumstances where, at the end of, let us say, three months the employee has been given a perfectly satisfactory interview with the employer, indicating that everything is going well. In those circumstances, I ask the Minister to confirm that the Government will keep this under
626
review together with the question of whether the one-year provision will in due course be lowered to six months.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his comments. He is quite right that there is no particular magic in one year and in recalling that the period has varied considerably over the years. I have, indeed, had the benefit of a briefing from the National Association of Citizens' Advice Bureaux which I read with great care.
I take the point that a substantial part of its caseload on employment problems, which is of course only a part of its total case load, is concerned with unfair dismissal in cases involving less than one year's employment. The noble Lord makes the valid point that the common probationary period is three months. As an employer, I always used to have a three-month probationary period, and I never had any difficulty, even when the formal legal period was two years, in using the end of the three-month period and the review at that time to achieve a relatively amicable parting of the ways if the probationary period had not worked out.
The fundamental point is that good employers will avoid complaints of unfair dismissal anyway. If they have good procedures, as 90 per cent do, there will be no problem in working a one-year period. There is an additional advantage in a one-year period, given our commitment throughout the consultations before the Fairness at Work White Paper and the preparatory work for the Employment Relations Bill and given that the one-year period has been agreed both by employees' organisations and by the CBI and the Association of Conservative Trade Unionists. We like to operate by consensus as far as we can, but I certainly can confirm what the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, says, and that our minds are open to further review, not necessarily in the phrase that he used at the end of his speech, and that we intend to reduce the period as and when it may prove necessary.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order 1999
4.53 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Gilbert)The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Gilbert) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 6th May be approved [18th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships will be aware that the purpose of the order is to continue in force for a further year the Army and Air Force Acts 1955 and the Naval Discipline Act 1957 which together provide the statutory basis for discipline in the three services.
The House will be aware that since 1961 an Armed Forces Bill has been brought before the House every five years with the primary purpose of continuing in force the Acts that provide the disciplinary powers in the three armed services. The House will be aware that

627
the last Armed Forces Bill was considered and enacted in 1996. It follows that the next such Bill will be brought forward for consideration no later than the year 2001. I therefore invite the House to give the necessary annual renewal to the discipline Act by approving this order. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 6th May be approved [18th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Gilbert.)
Lord Burnham: My Lords, as the noble Lord said, this is an annual event and of course as such in this place we give it entire approval. However, there is one question that I must ask the noble Lord. It concerned the Human Rights Act and this order. Can he assure the House that in no way will discipline in the Armed Forces be affected by the Human Rights Act?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord. In a private conversation that I had with him earlier, I was not quite sure of my ground. However, I am now sure and can tell him that the position is unchanged since the last time we discussed these matters.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for moving this order. I remind the House that I have an interest as I command a TA unit. I should like to identify one loophole in the 1955 Act in respect of the TA; namely, that after dismissal parade a TA soldier is not subject to military law because he is no longer on duty. That does not affect the validity or the desirability of this order, but it is possible that there could be an emergency, or some other situation, in a TA centre requiring the use of the power of command. I have never experienced such a problem, but it was drawn to my attention during a course that I took. Some cases could be referred to the civil authorities, but, first, it is not appropriate to bring military disciplinary problems to the civil police. Secondly, the civil police would be reluctant to become involved. This is obviously a matter for the quinquennial review, but I should like to put on record my intention to raise it at that time. The only possible problem is that I might not be here to do so.
My final point touches on the one raised by my noble friend Lord Burnham. Concern has recently been expressed about the summary jurisdiction arrangements in the Army Act. Those arrangements are the equivalent of a magistrates' court. A solider subject to summary
628
jurisdiction always has the option of a court martial. However, for the maintenance of good military discipline and morale, it is necessary to have a short, "flash-to-bang" time. These cases must be resolved quickly in order to maintain morale. Therefore, I hope that we keep our summary jurisdiction arrangements as provided by the 1955 Act.
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Earl. I must say that he is the first Member of this House from whom I have heard of a loophole in the 1955 Act. I have a magnificent brief in front of me, but it does not touch on that Act and its possible loopholes. Therefore, I undertake to the noble Earl that we in the Ministry of Defence will look into the matter with great diligence and write to him about it. If the noble Earl wants the results of our investigations put on the public record, I can arrange for that to be put in the report of the proceedings of the House.
As regards the effects of the Human Rights Act, I do not think that I can say anything in addition to what I have said on previous occasions from this Dispatch Box. I am very happy to offer the noble Earl, or any other noble Lord, a briefing on precisely what the Ministry of Defence is thinking of doing in the next review in order to facilitate matters—I think that that is the best way of putting it—to ensure that we have all our existing summary discipline procedures in place and that they are all consonant with the requirements of the Human Rights Act. I have no concerns over these matters. I hope very much that the noble Earl will be here two years from now to discuss such matters. I am grateful to him for giving us notice that he proposes to raise the subject at that time.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Local Government (Functions and Standards) Bill
A message was brought from the Commons that they have come to the following resolution, to which they desire the concurrence of this House: That it is expedient that a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons be appointed to consider the draft Local Government (Functions and Standards) Bill published in the Command Paper entitled Local Leadership, Local Choice (CM. 4298), and that the Committee should report by 31st July 1999.
House adjourned at two minutes before five o'clock.

  Cigarette Lighters: Safety
  Cigarette Lighters: Safety
  North Wessex Downs AONB
  North Wessex Downs AONB
  Roads Used as Public Paths: Reclassification
  Roads Used as Public Paths: Reclassification
  Fish Landings: Limiting Regulations
  Fish Landings: Limiting Regulations
  Hormonal Growth Promoters in Cattle
  Hormonal Growth Promoters in Cattle
  Cypermethrin
  Cypermethrin