I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

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.'.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

rose—

Order. Perhaps the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) should take his own advice of a few minutes ago.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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).

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.

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?

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.

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.

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 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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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?

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.

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.

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 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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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 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.

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?

"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.

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.

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.

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) 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—

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?

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?

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.

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, 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—

Order. The new clause is not about the powers of the police.

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.

Even the furry dice?

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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?

Indeed; and I shall deal with that very point after developing my argument a little.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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—

Order. I do not want to have to remind the hon. Gentleman again—we are now straying very wide of the mark.

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.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) on introducing

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—

Order. The hon. Gentleman is anxious not to be admonished, so I should be grateful if he would return to new clause 1.

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, 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.

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—

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?

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

We warmly welcome the statement, and I am grateful to the Minister for making 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 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 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.

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.]

Order. There are too many interruptions from a sedentary position. The Minister must be allowed to respond.

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.

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.

English Nature.

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.

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?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her welcome for the statement. As a member of the Soil 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.

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?"

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.

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—

indicated dissent.

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.

rose—

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.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's sensible proposals for 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?

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.

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—

Quangos.

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.

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.

I, too, welcome the setting up of the new biotechnology

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?

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.

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) 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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

It was not my purpose to deal with the competitiveness White Paper today, but the 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.

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?

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.

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?

Yes.

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.

It is exactly because we understand public concerns, and because in some cases there have been deliberate attempts to mislead, unsettle and scare the 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.

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?

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.

Order. We must now return to the Bill.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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—

Order. We are straying rather wide of the mark.

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.

Do not MOT testing and servicing go hand in hand? Garages, therefore, rely on MOTs because the two are carried out together.

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 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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

That is not my understanding. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman—perhaps the Minister can clarify 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.

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.

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.

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.

I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's point, and with that I conclude my remarks.

If I were being honest, I would say that, when I first read the amendment tabled my hon. Friend 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.

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 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.

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.

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 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.

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 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.

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 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.

We 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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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 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—

Order.

The intention was merely to make sure that the next—

Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat when I stand. He is straying from the Third Reading motion.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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 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?

Order. We are discussing new clause 3. Let us concern ourselves with that.

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.

:You cannot.

: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.

Never.

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.

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.

Again, the hon. Gentleman shows no faith in anyone.

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.

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 —which would, quite rightly, provide at least some mechanism to deal with the hon. Gentleman's concerns about the conduct of the referendum.

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.

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.

You trust them.

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.

Last night, about 65 of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues voted against the Government. Do they have a similar trust in the Cabinet?

Order. We are debating a new clause. Those matters should not be dealt with in this debate.

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.

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?

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.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for being so generous with his time, although he would 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.

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.

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?

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—

No.

If that is the official position of the Conservatives, it reflects badly on them.

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.

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 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.

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.

Will the hon. Gentleman therefore condemn the actions of his colleagues last week in talking out that Bill?

Order. The hon. Gentleman must not go into that.

I would not dream of doing so. However, there is time available next week, when we have a recess starting on Thursday—

Order. The hon. Gentleman must not mention those matters. He must refer to the new clause.

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 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.

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.

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.

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 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.

Order. I remind hon. Members that interventions should be brief.

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.

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.

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.

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—

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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".

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.

I have not had the opportunity to read the report of that part of the proceedings in Committee, 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.