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

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

• Clause 1,
• Schedule 1,
• Clause 2,
• Schedule 2,
• Clauses 3 to 62,
• Schedule 3,
• Clauses 63 to 81,
• Schedule 4,
• Clauses 82 to 95,
• Schedules 5 and 6,
• Clauses 96 to 118,
• Schedule 7,
• Clauses 119 to 126,
• Schedules 8 and 9,
• Clauses 127 to 130.— (Lord Carter.)
• On Question, Motion agreed to.

My Lords, in calling Amendment No. 1, I hope that your Lordships will not think me too far out of order if, in view of today's unusual circumstances and because it is Friday, I were to say to the noble and learned Lord on behalf of the whole House, many happy returns of the day.

Hear, hear!

moved Amendment No. 1:

Page 9, line 37, leave out ("and") and insert ("to").

My Lords, I am happy to support the amendments moved by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. Furthermore, we are more than likely to support any amendments necessitated by the coming into force of the Cathedrals Measure. My noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury, who is in Kosovo today, was concerned about the general principle applying to Amendment No. 2; it is whether trustees can take a majority decision by correspondence between them or can do so only in a meeting at which they are present.

While that is not a matter to be cleared up in this Bill, will the noble and learned Lord consider adding it to the subjects to be referred to the Law Commission for examination?

My Lords, I shall respond to that question so that the answer is on the record. My officials have written on this point to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, but as he is out of the country he may not have seen the letter. We have consulted both the Law Commission and the Charity Commission. Neither of them reports any difficulty arising from the fact that some charitable trusts carry out much of their business other than by meeting. No doubt there are charitable trusts whose trust documents specify a particular way of carrying out business and whatever the trust document says will prevail. However, where they do not, trustees in practice have arrived at a pragmatic way of doing their business. I do not believe—and I appreciate that the noble Lord is not making the suggestion—that it is the place of this Bill, without consultation, to insist that this class of decision should be reached in any way other than that in which they generally do business—and do business satisfactorily.

There are two sets of reasons for that. First, action by majority has not caused the Charity Commission any significant difficulty. Neither have the courts been troubled by disputes arising from pragmatic decisions about how the business of particular trusts or classes of trust should carry out any or any particular business.

The second reason is purely practical and turns on the possibility of disenfranchising certain classes of trustee. If, for example, we were to require charitable trusts to take a decision such as the one under discussion here only at meetings, trustees who lived at a considerable distance from the venue for the meeting, or perhaps out of the jurisdiction altogether, might be put to significant expense in terms of time and travel if they wished their views to be taken into account; or they would in effect find that they were unable to carry out their personal duties if literally unable to attend. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, can think of other problems, too.

Therefore, I am satisfied that the amendment, as now drafted, allows trustees of charitable trusts to make an appropriate decision on remuneration for one of their number, using whatever system of decision-making they generally apply, and that that is the appropriate way to deal with the matter. However, I am certainly willing to consider the reply which the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, will no doubt send me in due course.

My Lords, I wish to associate the Opposition with the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, with regard to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. In the circumstances, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, can be well satisfied with the response of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I also foresee no circumstances in which the Opposition are likely to oppose amendments tabled at Third Reading by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor as a result of the coming into force of the Cathedrals Measure.

My Lords, I wish to raise a niggling point which reflects on nothing other than my stupidity in the face of amendments. The first amendment proposed by the noble and learned Lord causes the initial words of Clause 28 to conclude with the words "subsections (2) to (3)". My question is whether the figure "3" applies to the existing subsection (3) or to the new subsection introduced by Amendment No. 2, which I understand may be renumbered "(3)". If that is so, the words "subsections (2) to (3)" may have to read "subsections (2) to (4)". I am sorry to raise this point; it reflects my inability to deal with amendments proposed with brackets.

My Lords, I shall not opt for either possibility. I rather suspect that renumbering is required, but we shall revert to that.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

moved Amendment No. 2:

Page 10, line 5, at end insert—

("( ) Subsection (2) applies to a trustee of a charitable trust who is not a trust corporation only—

(a) if he is not a sole trustee, and

(b) to the extent that a majority of the other trustees have agreed that it should apply to him.").

My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Hayman, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Bill fulfils a government commitment to introduce legislation as soon as the legislative programme permits in order to give statutory authority to charges made by the Sea Fish Industry Authority for handling applications for fishing vessel grants. Those charges were discontinued in May 1996. The Bill is short and straightforward but, as with many legal issues, the background is complex. Therefore, I hope that noble Lords will find helpful my introduction to the issues which required the Bill to be introduced.

First, I should make it clear that the Bill is not a vehicle for introducing financial assistance to the fisheries industry. It is intended solely to deal with charges levied in the past. The Bill's purpose is to ensure the validity of charges levied by the Sea Fish Industry Authority between 1st October 1981 and 3rd May 1996 in connection with its administration of grant schemes made under the Fisheries Act 1981. It also ensures the validity of charges made by the Sea Fish Industry Authority's predecessor, the Herring Industry Board, between March 1972 and October 1981. The Herring Industry Board was abolished in 1981 but its liabilities were transferred to the SFIA.

The first charges which the Bill intends to validate are those known as "technical charges". They were levied by the Sea Fish Industry Authority to cover the costs of various checks and inspections during the period from 1st October 1981 to 3rd May 1996 under five different fishing vessel grant schemes.

Under a succession of schemes made under Section 15 of the Fisheries Act 1981, grants have been made available to fishermen in the UK for the construction, improvement and safety of vessels. They have all been administered by the Sea Fish Industry Authority on behalf of Ministers, as provided for by Section 16 of the Fisheries Act 1981. The SFIA is a non-departmental public body established under the Fisheries Act 1981 to promote the interests of the fishing industry.

The SFIA's technical charge covered the costs incurred by SFIA marine surveyors in inspecting a vessel at the application stage to check on what work was needed, including the examination of technical specifications and plans, and an inspection on the completion of the work so that the surveyor could satisfy himself that it had been carried out properly. The charge was calculated on a sliding scale, but was roughly 4 per cent. of the work, although a maximum ceiling was set to limit the charge applied to larger applications. The charge was eligible for grant aid and the SFIA deducted the total charge from the amount of grant paid to the beneficiary.

When material that the SFIA produced to implement a fishing vessel grant scheme in 1995 was examined, questions were raised within the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food about whether the charging powers given to the authority under Section 3(2) of the Fisheries Act were sufficient to cover the technical charges. A key consideration was that the SFIA was administering the schemes under Section 16 of the 1981 Act as the agent of Ministers. In that role, the authority could have no powers which the Ministers themselves lacked. Ministers did not have the statutory power to levy the technical charges if they had administered the schemes themselves, so it was considered most unlikely that the authority had that power. However, I must make it absolutely clear that at all times the SFIA acted in good faith, believing that it had the power to levy the charges.

This was an extremely complex legal issue to unravel. To help noble Lords who are interested in these legal arguments, we have placed a note on the legal background to the Bill in the Library of the House. As soon as lawyers concluded that, in all probability, the technical charge did not have a statutory basis, the SFIA was told and stopped. MAFF wrote to the SFIA on 3rd May 1996 confirming the instruction given over the telephone that day to cease levying the charge immediately.

It was subsequently decided that the charge should not be reintroduced, as the nature of the grant scheme had changed and much less technical work was involved in processing applications. The Bill does not give authority to any charges made after 3rd May 1996, so it gives no authority for their reintroduction.

Noble Lords may also be concerned about whether the Bill has human rights implications. That has been looked at very carefully. It is considered that, if challenged, the provisions of the Bill would be likely to be held compatible with Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which relates to the protection of property, in particular by virtue of the public interest defence in that article.

The charges concerned were reasonable and were never challenged or questioned by those making the payments. The cost of repaying them would be disproportionate to the benefits that such repayment would confer on those to whom it was made. On those grounds, the usual statement has been made that the provisions of the Bill are compatible with the convention rights. That is why the Government always made it clear that they did not intend to meet any claims that were brought before the legislation was in place.

There are precedents for the provision of retrospective statutory authority for similar charges. The Birds (Registration Charges) Act 1997 validated charges levied under Sections 6 and 7 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 for the registration of the selling of certain dead wild birds. Similar legislation was also agreed for fees that the Department of the Environment levied in respect of local planning authorities and the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1954 gave authority to past payments made to the Postmaster General for wireless transmission and receiving licences.

Background work for the introduction of the Bill raised the possibility that similar charges levied by a predecessor body of the SFIA—the Herring Industry Board—in connection with the schemes of financial assistance made under the Sea Fish Industry Act 1970 and earlier legislation consolidated in that Act might also have been ultra vires. After careful consideration, it was concluded that the HIB also had no power to levy those charges. Consistent with the treatment of the SFIA charges, it was decided to extend the coverage of the Bill to the HIB.

A total of £7.3 million in charges covering 13,000 cases was levied over a period of about 30 years. That amounts to an average of no more than £560 per case. A small part of many of the charges was levied for technical advice—such as assisting applicants to choose the appropriate equipment—that was not directly connected with handling the grant application. The SFIA has powers under the Fisheries Act 1981 to charge for such advice, but it would be extremely difficult to separate that now from charges for the work that has necessitated the Bill.

Because of the time delay, it is difficult to be more precise about the exact amount of the charge. Many of the boats that were subject to the charge in the early days of its application may no longer exist and their owners may, sadly, have passed away. Boats will also have changed hands, and because they may have had multiple owners it would be extremely difficult to follow up each case. The Government carefully considered all those factors before deciding to legislate.

The Bill's first main operative provision in Clause 1(1) is to ensure the validity of the charges levied by the Sea Fish Industry Authority between 1st October 1981 and 3rd May 1996 in connection with its administration of the five fishing vessel grant schemes made under Section 15 of the Fisheries Act 1981 and specified in subsection (2)(a) to (e).

Clause 2(1) makes provision to ensure the validity of the same technical charges levied by the Herring Industry Board between March 1972 and October 1981 in connection with its administration of the two fishing vessel grant schemes specified in subsection (2)(a) and (b).

Clause 3(1) cites the full name of the Bill. On legal advice, the SFIA ceased to levy charges for this administration work from 3rd May 1996 onwards. Clause 3(2) is necessary to make it clear that the Bill does not facilitate their reintroduction after that date. Clause 3(3) is necessary to establish that the Bill extends to the whole of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland.

Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.— (Lord Burlison.)

My Lords, given the Minister's full explanation of this retrospective and technical Bill and given that there was no opposition from the industry to it, we have no points to make.

My Lords, first of all, perhaps I should thank the Government for the Bill. For three years, between 1990 and 1993, I was the chairman of the Sea Fish Industry Authority. Suddenly I discover that we were levying charges illegally. On behalf of my predecessor and my successor, I thank the Government for clearing up the issue.

If this debate had taken place while I was the chairman, I would not have been able to speak in it, because my interpretation of the Addison rules is that I should not speak on issues to do with a non-departmental public body that I chaired. I detect that that view is not observed in quite the same strict way as I observed it in the early 1990s.

Had the Minister been here, I might have chosen to make a slightly longer speech on the problems of the fishing industry and the role that the Sea Fish Industry Authority plays in it. I want to say, however, that the work done over many years by the marine surveyors employed by that authority was of huge importance. Some of the schemes mentioned in Clause 1 were very important in modernising the British fishing fleet and building new vessels.

I do not expect the Minister to answer this point but I want to put it on the record. One of the worries that we had in the early 1990s—and it is of even greater concern today—is that our fleet is an ageing one. New vessels are still coming in because, despite the problems, many parts of the industry are still quite vibrant and economically successfully. But new vessels are not coming in at the same rate as they were in the 1980s and early 1990s when those schemes were available to give grants to help fishermen build new boats. That problem is increasing. Although I am not entirely sure of the statistics now, they were certainly beginning to be rather worrying in the early 1990s.

Of course, the problem with an ageing fleet is that fishing is not carried out so efficiently. That may not be a bad thing when we consider the pressures on fishing stocks. But the more worrying problem of an ageing fleet is safety and concern that vessels were often not built to the same modern safety standards we should expect today.

That is a worry. But I do not suggest for a moment that the Government should reintroduce the grants. It would be slightly odd if the Government were paying out for a new build at the same time as paying out for decommissioning. I find it rather strange that some of our European Union friends are happily going on helping and encouraging new build while at the same time trying to pretend that they are obeying the MAGP targets for the size of the fleet.

I have described part of the work of the Sea Fish Industry Authority. The marine surveyor staff has been reduced markedly. One of the difficult tasks I had to do as chairman was to make quite significant redundancies in that department simply because the grant schemes for the new build were coming to an end for all the reasons I have outlined.

The two grant schemes which continued while I was chairman and which have now ceased are those contained in Clause 1(2)(d) and (e). They relate to safety. The Government have stopped the safety grants. I understand why they have done so. They feel that if there are mandatory requirements to obey safety rules, then the industry should pay for them. I understand that.

But one of the problems in the fishing industry is not just safety equipment; it is the way fishermen behave and how they treat and deal with safety. That involves training. The authority fulfilled that role. I wonder whether the noble Lord will convey to his noble friend the Minister the need to look seriously at some form of help for training in the fishing industry.

After coalmining—and with the reduction in deep mining, it may now well not be after coalmining—fishing is one of the most dangerous industries in which to work. Your Lordships will know that every winter and, indeed, sometimes in the summer, fishermen's lives are lost at sea. So it is an industry where training and safety measures are of the utmost importance. It would be of benefit to the industry if the Government were to reintroduce grants for safety operations, even if they only helped with training. It would not cost very much and the fishing industry receives little help from the Government compared with, for example, agriculture. It would be help which the industry would certainly welcome.

I have said all I need to say. I welcome the Bill. As the Minister said, absolutely nobody has complained about the charges because the fishermen all greatly appreciated the work, help and advice they received from the marine surveyors. In so far as anybody is ever happy to pay charges, they were happy to pay for the services they received.

My Lords, I am grateful for the comments made on the Bill. In particular, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. He is well qualified to judge the Bill legally. His experience of the sea fish industry perhaps exceeds that of any other noble Lord here today.

In relation to the point which the noble Lord made about ageing vessels, we agree that fleet renewal needs to take place. But we want that to happen on a sustainable basis, using the industry's own assets and earnings potential. There can be no justification for using public money to subsidise the investment which would not otherwise take place or which risks creating capacity beyond what the stocks will bear.

The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, mentioned safety grants. Indeed, safety at sea is an important issue. The Government are concerned for the fishing industry to improve its record. The Government believe that the old scheme, which grant-aided mandatory safety equipment, was not effective in reducing the number of accidents. The Government are looking to change the safety culture of the industry, perhaps with an emphasis on the very point the noble Lord made in relation to training and in particular in the context of any funding available for the new programme of structural measures.

The question of training for fishermen is entirely outside the scope of the Bill. But the noble Lord's comments are perfectly acceptable in view of his experience of the industry. We recognise that the fishing industry is one of the most dangerous and that the level of accidents is unacceptable. The Government are keen to promote safety in the industry. Under the 2000–2006 EU grants programme, the Government are considering with the industry whether those funds could be directed towards the training of fishermen in safety matters in order to change the safety culture in the industry and encourage more safety consciousness. The funding priorities for the grants programme have not yet been agreed by Ministers and I shall keep the noble Lord informed of developments in that area. I commend the Bill to the House.

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

rose to move, That this House takes note of the report of the European Union Committee on A European Food Authority (7th Report, HL Paper 66).

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is the first report to come before the House from the reconstituted Sub-Committee D of the European Communities Committee. That sub-committee, formed from the previously separate agriculture and environment subcommittees, has responsibility for considering European Union measures concerned with agriculture, food, the environment, consumer protection and public health. It is perhaps a remarkable coincidence or a devious design that, in fact, this report covers all those interests.

However, I assure the House that the subject was not chosen as a means of forging a common agenda within the sub-committee. Rather, this is an important measure which has been delineated in the Commission's White Paper on food safety in the European Union. It requires careful consideration by the Select Committee and by this House.

At the outset, I acknowledge the gratitude of the sub-committee to our Clerk, Mr Radice, and to our specialist adviser, Professor Philip James, who has had long experience in matters concerned with food safety and has played a major role in establishing the United Kingdom Food Standards Agency, which the House will remember started in April of this year. So we were extremely glad to be able to call on the services of our Clerk and our specialist adviser.

On a personal note, perhaps I may say how grateful I am to those members of the previous two subcommittees who gave me a very tolerant reception when I returned to the sub-committee after some years' absence.

The outline proposal for a European food authority is part of a much wider-ranging White Paper on food safety. Although our report deals specifically with the European food authority, I should first say a few words about the White Paper itself. It sets out no fewer than 84 separate measures, the first 18 of which are described as priority measures.

We were most grateful to Commissioner Byrne for meeting us and answering some of our questions when we met in Brussels. He acknowledged that the timetable for implementing the 84 measures was ambitious. We agreed with some Members of the European Parliament whom we met, including Caroline Jackson and Phillip Whitehead, who considered the timetable, respectively, as "wildly unrealistic" and an "omnium gatherum" to divert attention from the lack of focus in the main European food authority proposal. In paragraph 23 of our report we feel bound to criticise both the timetable and the lack of a clear indication of priorities. Frankly, this is not an impressive background against which to launch this new and important initiative of the European food authority.

I think everyone would accept that in recent months, and perhaps even years, the issue of food safety has become a major concern to European consumers. One only has to think of this country and the BSE crisis and, more recently, the scandal in Belgium of animal feed contaminated by dioxin. Such matters have highlighted serious deficiencies in the European Union food safety policy and in the way in which scientific advice has been marshalled to support decision-making. Clearly, something must be done if European consumers are to have greater confidence.

Everyone who gave evidence to the committee accepted the need for a more co-ordinated approach to bringing about higher standards of food safety in Europe and for European consumers. Many drew attention to the lack of consistency across member states. That is not surprising when one considers the varying levels of scientific expertise or different cultures, and perhaps different methods of addressing the issues in member states. Nevertheless, it often amounts to a failure of the Commission to make an effective contribution towards accomplishing what is desirable to achieve consistency. That is not being achieved at present.

The problems which have to be tackled by a new authority were well summarised in evidence given to us by the Consumers' Association. That is reproduced in box 1 on page 11 of the report. Of the present problems which have to be addressed, 14 are listed. I shall draw attention to only three. First, at present there is a reactive rather than a proactive approach, or, to put it another way, too little too late. Secondly, there are problems of enforcement. It is difficult, at present, to see an effective or consistent enforcement policy across the European Union. Thirdly—this is the fundamental issue—there is a general lack of confidence in the level of scientific advice available to the Commission, the Council of Ministers or to Europe as a whole.

If one considers box 1 on page 11, one has to agree with the Consumers' Association that whatever one thinks of the proposals for the European food authority, something must be done. The issues need to be addressed. There is every reason to criticise the present position, as indeed, European consumers do consistently, and correctly, I believe.

If the new authority is to be an effective initiative, it will have to be judged against two criteria. First, and most important, will it command scientific credibility of the highest order and, therefore, ultimately the respect and confidence of consumers? The White Paper refers to the new authority as aspiring to become the scientific point of reference for the whole Union. I believe we would all agree that that is a worthy aspiration. However, when we come to judge the merits of the proposals, we have to determine whether or not that is likely to be achieved.

The second criterion which we must take into account is whether a new authority will complement and add value to the work of existing national agencies. I refer, for example, to the UK Food Standards Agency and existing European Union organisations. If those two criteria were to be met, and we were satisfied that the new organisation would add scientific credibility to the debate and complement and add value to the work of national agencies and others, we would give the proposals our full support, without hesitation.

However, I have to say that at present we have a number of reservations. We do not think that sufficient thought has been given to how this scientific point of reference of the highest order can be achieved. Six serious deficiencies in the arrangements for scientific advice concerning food safety are listed in paragraph 72 of the report. I shall not go through all six but shall draw attention to two.

The first concerns expert committees. There are expert committees in member states and expert committees advising the Commission. At present, they do not interact effectively. Again, I do not have to remind noble Lords that the BSE crisis has drawn attention to that, as, indeed, have many others. It causes confusion in the minds of consumers and clearly is a failure to interact.

Secondly, I refer to the lack of an adequate scientific secretariat available to the Commission. After all, the Commission has the responsibility of managing risk and implementing the proposed measures. If the Commission does not have access to an adequate scientific secretariat, it will fall back on advice of an unknown quantity and quality. That seems to be one of the fundamental problems facing the Commission at present. Clearly, we would expect any new authority to be able to call on an adequate scientific secretariat. That does not mean to say that it has to do all the research itself. However, it has to be able to call upon a suitable secretariat in order to identify where the best advice and risk assessment can be obtained.

If the new authority is to achieve scientific credibility of the highest order, it must also ensure that it can identify where the best science is coming from. It does not really matter where in the world that is; whether from the European Union or elsewhere. It simply must know where the best advice is. We do not expect scientists to agree on the precise assessment of risk. That is not the nature of science. Science tries to measure areas which are not clearly understood. But ultimately it can and should be possible for the authority to act as a point of reference for scientific advice and ultimately to build towards a scientific consensus. We see that as the role of the authority. That is not to say that it will override the national agencies, but that it would act as the forum within which, through iterative scientific debate, a consensus can be achieved. That would be astonishingly helpful and would be exactly what European consumers would be looking for.

There are a number of models which should be looked at carefully to see how one should set up such an authority. In our report we mention, with qualification, the United States Food and Drugs Administration. Although in some respects that organisation commands a high reputation, it should be noted that it is prone to political influence. The Swedish national food administration commands a high reputation as a national agency. Other European Union agencies are not mentioned in the report but I would personally add the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products, which is based in London. Those are examples of the smooth functioning of the interface between scientific assessment and risk management.

Clearly, there are models which need to be looked at. It is important not to think that the authority should simply override other advice. The Commission refers to the guiding principles which should underpin the European food authority. We agree with its assessment, and refer in paragraph 31 to scientific excellence, independence and transparency.

One of the matters which alarmed us was that we felt there was an implication in the White Paper that the Joint Research Centre, which is effectively the in-house corporate research laboratory of the European Union, was somehow to be given an inside track. If you want scientific excellence, you have to go to the best in the world, wherever it is. If you want independence you do not go to the in-house research organisation. The record of transparency also suggests that it has to he seen that you have gone to the best in the world. I hope that we are wrong in fearing that the Joint Research Centre will be given preferential treatment.

If we recognise that building up the scientific consensus is the first and most important role on which the authority will be judged, the second area would be that of adding assistance to member states in the international dimension. By that I mean beyond the boundaries of the European Union.

The European Union is the world's largest importer and exporter of food products. Therefore, food safety becomes an important aspect of the World Trade Organisation negotiations. We feel that the authority could make a significant contribution in helping to establish uniform food standards around the world, and certainly for imports coming into the European Union. It is not clear in the White Paper what role the authority is to assume on this aspect.

The authority is to be given the role of leading on risk assessment, which is clearly a scientific role. Risk management is to remain with the Commission. This division of responsibilities is an important element of the proposals. If risk management were to be included within the powers of the authority we understand it would require an amendment to the EC Treaty. That is not the reason we agree with the Commission's proposal, because if a case is strong enough you can amend treaties, but we recognise that until this organisation gets the scientific credibility that we all hope it will, it would be unwise for it to be saddled also with responsibilities for regulation and enforcement.

That raises the question as to what its relationship will be with the existing organisations available to the Commission for surveillance, regulation and enforcement. Also it raises the question as to why it is not to have a risk management role. It is implied that the authority will be responsible—in part at least—for managing the rapid alert system. It seems to us that that is clearly a risk management function.

I mentioned risk communication earlier. That is clearly an important function of the national agencies. It is also one in which the authority should be involved. So we would hope that the agency would have the authority, and indeed the duty, to be proactive, to relate to all national organisations or others as it wished, but to give advice ultimately to the Commission and to the national agencies. Therefore, it must expect the Commission to give its full support. If the Commission backs away and does not put in place the surveillance for the enforcement required in order to achieve the necessary risk assessment, then the authority's credibility will suffer.

The Food and Veterinary Office, based in Dublin, at the moment fulfils a role of information-gathering and surveillance. Therefore, it is clearly an important component in the mechanism of achieving risk management, as well as a link between risk assessment and risk management. It is most important that there should be total transparency between the two organisations, the Food and Veterinary Office and the new authority. In fact, we go further. We would put the two together, because information-gathering and surveillance seem to us to be part of achieving adequate risk assessment.

Others may wish to speak about nutrition, which we dealt with briefly. It is a controversial issue in some ways, as indeed it was when legislation was passed in Parliament setting up the UK Food Standards Agency. Finally, let me say that we support the concept of the proposed European food authority. However, we do not think that the White Paper gives a clear enough idea as to how scientific credibility and consumer confidence in the authority are to be achieved.

The authority must be independent; it must have a culture of transparency; and above all it must demonstrate scientific excellence. It will need the appropriate scientific secretariat. That will cost a great deal more than some of the figures we have heard mentioned. We share with the Commission the aspiration to establish an authority which will become the scientific point of reference for the whole Union. We hope that the full proposals to be produced after the present round of consultation will be more explicit on how this will be achieved. I beg to move.

Moved, That this House takes note of the report of the European Union Committee on A European Food Authority (7th Report, HL Paper 66).—(The Earl of Selborne.)

My Lords, I rise to speak as a member of Sub-Committee D and in support of the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, our distinguished, experienced and most able chairman, who has spoken so eloquently today to the recommendations which are the unanimous recommendations of the committee. Therefore, I should like to highlight the recommendations which I have most experience of and can with a degree of confidence report to your Lordships.

For over 25 years I have been in business as a fish trader and processor and supplier to supermarket chains within and outwith the European Union. I have worked and lived in continental Europe. I have come to terms with the difficulty of our fine common law system here being at variance with the essentially Roman law system of the European Community. Therefore, it is of no surprise to me that the White Paper on food safety,

"is to ensure that Community institutions and legislation bring about a high standard of food safety for European consumers",

and that the guiding principles on which the proposals are based are that,

"food safety is the overriding objective … primary responsibility for safety lies with producers, manufacturers, retailers and other operators … there must be a comprehensive and integrated approach to food law, covering the whole of the food chain 'from farm to table' … all inputs to the food chain should be transparent and traceable … controls must operate consistently across all Member States".

Who could not agree with that set of admirable objectives? Certainly not I.

I support the idea of a European food authority, as outlined. But, as so often in the European Union, this is an "aspirational" paper, something to sign up to in a spirit of co-operation and comradeship, not something to have cold water thrown over by British pragmatism or held up by our annoying, exasperating British habit of wanting to know: will it actually work; what is a rapid alert system; who is going to make it work; who is going to manage the rapid alert system? And the proposal will be slowed down by our insistence that these matters and the mechanisms to support them should be decided at the outset.

As we point out in our general conclusions:

"The White Paper leaves unresolved a number of questions, not least on the status and powers of the proposed European Food Authority. Although in general we support the concept of the Authority, in our opinion the proposal stands or falls on whether the EFA, as constituted, can be given the resources and powers to enable it to establish a track record in scientific excellence … and to develop rapidly an effective monitoring and surveillance capability".

As an international trader, I can see that politically and globally that will be viewed with enormous suspicion. In my view, the United States will immediately view it as a trade war; and the United States has already been rocked by the use of our European precautionary principle.

With regard to genetically modified grains, there was the thoughtless granting of permission—without consultation with the consumer DG in the European Union—by the European Union to the Monsanto Corporation to sell unsegregated grain in the European Union. The outcry that followed from the consumer groups, faced with a food industry that was unable to label food that identified the GM ingredients, has had huge repercussions. The American consumer groups are now looking at what they have been eating since 1985, when the FDA, on their much simpler system of equivalents, passed GM foods into the nation's system. "If it looks like a carrot; if it smells like a carrot; if it tastes like a carrot; then it is a carrot", is not the system we use with the precautionary principle. Ours says that, "It may look like a carrot; it may smell like a carrot; it may taste like a carrot; but has the genetic base been altered?" If it has, we proceed with all caution; a system which I very much applaud.

If this authority is to be well viewed and trusted on the world stage, scientific excellence must be its overriding goal and the best of the world's scientists should not be excluded. They should be encouraged, invited and welcomed to help us to deliver the scientific work of the authority.

As for national enforcement—already referred to by my noble friend Lord Selborne—I have seen and worked with our zealous enforcement of directives in this country. After all, we are the country which reported itself for having dirty water—you cannot get more clever at enforcement than that! But we have to be careful in this area. I have seen in the time I have worked in the European Union how little enforcement is in evidence. Some countries, and certainly some of our warmer-country partners, to my despair, have flouted so many laws that it has made trading with them almost impossible.

Our common law system leads to a general recognition and approval of enforcement. But the continental system seems to recognise much more the fallen nature of the human race. It feels it is natural to pass laws to which it aspires, and the area of enforcement therefore becomes uneven. As we have already heard, it is an aspect about which the report expresses grave concern.

In recent years I leapt the counter and became chairman of the National Consumer Council, and am now president of the National Federation of Consumer Groups. Therefore for me, nowadays, regaining consumer confidence and trust, certainly in the British food chain, is extremely important. I would be delighted if that were recognised within the new food authority. I have great hopes of that, particularly if the EFA is set up to the same standard as our own independent Food Standards Agency. That would be an excellent start.

Wherever possible, the more clear information we can obtain for consumers the better able they will be to make an informed choice. I understand that people may see the proposal on nutrition as being very much a "nannying" proposal, almost a "big brother" proposal. But I am concerned about some of the novel foods that are coming into our system, particularly those being bought by the young. But the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, will speak on that area so I shall say no more in that regard.

The big question people ask is, "What is the risk to me of eating this food and using this product?". If the new authority is to be successful, the assessment, management and, above all, communication of information to the consumer is vitally important. I should like the authority to be able to communicate directly with people.

Finally, there should be transparency and openness. It is my hope that we in this country will soon have a freedom of information Act and a presumption of openness. It has been infuriating for me over the past 10 years, when it is written that I should be able to look at any papers I wish and ask any questions I want, to go to the Commission and find that there are no papers; they cannot be found; and it is weeks and months before we can obtain any information. I hope therefore that the new authority will start as it means to go on; that is, setting a standard and, wherever possible, showing openness.

These proposals for a European food authority raise important questions. I have been able to touch on but a few. We now have an opportunity within the European Union to aspire to the highest ideals of food safety. But with new members joining us who are light years away from the best practice and the best science already achieved in some of our member states and who will need enormous help and support, achievement of those aims will depend on the political will on the part of member states and the Commission. Otherwise, I fear that this exercise will prove to be an expensive waste of time.

My Lords, this House should be grateful to my noble friend Lord Selborne for bringing before us this report on the Commission's White Paper on food safety. Having been concerned with food safety in an earlier part of my life, the report is particularly pertinent and of interest to me.

Of course, food and its safety are essential issues in the daily lives of us all. But safety can be compromised at numerous points along the food chain, from the basic supply (the farmer, for example) through manufacturing and retailing to the table or kitchen, and finally to the dinner plate. Hence surveillance and enforcement at all those stages is increasingly complicated.

The food chain is complex and made even more so by the fact that we now have a global market. Whereas production methods may be adequate in this country and the European Union, that may not be so for food coming from elsewhere. Nor can health standards be amenable to inspection or, indeed, to enforcement to the same level that exists within the European Union. For example, the attractively packaged soft fruit from distant lands may bear unseen burdens of noxious agents due to irrigation or washing with water contaminated by sewage. That has been found to be an important issue in the United States with materials from central and South America.

Despite the establishment of food standards authorities in several European Union member states, all purporting to aim at a high level of safety, there is nevertheless a clear need for harmonisation of procedures and methodologies used and for a transparent and open regulatory system. It is also important to be clear what the food standards authority will be responsible for—clear not only at the top end, to the administrators and directors, but also at the bottom end to those who will be at the cutting edge of safeguarding the food chain, the food inspectors, the meat inspectors and so forth.

The White Paper states that food safety is the overriding objective. Hence, there should be an avoidance of issues that have no direct relevance to food safety, even though in themselves they are important. For example, I am the last person to negate the importance of animal welfare in general, but I do not believe it is an important issue when considering food safety. Other examples are nutrition and food quality. I can assure your Lordships that decision making at the bottom end, on issues of safety, can become extremely clouded if nutrition and quality have to be part of the assessment. Similarly, environmental issues are not directly related. Nor, for that matter, are issues relating to genetically modified organisms. For those reasons I support the opinion expressed in paragraph 108 that,

"the EFA's role should … he primarily focused on food safety",

and subject to close liaison with the Food and Veterinary Office as expressed in paragraph 104.

A further important reason why it should focus its interest is that there is already an abundance of food safety issues to be addressed; and if scientific excellence is "the overriding goal", as stated in paragraph 116, then in-depth concentration on those factors must be the goal in collaboration with other agencies.

I give an example of such an issue. The food chain is well recognised as the source of enteric infections, particularly antibiotic-resistant organisms, which can cause either direct illness as a result of, for example, resistant salmonella, or indirectly by passing on antibiotic resistance to the commensal organisms in the human intestine which is then passed on to noxious or harmful organisms. But we do not know the extent of this environmental pool of resistant organisms. We have no quick test for detecting it, and we cannot detect it in food or meat inspection.

Following the House of Lords Select Committee report on resistance to antibiotics, which I had the honour to chair, there has been very useful action by the Department of Health and other agencies, the World Health Organisation and the Copenhagen Declaration. There is to be set up a new expert advisory committee on antimicrobial resistance. The over-arching committee, which was recommended 30 years ago by the Swann Committee, and reiterated by the recent Select Committee report on antibiotic resistance, is now being established and will, I am sure, perform a very useful service.

This is an example of excellence being combined with surveillance and a detailed knowledge of, for example, antibiotic resistance. An important point to be considered is the surveillance of food safety. The development of quick and accurate detection tests in collaboration with some well known agencies, such as the Public Health Laboratory Service surveillance unit and the World Health Organisation, should provide a very effective, in-depth and well regarded scientific approach—an approach characterised by scientific excellence.

Finally, I turn to the question of consumer confidence in the field of food safety and the regulation of it, which has sadly slipped in recent years. However, I believe that it can be regained, based on top class science, whatever its source, adequate peer review, publication of such science and a transparency of the work and the implications of the work that has been taking place. I believe that at that point consumer confidence will return.

My Lords, I begin by thanking my noble friend Lord Selborne for his excellent chairmanship of our Committee. He was firm but fair, which are the ideal attributes of a chairman. I also join with him in thanking our clerk, Mr Radice, and our professional specialist scientific adviser, Professor James, who was so normal and level headed that I quite forgot that he was a scientist. This is a well balanced report. In view of the conflicting evidence, it was difficult to get something as sound as has been produced by my noble friend Lord Selborne. A number of different views were expressed about food safety, which I found rather confusing and conflicting.

The background Muzak to our inquiry was the loss of consumer confidence in food and food regulation in Europe and in this country, as noted by my noble friend Lord Soulsby. It was felt that the public need more scientific advice and more regulation before they can safely put food into their mouths. We heard evidence from LACOTS that we need to harmonise the implementation and enforcement of food laws. Other witnesses wanted improved systems of pan-European regulation. A group named "Scientists for Labour" said:

"An authoritative transnational body is obviously required in Europe to enforce and police standards, to ensure co-ordination of food safety policy between Member States".

Another witness, Sustain, was bang up to the minute with a demand for,

"innovative things like citizens' juries, consensus conferences, stakeholder dialogues … (and) focus groups".

This is exciting, advanced thinking. But I think that we already have some citizens' juries.

One has only to look outside to see the evidence. There are Bunteresque masses of people stuffing their faces with food on streets, planes, buses, trains, pavements, cinemas and theatres. People are, as never before, eating burgers, frankfurters, pizzas, chocolate, ice cream, sandwiches, and even the deadly doner kebab—which is quite acceptable as long as one knows who the "donor" is! Therefore, I see no pent up demand for consumer conferences or indeed for stakeholder dialogue, unless the word "stakeholder" is spelt rather differently.

The demand for more regulatory bodies seems to come from consumer organisations and special interest pressure groups which need to believe, and need to make others believe, that there is indeed a crisis in consumer confidence. In this respect, I include the Commission, which in its White Paper states:

"Public confidence in food safety is badly affected by food alerts and crises".

Exactly so. It is all too often the case that hyped alarms and crises affect people rather than the food itself.

Where is the evidence that people believe that food is unsafe? I see very little evidence; indeed, rather to the contrary. We have compelling evidence from the British Hospitality Association. Its members serve nearly 9 billion meals a year without any serious illness among the people who consume all that food. If food is seen as such a risk, why is eating out now such a growth area? Why cannot one get a table at a restaurant? Why are more and more restaurants opening all the time? These matters are not at all consistent with the arguments that there is a massive crisis in consumer confidence.

In Britain—more statistics, I am afraid—people eat about 60 billion meals per year, of which about 200 people die from food-related diseases, including CJD. That suggests to me that there is a far greater risk of being killed or injured by a police car on one's way to dinner than actually eating that dinner. Surely we ought to retain a sense of proportion about this before calling for yet another food authority and another layer of bureaucracy, at vast expense and with probably little gain, except to the army of scientists, regulators, lawyers and bureaucrats, whose jobs, salaries, pensions and research grants often depend on the illusion of maintaining a spectre of food scares.

It seems to me that there is a food scare industry, just as there is a human rights industry, which is largely self-referential. Both are dependent upon persuading the public that another layer of expensive legal bureaucracy is vital to the freedom and safety of the individual. Indeed, they do not seem to have any regard to the reality which can be seen on the streets to the individual or to the industries that are involved.

An illustration of that can be found in the Meat Hygiene Service, which is busy destroying the perfectly worthwhile industry of raw meat. We have had compelling evidence that there is no risk from raw meat, as everyone seems to realise, because raw meat is cooked. But this is now at European level. This British Government seem powerless to change it. When anyone complains about it, we are told that we are merely fulfilling our treaty obligations. Under the guise of treaty obligations, a whole industry is being knocked on the head. I am nervous about the introduction of a European food authority which will give more power to more people to do exactly the same thing over a much wider field.

Perhaps I may remind your Lordships of the various food scares of the past few years. We had the Edwina Currie salmonella sensation; listeria in cheese; cancer in Perrier water; and, of course, the beef-on-the-bone fiasco, which encouraged many people to break the law because everyone realised that the Government were talking absolute rubbish. These are just examples of the classic scares, which did not, I believe, cause any deaths in particular.

We then had the unfortunate Barr case in Scotland, with E-coli, as a result of which, sadly, people did die. There was also the Belgian dioxin scare, where no one died. Those cases were due to the failure of the existing regulations and systems and did not in any way demonstrate the need for something different. The inspectorate that dealt with the Barr incident was at fault, as was Mr Barr, the butcher involved. Such incidents do not call for a new system; they call for existing systems to be much better implemented.

Therefore, I respectfully ask noble Lords: why do we need another layer of expensive bureaucracy, when all the evidence suggests that we do not need one? The Commission's White Paper states that,

"the European food chain is one of the safest in the world".

If that is the case—hooray! But why do we need something else? It does not seem to me that the case has yet been made.

In its written evidence to us, the Royal Society of Edinburgh, said:

"It is a fundamental principle that greatest management control and highest accountability and consumer assurance are achieved when the points of control and assurance are located close to the processes that need to be controlled".

I am in absolute agreement with that view. In its White Paper, the Commission says:

"Greater transparency at all levels is the golden thread throughout the White Paper".

But, as I believe our special adviser, Professor James, so sensibly observed, the Commission would not recognise transparency if it fell over it. He did not actually say those words, he said:

"Commission officials literally do not understand the process of transparency".

It seems transparent to me that the case has not remotely been made out for handing over more power to the Commission. Consumers are already very well protected by UK food law and by World Health Organisation surveillance programmes. Until it has been established that a European food authority would seriously add value to consumer safety, I believe that the idea should be quietly shelved. The Commission should be reminded of the wise words of its past president; namely, that it should do less but do it better.

My Lords, the one area where, as a member of the sub-committee, I can agree with the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, is in thanking the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, our chairman. He had the quite difficult task of, first, bringing together a new committee and getting us all to work together; and, secondly, addressing what ended up as a very wide-ranging topic encompassing not only our attitudes to food but also the structures of the EU and how they work. I should very much like to thank the noble Earl for never quelling opinion but enabling us to focus in such a way that I believe we have produced a report which deals well with the questions raised by this topic and which voices some very worthwhile observations that I hope both the Government and the EU will find useful.

However, I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, in his view that there is no need for such an authority even to be considered. The fact is that the production, processing and distribution of food have changed dramatically and are continuing to do so at an ever-increasing rate. It is the new technologies, new production methods and the new ways of feeding livestock that have produced disasters like the BSE crisis and engendered tremendous concerns, such as those relating to GM technology, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox. Public concerns about what people are eating and how safe it is do exist.

As the noble Lord pointed out, the quality, quantity and choice of food available suggests that the public should be very happy: but the fact is they are not. People have become suspicious about the science behind the testing of these new methods of production. They are suspicious that, at a national level, science has become politicised. I believe that there is a gap to be filled here and one that the EU is ideally placed to fill.

The EFA should, as we firmly state in the report, be in the business of gathering the best of scientific opinion; it should not be in the process of reinventing the wheel. It should produce scientific opinion as to risk assessments that is reliable and consistent. That would be an excellent first step for it. It is an area of work where people in this country and in other European countries will easily see the point of having a champion for their concerns—not only for their domestic market but also to ensure that the European food market is seen as a place of safety, not of risk, worldwide. I shall return later to the point about the EFA's place in the world trade context.

If the EFA is to fulfil that role, it is important that the accountability between it and the European Parliament is strong. If the EFA is simply a creature of the Commission with no lines of accountability, it will be likely to be viewed as distant, remote and, therefore, less trustworthy. Our committee's opinion is that there may not be formal accountability and that there needs to be close, well-developed links between the European Parliament, its MEPs and the EFA. We say that that relationship should be constructive and positive and avoid the sort of reactive stance that can develop—and, indeed, has developed historically in many areas—between the Commission and MEPs.

There is also an opportunity in the EFA's ability to report on enforcement implementation, which would include work on one of the most high-profile bad aspects of public perception of the food industry in Europe. I believe that Caroline Jackson, MEP, hit the nail on the head when she explained how important it was that there should be continuous dialogue between the European Parliament and the EFA. As she put it:

"MEPs must provide answers to the problem that all MEPs encountered at the last European election. Our electors now know that EU laws are not applied in the same way everywhere and they want something done about it".

MEPs do have to account for that fact and, in turn, they should be accounted to.

I turn to the question of laws not being evenly applied, which was especially evident in the area of risk management. It is an area with which our committee grappled hard. I have in mind the difficult issue of where national responsibility should lie for risk management and enforcement. We were quite clear that, at a national level, risk management must be undertaken and that, once a risk has been assessed, the weight of evidence pointed to the fact that risk management should occur at a national level. Although enforcement should happen at that level, we felt that the EFA must be able to highlight failures of enforcement—a particularly important point. The ability of the EFA to communicate its opinion on risk assessment to all citizens in Europe is crucial if it is to prove worth while. In response to the concerns in this country, we have made the move to establish our own Food Standards Agency, which is very welcome. Producers and government are beginning to accept the demand for clearer, more informative labelling.

We have heard that only eight of the 15 member states have set up, or have firm plans to set up, food agencies. With further expansion of the EU, it is very likely that more member states will benefit from having an EFA. There are those who might say that there is little benefit for those states like ours which already have an agency. But I do not believe that to be the case. There are two reasons why we should be enthusiastic about this proposal.

First, we need a strong European voice in the global context. Given the level of imports and exports, as mentioned by our chairman, the time must have come when it is essential to establish a European food authority. Our inquiry found the case for the authority especially strong, so that the EU would have a means of a strong input into the Codex Alimentarius—that rather invisible, but all-powerful body that determines what happens in a global food trade. As mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, there continues to be a wide difference of opinion between Europe and the United States on what is safe in some areas; for example, the use of hormones. Europe definitely needs a strong body of collective scientific opinion so that we can test our concerns scientifically and not be accused of reacting on the grounds of fear that may be founded or unfounded. The export of food is of enormous importance to the EU economy. We need a body to ensure that food produced by the EU is known to be of a consistently high standard.

One of the committee's debates related to the role that the EFA would play in the nutrition aspects of food safety. The remit of the EFA is to deal with food safety. We grappled both long and hard with how wide the definition of "safety" should be. It is clear that a poor diet or a bad diet can be a killer, albeit in the longer term. With the increase in the use of novel foods, foods that may contain nothing that we would traditionally recognise as food but a complex mixture of artificially created substances, we need to have an authority that looks at the long-term effects of eating such "food" and at the effect of a "cocktail" of such substances. There is some public awareness developing around the relationship between the consumption, for example, by children of fizzy drinks and behaviour problems. These kinds of effects will need much further exploration in the future.

The committee heard from Dr Godfrey, who is the vice-chairman of the Consumers in Europe Group. He said:

"I do not take the view that [food] safety is more important than public health; if you are going to tackle the issues which are really important to the people of Europe then you cannot leave outside of consideration the problems of food nutrition and health".

I very much share that view but I can understand why we as a committee reached the conclusion that we did. Given the amount of work that a newly established EFA would have, we came to the rather more cautious opinion that the EFA should deal with nutrition issues only to the extent that they have implications for food regulation policy and that other aspects should be given separate and careful consideration by the Commission. I believe that President Prodi's original vision of an authority that had a wider remit will come to be recognised as a good but long-term aim. In the short term I can live with our committee's conclusion.

Overall, I find the proposal to create a European food authority to bring together the best of scientific advice and expertise in an area that concerns the public so greatly is an exciting one. I hope that the issues highlighted by our sub-committee as potential areas of difficulty will be a stepping stone to producing an accountable, useful and respected EFA.

My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating my noble friend Lord Selborne and his committee on an admirable report. Let me immediately add to that my appreciation of my noble friend's equally admirable introduction to this debate, which set out the key issues so concisely. It may sound unoriginal to say this but it is none the less true: this is a report which deserves to be read and reread by all those to whom it is addressed, not only by government but also by the European Commission and Members of the European Parliament. It is a veritable model of sound analysis and common sense.

After those eulogies I must confess that in the first instance I approached the notion of a European food authority in a mood of a priori scepticism. A good deal of that feeling was rooted in the fact that the Commission's White Paper has something of the look of a Swiss cheese about it. Proposals presented with so many significant lacunae and with so little detail fleshed out are inclined to make one fear the worst. The potential for creating a new EU body with all the attributes that we would deplore—bureaucratic, intrusive, duplicatory, ineffectual—is apparent to those of a somewhat fearful disposition.

That need not happen, as the report points out, provided there is the political will to avoid it. Perhaps the two key questions that need to be asked at the outset are: what is the mischief to be addressed; and what is the added value that the new body will bring? The mischief is not properly analysed in the White Paper but it is clearly set out by the committee. Many people would start with the thought that on the large issues of food safety—those with an international dimension—the European Commission has not in the past shown itself to be as joined up or as effective as we would wish it to be. As my noble friend Lord Selborne pointed out, the dioxins scandal exemplified an apparent inability to respond rapidly to a crisis. Certainly the Commission is not regarded by consumers as a body that either involves them in the formulation of EU food policy or communicates meaningfully with them. Nor is it seen as transparent in the way that it takes policy decisions.

So the case for an EFA rests essentially on a need for improved confidence. An EFA is not, and should never be, an excuse to increase the power of the Commission but rather a means of making the Commission more effective in fulfilling its existing functions. One of those functions is that of overseer of the proverbial level playing field. In food issues, the level playing field is not, of course, solely—or even primarily—a competition issue. It is an issue of consumer safety. What the report rather endearingly refers to as,

"the probability of continuing asymmetry between member states in their national arrangements for implementing and enforcing EU food safety law",

makes it essential that there is effective regulation and guidance at Commission level. That is especially true with the prospect ahead of us of an enlarged Union. Aspirant countries need to have in place legislation, standards and procedures that are uniform in relation to food manufacturing and food imports.

In the single market, any food imported into the EU and passed as safe by the receiving country can be traded freely thereafter. So the safeguards for European consumers on third country products are only as strong as those that are applied wherever the food is checked upon its entry to the EU. I share the view of the committee that promoting uniform standards would be one of the main tasks for a new EFA. I agree also that there needs to be an effective input by the EU into the Codex Alimentarius which is nowadays an absolutely vital facilitator of world trade.

This, then, points to an EFA which is capable not just of thinking and acting in a proactive way—it certainly involves that—but also of anticipating new developments and practices in the food chain and understanding the science behind them. If those tasks are to be performed effectively, an EFA must have the necessary degree of public confidence—in other words, living up to its name as an authority. That means the EU being careful to endow the EFA with only those powers and responsibilities—no more and no less—which it needs to fulfil its remit. But the lynchpin of all that, as the committee stresses time and again, is the need to ensure that the EFA is a repository of unbiased scientific excellence. Without that, it is nothing. Indeed, without that, it is not even worth beginning to think about it.

Comparisons are difficult, but my suggestion is that in time it should aspire to the same level of international esteem as that enjoyed by the US Food and Drugs Administration. But its role should remain that of expert adviser. It must contribute to political decision-making but be kept apart from it. It must forge close links with food agencies in member states but not undermine or duplicate them. In member states without adequate standards or administrative structures, it must feed off best practice elsewhere in the Union.

Establishing its reputation as the authoritative "single voice" for food safety, in the words of Commissioner Byrne, will take time. My noble friend Lord Selborne referred to the barriers that need to be overcome. I simply add, as one or two witnesses to the committee pointed out, that there is all the difference in the world between a body with the highest possible scientific credentials and one which is capable of communicating its findings in a way that is easily intelligible to lay people as well as to other scientists. So the skill of the EFA in communicating effectively will need to be built at several levels. Equally, the process of risk assessment—one of the authority's key tasks—will be quite distinct from mechanisms to ensure that the process is transparent. That is separate again from the process of effective risk communication. From personal experience in MAFF as a former Minister, I share the committee's conclusion that the EFA should be open about minority opinions and be free to communicate risk to whatever audience it chooses.

My noble friend argued persuasively about the function of risk management. One obvious area of discussion will be the role played by the EFA in the enforcement of food safety law. For it to do so directly would require a change in the treaty and would not, I think, be acceptable to member states. What it can and should do, however—here I agree wholeheartedly with the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer—is to be in a position to highlight failures in enforcement. It is a feature of the EU, as I found even during my time as a MAFF Minister, that information about the implementation of EU law in other member countries is extremely difficult to obtain. MAFF was reliant on asking our embassies to carry out ad hoc inquiries, which, although conducted diligently enough, were seldom able to provide Ministers with more than an anecdotal picture. That needs to change. If we in Britain are suspicious of what may or may not be happening across the Channel, the suspicions are no doubt mutual. A surveillance and monitoring remit for the EFA, provided that it does not duplicate systems in member states, would go a long way to removing an insidious barrier against international trust.

One of the committee's conclusions that I am less sure about is the section of paragraph 61 which suggests that the EFA's credibility will depend on the Commission's willingness to act on its advice. Perhaps it will in part. I do not share the fear that, otherwise, the authority will be seen as responsible for the Commission's failure to act. The authority and standing of the European Court of Auditors do not seem to be undermined to any great extent by any perceived foot dragging on the part of the Commission in relation to EU fraud and waste. It may be relevant to note in passing that there are close links between the European Court of Auditors and the various committees of the European Parliament which oversee budgetary and financial issues—a model perhaps for the EFA.

I started by expressing some scepticism. So far as concerns the theory, the committee has succeeded largely in dispelling that scepticism. The rub lies in the way that the proposals are put into practice; they have to work. My noble friend has provided valuable pointers to making the new authority both practical and credible; I very much hope that the committee's conclusions will find favour with the Government.

My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, and the Select Committee on the European Union on holding their inquiry into the European food authority and for bringing forward this debate on their report today. As the noble Earl suggested, it is the first report of the reconstituted Sub-Committee D; I hope that it will be the first of many. I wish to pay tribute to the noble Earl and to the members of the committee, many of whom have spoken today. We have had a high quality debate.

The issues in relation to food safety and public confidence go very wide, as the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, suggested. I am glad to pay tribute to him and the work that his committee undertook in relation to antibiotic resistance. That is a good reflection of the influence your Lordships' committees are having in these very important areas.

There is no doubt that today's debate and the committee's report will be important contributions to the overall debate and great aids to the Government in their deliberations once the proposals are issued by the Commission in October. They are also very helpful in relation to the need to improve public confidence in food issues.

I listened with great care to the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, as he recounted to us the enormous appetite of people living in this country. When he referred to 60 billion meals a year, I began to feel rather hungry. I am sure that other noble Lords felt the same. As a health Minister, I became rather alarmed when I realised that the "Healthier Nation" targets in relation to people's weight may prove to be more challenging than they are already.

I understand the substantive point, made by the noble Lord, that he wishes to avoid, if you like, another set of arrangements which may be piled on to current arrangements. However, notwithstanding the happy and healthy appetites of the British people, there is concern, too, among the public in relation to food safety issues, as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, pointed out. We have to address those issues of public confidence.

There is no doubt that the committee's report cogently addresses the multiplicity of views heard in evidence and a wide range of issues. The Government's response to the report will be available shortly after this debate.

As the committee appreciated, and as has been demonstrated in this debate, the Commission's proposal for a European food authority, as set out in its White Paper on food safety, raises a good many questions. As the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, said, the present proposals, while addressing the fundamentals, are silent on much of the detail. It will be interesting to see how the Commission reconciles the many different comments it will receive from different countries. Certainly, the Government have submitted their owns views to the Commission, which, in advance of greater detail, set out our main suggestions and points of concern. These are very similar to many of the issues raised by the committee.

Before commenting on the authority, I should touch briefly on the action plan set out in the White Paper. It is certainly an ambitious programme, as the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, said—perhaps even overambitious. The Commission recognises this. But the document contains a number of measures on which the Government have been seeking action for some time—such as the consolidation of hygiene directives and a radical review of food labelling rules—and, in this light, we await more detailed individual proposals being brought forward by the Commission.

In due deference to the suspicions of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, I should point out that we do not regard all of the Commission's proposals as of equal weight. While our overriding concern has to be the protection of public health, we shall also be scrutinising each individual proposal against the criteria of need and proportionality. If I am to take one theme alone away from the debate today, it is the issue of proportionality.

Of course, the proposed establishment of an authority has its critics—indeed, if I may say so, the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, was an eloquent critic—but, apart from the principle, some of those criticisms may be due to a lack of detail, a matter to which I have already referred. Certainly, it is clear that there are some who consider that the proposals do not go far enough; others consider that there may not be a need at all for a European body, suggesting that the rationalisation of existing Commission services might produce better results. However, it is clear that there is an urgent need to review structures which have evolved over the past 30 years. I accept the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, in relation to consistency.

Given the importance of protecting consumer health, it is important to welcome the proposal to draw existing responsibilities together in a new, independent EU body. I stress the words "existing responsibilities". In the light of what I and other noble Lords have said, we do not expect that this will involve creating any new competencies or transferring responsibility away from member states.

I also accept that such a body must be open and transparent and that it must provide the best scientific advice possible, utilising all available expertise, but I share the concerns that it must be careful not to duplicate work performed effectively elsewhere. It is particularly important that such advice is not based solely on in-house science—a point emphasised in the report. We share the committee's anxiety on that. I shall return to that issue in a moment.

There are number of unresolved questions about the proposed authority which are reflected in the committee's report and the Government's response, and I should like to reflect on the main issues.

The noble Earl, Lord Selborne, referred to the relationship between risk management, risk assessment and risk communication. In its report, the committee accepted that, for the present, there should be a clear division of responsibility, with risk assessment going to the authority and risk management staying with the Commission, along with regulation and enforcement. It also recognised that there should be a close two-way interaction across the divide. This point was among those of particular concern to the Government, as reflected in their response to the Commission.

We agree that legislation should remain with the Council and with the European Parliament. The implied division of the official/technical level functions of risk assessment and risk management between the authority and the Commission is, however, felt by the UK to be the least satisfactory aspect of the Commission's proposals. The Government believe that coherence in the processes of risk analysis is vitally important if policy decisions are to be properly based on sound science and public confidence is to be maintained and enhanced.

I accept that part of the difficulties may have stemmed from different understandings of the terminology. What is absolutely clear is that we must avoid compartmentalisation of the different parts of the task of risk analysis. That could result in risk managers proposing legislation or other controls not firmly based on science or, on the other side of the coin, risk assessors, in giving their opinion, taking no account of the solutions risk managers can practically and effectively apply to safeguard consumer health.

At the end of the day, risk management, risk assessment and risk communication are not individual "steps" but are part of a complex interactive risk analysis process. Certainly, as was pointed out so clearly by the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, the separation of these activities between different EU bodies will require effective co-ordination mechanisms to ensure that policy decisions are based on sound science. Therefore, as the committee identified, there needs to be close and effective communication between the authority and the Commission.

The authority should at the very least be able—or perhaps even be required—to identify practical solutions and options and make recommendations on courses of action. We have suggested that the Commission should then be obliged to respond in each case by explaining what action it proposes to take. It seems that the Commission is receptive to these ideas and we hope that that will to some extent be reflected in its forthcoming proposals.

Perhaps I may turn to the question of the provision of scientific advice. Several important points have been made by noble Lords. I was interested in the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, who, from her experience in business, spoke of the credibility of what is proposed depending on scientific advice being of the highest quality. The noble Earl, Lord Selborne, also raised a number of important issues, including the need for a high quality scientific secretariat.

The Government firmly believe that the proposed European food authority must be able to draw on and represent the best scientific advice available. An existing structure of scientific committees is of course in place; those committees report to the Commission. It is envisaged that they will fall within the remit of 1 he authority. We accept that it is essential that they are well structured and adequately supported by a strong secretariat which can properly frame requests for advice so that the scientific considerations can fully inform and—dare I say?—be understood by policy makers. I also agree with the point made about effective communication with the public. Such scientific advice has to be made available to the wider public in a clear and comprehensible way.

The committee has commented on the authority's remit. Its view matches the UK's response in that we would not wish this to be too widely extended. We see a role for the authority in labelling issues, acting as a source of scientific data on nutrition matters and encouraging co-operation on nutrition issues between member states. But we do not believe that the remit should extend to healthy eating advice or to responsibilities for subjects such as environmental protection or animal welfare. We think that those matters should be dealt with as policy areas in their own right. Those aspects are covered in more detail in the response to the Commission.

I now turn to another important matter; namely, the relationship of the proposed authority with the UK's Food Standards Agency. Again, I share the consensus apparent in our debate today. The European authority must add value to the work of other authorities, but it must not duplicate the work of those other authorities. Arising from that are questions of how it would relate with the UK Food Standards Agency; whether the authority would be able to overrule national agencies; and, indeed, whether it would ultimately make our own agency redundant. I should like to respond very firmly to that final point. The establishment of an authority will not make our own agency redundant.

There is a substantive difference in the proposed remit of the authority and that of the UK's agency. The Food Standards Agency encompasses risk assessment, risk management and risk communication on all food safety issues. It deals with compositional and quality standards, animal feed, nutrition and diet advice, food authenticity, surveillance and enforcement. That is a much wider scope of responsibilities than those proposed for the European authority.

Perhaps the best way to view the role of the European food authority is that essentially it will improve the arrangements for co-ordinating food safety at the European level, with individual member states retaining responsibility for implementing the necessary measures and controls within their own territories. In terms of the authority's ability to overrule the opinions of national agencies and scientific experts, as the committee is already aware, no such formal rule has been proposed. We see the role of the authority as one of aiding consensus on difficult or divisive issues rather than acting as an arbiter or pressing its own views on member states.

While the relationship between the proposed authority and agencies in member states is not clearly defined in the Commission's communication, we do expect any recommendations from the authority to be based on full consultation and careful analysis of the best available scientific information. It is obvious, given that scientific opinion can rarely be stated with 100 per cent confidence, that there will be scope for disagreement or differences of opinion. We should not run away from that. However, with active collaboration with agencies and authorities in member states, the scope for such instances might be reduced.

In this regard, the Commission has proposed some form of network between the authority and national authorities. That is eminently sensible in order to tap the wealth of expertise and resources resident in member states, as well—I return to the point I made earlier—as avoiding duplication of effort.

Many other issues were raised in the debate. I apologise to noble Lords if I am unable to respond to every one, but a number of points were made to which I should like to refer. The noble Earl, Lord Selborne, asked what model should be adopted by the European food authority. He suggested that the Commission should look at successful models already in existence. We share that view and we understand that the Commission has expressed an interest in the UK's own Food Standards Agency.

Several questions were raised as regards transparency and openness. I have already said that I very much share the opinion that, if the authority is to sustain credibility within the Community and in this country, openness in relation to its functions and communications to the public as well as to agencies in member states is absolutely vital. It is a matter on which we shall keep a close eye.

The Commission is currently considering all the comments that have been received on the authority from member states and other interested parties. It is also awaiting the European Parliament's opinion which, I understand, is not expected until October. We therefore expect to see a detailed proposal from the Commission around the end of October, on which detailed and more focused discussion can take place. We await the Commission's proposals with interest. There is no question that the handling of food safety issues is of great importance to this Government. It was for that very reason that we established the Food Standards Agency.

This has been an interesting and informed debate. We shall take into consideration all the points that have been raised, as well as the substantive points raised in the committee's report.

I conclude by once again thanking the noble Earl and the sub-committee members for the splendid job that they undertook in producing not only a very informative report but one that can be clearly understood in an area which is often not necessarily so clear.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that helpful response. Indeed, I thank all noble Lords who have participated in the debate. If nothing else, I believe that we have demonstrated that within the committee we have the ability, indeed the inclination, to challenge every concept that is put to us from different standpoints. I hope the House will agree that the fact that we produced a unanimous report demonstrates that we have achieved a consensus among ourselves. In asking the EFA to achieve a scientific consensus, we are asking it to do what scientists have clearly failed to do thus far; indeed they disagree radically.

I make the point to my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke that those who are dubious about how an EFA can add value have only to look at the inconsistency between the advice of the highly regarded UK Food Standards Agency and that of the national organisation in France, which apparently has two quite different scientific views about the safety of British beef. There may be good political reasons for that, which we all understand, but there simply cannot be good scientific reasons. That is why we need a forum in which scientists can test the science objectively. Ultimately, science should not be dictated by policy; policy-makers involved in other considerations may fail to take risk assessment into account.

We were delighted that my noble friend Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior was able to speak in the debate. He was the one Back-Bencher to do so who was not a member of the committee. I congratulate my noble friend on his contribution. I congratulate him also on the fact that today is his birthday.

On Question. Motion agreed to.

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

The Bill comes to this House from another place, where it was introduced by my honourable friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde. I want to record my thanks to him, and particularly to the Minister in another place for accepting significant amendments to the Bill on Report which have made it more sensitive to carers' situations. All carers organisations are grateful for that.

I should like also to record my sincere thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester. His wisdom, experience and advice have been extremely helpful to me. The noble Lord is, of course, very experienced on Private Members' Bills as well as having been a Minister. His commitment to the carers' cause long pre-dates that of everyone else. I am most grateful to the noble Lord.

I am delighted also that the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, whom I first met during the course of discussing carers some years ago, is to make her maiden speech in this debate.

About five years ago, I sat below the Bar and watched the noble Lord, Lord Carter, bring to this House a Private Member's Bill, the Carers (Recognition and Services) Bill, which had been sponsored in another place by Malcolm Wicks and which the noble Lord steered through this House. It was the first piece of legislation specifically aimed at carers. It enshrined in law a broad definition of "carer" and enabled carers to receive an assessment of their own needs alongside the assessment of the person for whom they are caring.

Although that Act provided important and valuable recognition for carers, carers are still unable to access services directly in order to support their caring role. It was always accepted that further legislation would be required —that was accepted by carers themselves, by the carers organisations and by the Government in their national carers strategy published last year. If this new Bill is successful, it will enable carers to ask for an assessment in their own right and to access services provided by the local authority.

At some time in our lives many of us will be in the position of caring for someone else. We give care willingly because we love those who nearest and dearest to us. For some, the caring role will become a larger part of their lives, taking up more of their time, because someone close to them becomes ill or disabled.

Providing a substantial amount of care on a regular basis can be very hard work and may be emotionally draining. Like many noble Lords, I am acutely aware of the manifold problems that carers face, particularly from my role for 10 years as chief executive of the Carers National Association. Often, carers are struggling to continue in their caring role and want help in maintaining their valuable contribution to the care of a loved one.

The main aim of the Bill is to enable local councils to offer new support to carers. That will not only help carers to continue to care; it will assist carers, so that they can be assured that their own health and wellbeing are being considered.

Clauses 1 to 5 and Clause 8 introduce changes to the law which affect carers aged 16 or over who provide or intend to provide a substantial amount of care on a regular basis for another individual who is aged 18 or over. Clauses 6 and 7 make specific provision for people with parental responsibility for disabled children.

Clause 1 provides that the carer who is 16 or over has the right to an assessment, on request, from the local council of his or her ability to provide and to continue to provide care for the person cared for. This request will be met if the carer provides or intends to provide a substantial amount of care on a regular basis for another individual aged 18 or over. The provision will be particularly helpful where, as sometimes happens, the cared-for person has refused an assessment for community care services or the delivery of community care services following assessment.

That assessment will enable the local authority to decide whether to provide services to the carer under Clause 2 of the Bill. The local authority must consider the assessment and then decide whether to provide services to meet any assessed needs which are identified.

It is important to point out that the Bill is sensitive to the complexities of the relationship between the carer and the person cared for. Clause 2 details that if the carer and the person cared for agree—and it is important to stress that—services, although provided to the carer, may be services that could be delivered to the person cared for by way of community care services. That might be either because the person cared for has refused help from the local authority, as sometimes happens, or because in the particular circumstances of that relationship it is more appropriate for the service to be provided directly to the carer to support him or her in the caring role or maintain his or her own health and well-being.

Such services, when provided to the carer but delivered to the person cared for, may not, except prescribed circumstances, include anything of an intimate nature. Again, this relates to sensitivity about the relationship between the carer and the person cared for. There is a power to set out in regulations what is or is not a service of an intimate nature. It might include, for example, dressing, feeding, lifting, washing and so on.

The Bill does not offer carers of adults the right to determine the services to be delivered to the people they care for; nor does it give the local council the power to provide as carers' services those services of an intimate or personal nature which are usually delivered to cared-for people as community care services. However, the Bill recognises that the lives of users of community services—persons cared for and their carers—are closely linked, arising as they do out of a pre-existing relationship. The Bill ensures that local councils can now look at meeting the needs of carers as well as, but not instead of, those of the person who is cared for under community care legislation.

The effect of subsections (2) to (4) of Clause 4 is that when a local authority proposes to provide a particular service either to the carer under the Bill or to the cared for person under community care legislation it must decide who is the recipient of that service. For example, for the purpose of deciding who is to be liable for any charges and who may complain in relation to the service in question, it is important to know to whom the service is being provided. It is also important to point out the restrictions. The user and carer must agree on who is the person to whom the service is provided. Another important proviso is that the council's decision must be made with absolutely no regard to the means of the carer or the person cared for; in other words, it cannot decide who is better able to pay for the service and then say that that is the party to whom the service will be provided.

I turn to an interesting part of the Bill to do with vouchers. A key issue for many carers is whether they can get a break from their caring role. A short break helps a carer to maintain his or her own health and well-being and often helps to maintain the relationship by providing a little time off. A break is an opportunity for carers to have a life of their own and perhaps spend some time relaxing with family and friends or with those for whom they are caring but free from the usual caring responsibilities. Two important issues dictate whether a carer can enjoy a break. First, is there flexibility in the timing of the break? Breaks are of no use if they are provided only every fourth week and the person may not need it at that particular time. Secondly, does the additional community care service that is provided while they take a break benefit the persons for whom they are caring? The carer simply cannot take a break unless adequate services are provided as a substitute.

Clause 3 enables the Secretary of State, or, in relation to Wales, the National Assembly for Wales, to make provision in regulations for local authorities to issue vouchers for short-term breaks. This scheme will enable the person who is cared for to arrange for someone to provide services to him or her in place of the care which would otherwise have been provided by the carer. The person cared for may choose to remain at home or move into residential accommodation for a short period. In either case it is intended that, whether expressed in a monetary value or for the delivery of services for a period of time, or both, vouchers may be redeemed only in exchange for services delivered by local council-approved providers. I know that that is also of importance to carers.

The short-term break voucher scheme will introduce a simpler way to achieve a level of flexibility and choice in the delivery of short-term breaks than is currently available to community care service users via direct payments. This is an additional option which some may find simpler than using the direct payments scheme. As to direct payments, at the moment disabled people may ask their local council to assess their needs for support to live independently in the community. As an alternative to receiving services from the local authority, the money can be given to them to purchase the support that they need.

Clause 5 of the Bill amends the Community Care (Direct Payments) Act 1996 to extend local authority power to make direct payments to carers aged 16 and over. Carers must use the money to purchase for themselves any carer services that they have been assessed as needing to support them in their caring role and to help maintain their own health and well-being.

I turn to an important addition to the Bill which was made in another place to deal with those with parental responsibility for children with disabilities. Clause 6 provides that a person with parental responsibility for a disabled child has the right to an assessment by the local authority of his ability to provide, and continue to provide, for the care of the child. The local council must take that assessment into account in deciding what services, if any, to provide to the child and family under Section 17 of the Children Act 1989.

Clause 7 inserts new Section 17A into the Children Act 1989. The provision extends the option of direct payments to people with parental responsibility for a disabled child for services for the family and to disabled children aged 16 and 17. The responsibilities of parent carers and others with parental responsibility for disabled children are often made more arduous by the difficulty of accessing mainstream services, for example childcare, including after-school clubs and leisure activities. Where those carers do not think that services are sufficiently tailored to meet the needs of their individual families, direct payments will offer more choice in the way that services are delivered.

The extension of the option of direct payments to 16 and 17 year-old disabled people may be helpful at what is often a very difficult time for them in the transition from childhood to adulthood, in particular when they seek to become more independent of their parents. These direct payments will give such young people more control in deciding how to receive services.

Clause 7 also inserts a new Section 17B into the Children Act 1989 to enable the Secretary of State, or, in relation to Wales, the National Assembly for Wales, to make provision in regulation for local authorities to issue short-term break vouchers to people with parental responsibility for disabled children. Vouchers will provide additional flexibility and choice to carers who will be able to exchange them for services, such as respite care, at times which are most convenient for their families.

Clause 8 enables local authorities to charge carers for services provided to them. That is achieved by an amendment to Section 17 of the Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Act 1983. This is a contentious issue with which carer organisations have been much concerned. While this is a simple Bill, it is not really an uncomplicated one, because charging for services is a difficult issue. We already know from the report Charging with Care, published in May by the Audit Commission, that charging regimes have been applied in such a way as to leave a proportion of individuals in receipt of income support with very little on which to live.

A recent survey carried out by the Carers National Association entitled Caring on the Breadline, which I have quoted in your Lordships' House in the past, also found that 33 per cent of carers who responded to that survey were in receipt of income support but still had to contribute towards charges for services. The other problem about charging is the tremendous lack of consistency and varied interpretation of charging policies. One of the culprits is poorly written and in places contradictory guidance. That is why the guidance to accompany the legislation when it becomes law will be of considerable importance. It will offer a new opportunity to set the record straight and make guidance on charging clear and consistent, which is what everybody wants.

If a charging regime is to be applied, it must be done in a fair and equitable way. It would be very welcome if the guidance emphasised that local authorities could use their discretion not to charge carers, since many carers are already on low incomes. I hope that the Minister's other review of charging for non-residential care services will take on board the issues raised during the passage of this Bill. I also hope that the Minister will be able to assure the House that on this issue consultation with the carers' organisations, which is absolutely vital, will take place as the guidance is developed. There are other clauses which make consequential amendments or deal with financial provision, interpretation and commencement at the end of the Bill.

In conclusion, carers' needs are diverse. As individuals they have particular needs, relationships and support to enable them to continue with their chosen role—I emphasise that most people care willingly and lovingly and want to continue to do so—while maintaining their own health and well-being, which is also important. The Bill offers local councils the opportunity to be innovative in the ways that they support carers, thereby helping them to maintain that caring role.

Services to carers are not defined in the Bill as such. The social services department may provide any service that it sees fit which in its view, with the agreement of the carer, will help the carer to care. Such service may take the form of physical help, assistance round the house or other forms of support, for example help with transport costs and taxi fares for those who live far away from frequent public transport routes.

Thais Bill empowers carers, not by taking away any of the rights of the people who need care and support, but by introducing for the first time support for carers which ensures that both people in the caring relationship are valued. On that basis, I commend the Bill to the House.

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

My Lords, I am extremely grateful for the opportunity to make my first speech in this House on a Bill which has commanded so much respect and support in another place, among carers' associations and all the people who care about raising the status and independent rights of carers.

Before I turn to the Bill, perhaps I may say a few words of thanks not only to noble Lords on all sides of the Chamber who have been extremely welcoming and encouraging over the past few fraught weeks but also to the officials and Officers of the House who could not have been kinder or more supportive in the help they have given.

I know that I have tested your Lordships' collective patience in many ways, not least that of my parliamentary mentor, who has been splendid. However, I managed to escape her kindly but vigilant eye on my first day in this House. I sat down and was delighted to be greeted by warm smiles, even a few waves, from my Front Bench. I thought that I had "arrived" when I received a written note from the Doorkeepers, I assumed welcoming me in the form of written evidence. I was dismayed when I read, "Do you realise you are sitting on the Cross Benches? Why don't you join us on our Benches?" If it had not been for the kindness of the Doorkeepers—I think that they are still on red alert—I would probably never have come back. But I have and, I think to the relief of my Front Bench, intend to remain on these Benches.

At this stage, I should own up—it is clearly a time for confession—that I have had a somewhat wayward parliamentary career so far. I began life as a parliamentary clerk in the Library of another place. After many happy years I defected and crossed the corridor to become a special adviser to Neil Kinnock when he was Opposition leader—without whom I am sure we would not have the renewed Labour Party we have today. I am proud to have been able to serve it. I am glad to say that, although I believe my defection was a precedent, it did not become a trend. No one has followed me; and if clerks are thinking of taking this route I would counsel them. I count it as a very great privilege to have served Parliament in two very different ways and now, if I may use the expression, in a third way.

The Bill before this House has long tap-roots reaching back to the 1970s, when I first came across some of the issues associated with carers and, as my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley said, first became indebted to her and the Carers National Association, with its enormous expertise and commitment, without which we would not have the Bill today. I became inspired by the concerns for disabled people, not least those of the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, who has played a unique role in improving the lives of disabled people. We are very much in his debt, and that of my noble friend Lord Ashley of Stoke.

The Bill builds on the Carers (Recognition and Services) Act 1995. It gives all carers over 16 new status, new independent rights, new services and new choices. I want to focus on young carers, between 16 and 18. Those young people, I believe, will now have a great opportunity. It is hard to be certain about statistics in this area where so much caring is invisible. We believe that as many as 50,000 young carers provide a substantial amount of care. Of those about 14,000 between 16 and 17 will have new rights under this Bill. These young people are still in education. Those figures may be greatly under-estimated. We also know that many carers provide significant amounts of care.

Perhaps I may mention one case which illustrates what these young people do. Khalid is 16 and attends Falinge Park School in Rochdale. He looks after a severely disabled mother. He provides her care and also does all the domestic chores. He looks after a younger brother and sister. He sells Betterware catalogues in his spare time to raise income for the family. He has an attendance record of almost 100 per cent in school. He has just received a Diana, Princess of Wales Award, from the charity which I have the privilege of running. His head teacher has told me that were it not for the primary school which discovered that he was undertaking this caring at a very young age, the secondary school would never have known because it would have had no way of finding out. He would not have told the school.

Many young people are not as successful as Khalid in keeping home, family and school life together. Those who look after mentally disabled parents are particularly at risk because, by its nature, that care is more isolated and problematic. Despite their responsibilities, as my noble friend said, young carers are positive and proud to be carers. Much of what they do is at enormous cost to themselves. It is unacceptable that their lives are often difficult. By definition, they are often poor and isolated. Many feel guilty when they are not at home caring, and fearful of outside interference. Despite their best efforts, and indeed all the skills they develop which go uncredited, a third of them miss school or have educational difficulties. A recent report from Loughborough University—it is so excellent in this field—confirms that many carers at the point of transition to adulthood are at risk of educational failure and unemployment.

It is, therefore, all the more serious that only one in 10 seek assessment under past legislation. There are good reasons for that. They are less well informed and less likely to find out about their rights. Many are afraid that if they make their own needs felt, social services will have no option but to split up the family. Many feel that asking for help is a sign of weakness and inadequacy. More significantly, the research also suggests that the educational services, with which they have greatest contact, play a minimal role in identifying young carers or referring them for help.

The Bill will, I hope, empower young carers in three specific ways: by meeting their needs for information; by providing for someone to talk to; and providing for more practical help and support. Without wanting to institutionalise the burden of care on these young people—it is a serious issue—high priority should be given to providing the right information in the right way.

Schools can hold the key to that. I believe that they would want to do more. I hope that it will be possible for schools and education authorities to play a more proactive role in listening to and supporting young carers and in identifying them. I should like to see the Department of Health and the Department for Education and Employment working closely together, nationally and locally, providing more help and advice to schools about how to spot young carers and help them without being intrusive or reducing their confidence. They need to find more ways of providing flexible learning opportunities so that those young carers have a second chance not only to do their homework and catch up with their friends but also to meet friends and socialise. After school opportunities can be a lifeline for many of these young people. I recommend the Swale Young Carers project which is doing excellent work.

I should also like the new social inclusion programmes, such as the Excellence in Cities programmes, to see how they can best help young carers who have special needs and gifts—there is good practice in this area—and to ensure that the young carers projects (which are sometimes the only institutions with which young carers are in touch) are within their reach so that they are sustained and supported at local level. Once they know about their rights, young carers will use them. Their lives and their life chances will be infinitely improved.

Finally, I thank noble Lords for the courtesy they have shown a maiden speaker and for the opportunity to support a Bill which I believe meets the best instincts of a modern and coherent welfare state.

My Lords, first, perhaps I may congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, on her extremely courteous and most effective maiden speech. This is a maiden for me, too; it is the first time I have had the honour of paying tribute to a maiden speaker and I am delighted that the noble Baroness chose a subject which is so dear to all our hearts. She will be a great asset to your Lordships' House and I can assure her that should she ever want to cross the Floor, she will be most welcome back to these Benches.

I also want to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, for so ably introducing the Second Reading. If I repeat some of her remarks, I apologise. However, I believe that any repetition of carers' needs, whatever their age, is all to the good.

It is four years since I introduced my own Private Member's Bill—Disabled Persons and Carers (Short Term Breaks) Bill—in this House, seeking to extend the support available to carers, who at that time were having to voice on the social policy agenda. I am delighted that over the years, there has been a growth of awareness of the issues facing carers, and greater attempts to recognise and support their worthwhile practical and emotional commitment to others.

The Bill will be a welcome addition to the statute book, giving carers a legal entitlement to an assessment in their own right for the first time. Carers' needs should no longer be secondary to those of the disabled person. It is hoped that both parties will have the opportunity to access individualised support and to enhance and maintain their welfare.

This legislation enshrines an important principle, but I am concerned at the limitations of what it can deliver in practice. A right to an assessment is one thing; a right to a service is quite another. My Bill of four years ago sought to address the issue of lack of provision on the ground for carers, an issue which unfortunately has not been resolved. Perhaps noble Lords will permit me, as President of Mencap, to provide a number of statistics which may be difficult to digest during the pace of today's debate, but should provide many with food for thought in tomorrow's Hansard.

Caring for a person with a severe learning disability can be a 24-hour a day job, seven days a week for anything up to 50 years. Almost all children with learning disabilities are cared for by their relatives and only about 30 per cent of those children will move away from the family home into adulthood. That means that 60 per cent—more than half of all adults with severe disabilities—are looked after by family carers making a lifelong commitment.

Many carers are not getting the time off from caring which they urgently need. It is estimated that more than 100,000 people with learning disabilities and their carers are not receiving any short-term break support. Research by Mencap demonstrates that more than 40 per cent of carers of people with learning disability have not been out in the past six months for an evening with their family, partner or friends. Two-thirds of carers who do receive breaks say that they need more to meet basic family needs.

We have in place a National Carers Strategy which has injected some resources into help for carers, but there is still a long way to go. We cannot be complacent when hundreds of thousands of "unsung heroes"—to quote the Prime Minister—are not receiving any support to minimise their social exclusion. Giving carers the right to an assessment for themselves is an important step, but it is only part of the solution to a much bigger problem. Without an expansion of provision, assessed need will rapidly become unmet need, which is unsatisfactory, to say the least, for all involved.

In terms of ironing out the detail of this legislation, much has been done in another place. While I am not in favour of charging either disabled people or carers for community care services, I believe that the Government are taking a sensible approach to sorting out the consequences arising from the Bill. However, implementation will be difficult. Perhaps the Government will advise the House of how they plan to monitor the working of the charging system in practice and whether they plan to review it if that becomes necessary.

The other critical factor in the implementation of the Bill will be getting the message out to carers about their new rights. It has been difficult enough reaching carers with information about existing legislation, let alone new and quite complicated changes. Those noble Lords familiar with surfing the Internet—I have to confess that I am not one of that minority in this House and the instruction I was due to take next Tuesday has had to be postponed because I shall be back in the House debating the child support Bill—may be aware of the Government's website for carers. That is one way of reaching carers, but I would hazard a guess that the good old written or spoken word is likely to capture a wider audience, particularly among older carers.

I want to say just a few words on the other important strand of the legislation; the extension of direct payments to the parents of disabled children and to disabled 16 and 17 year-olds. These are both very welcome extensions of the scheme, which can empower families with greater choice and flexibility as to the services they receive. Again, a fairly simple change in legislation will require much support on the ground if 16 and 17 year-olds with learning disabilities are to benefit from it.

Under the present arrangements, very few people with learning disabilities use direct payments, principally because support has not been in place to enable them to make use of the scheme. There is evidence in the Department of Health's London Learning Disability Strategy that there are only nine direct payment users in the London region, which is an appalling figure given the size of our metropolis.

I would therefore welcome assurances from the Government that support from 16 and 17 year-olds with learning disabilities will be factored into any guidance on the use of direct payments. Additional funds should be set aside for advocacy, and young people with learning disabilities should be involved in the pilot schemes. Regrettably, many have been excluded from such schemes and then refused access once schemes have been rolled out because the right support is not in place. Once again, every effort is required to publish accessible information about what choices are available to people with learning disabilities.

To conclude, I would just like to reiterate my support for the legislation and to express my personal gratitude for the sterling work undertaken by the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, and Tom Pendry, Member of Parliament for Stalybridge and Hyde, and indeed the Carers National Association for bringing these issues to the fore. I do hope that the Bill forms a small part of an ongoing project to support carers and I look forward to seeing it pass through your Lordships' House absolutely and completely unopposed.

My Lords, the debate has been hugely enriched by the outstanding maiden speech of my noble friend Lady Andrews. Over the years, I have heard a great many speeches informed by her expertise and nothing could have given me more pleasure today than to have heard her deploying her expertise in a strikingly impressive and very moving speech of her own. I am sure that the whole House looks forward to hearing from her very often in the future.

Naturally, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley on her clear and helpful introduction to this important Bill. I thank her for the characteristic warmth and kindliness of her reference to my parliamentary work. I also congratulate my honourable friend Tom Pendry both on his good fortune in the ballot for Private Member's Bills in another place and on the humanity of his choice of Bill. "Tom Pendry's Bill"—as this measure will inevitably be called—offers significant new benefits to carers and parent carers of disabled children; and I feel sure that your Lordships' House will want to facilitate its early enactment.

My noble friends Lady Pitkeathley and the Minister know why Tom Pendry has kept in close rapport with me on his Bill. He said, in commending the Bill to another place, that our friendship "goes back a long way" and that he was sustained in the work of promoting his Bill by my encouragement. We have been friends for 50 years and very few of his friendships or mine can go back much longer than that. We first met when Tom was 15, when I called him to speak at a meeting that he was too young to attend. I am delighted now to support him again and that he asked me to advise him on his Bill's progress.

The Bill is, of course, a lineal descendant of the Bill, enacted 25 years ago by the Labour Government in which I was the Minister for Disabled People, to introduce the invalid care allowance: the first-ever statutory cash benefit for carers in any country. No one did more then to assist me in introducing that allowance than the late Dame Flora Robson who, with her colleagues in the National Council for the Single Woman and her Dependants, one of the parent bodies of the Carers National Association, worked so long and hard for the landmark legislation which they helped to enact. The Crossroads Care Attendant Scheme, then only recently founded and of which I was a Patron from its earliest days, also played a leading role in creating the climate of parliamentary opinion that made the invalid care allowance possible. Its pioneering work, too, should be remembered today as we build further on what it achieved.

It was the Carers (Recognition and Services) Act 1995 that first gave carers the right to an assessment of their ability to provide or to continue to provide:

"substantial…care on a regular basis".

That Act raised the profile of carers and made clear the importance of taking account of their willingness and ability to continue to care in assessing the support needs of the person cared for. But as many of us are only too keenly aware, implementation of the 1995 Act has been patchy. While some carers are being offered sensitive practical and emotional support, others receive very little or no help whatsoever.

Local authorities and others can do much within existing community care legislation to increase flexibility and choice for carers; but even where the person being cared for is happy to be assessed, there are legislative obstacles that prevent the provision of services direct to carers. Yet it can be self-defeating not to give a local council the power to provide services direct to carers; for example, the cost of a taxi to help a carer to go shopping or take part in leisure or educational activities. For to do so can often be very much cheaper than the alternative of providing more hours of a "sitting service".

The Carers and Disabled Children Bill goes further than the 1995 Act by enabling local authority social services departments to supply certain services direct to carers following assessment. And the services they supply will support carers in their caring role and enable them to go on caring by maintaining their own health and well-being.

I hope very much that local councils that have not so far provided or commissioned such services as shopping only, cleaning only or other low-level help, will review their failure to do so even before the enactment of this Bill. Such services, if targeted purposively, can be of crucial importance to carers and the people they care for in saving them from higher dependency and the tax and council tax payer from the need to provide costlier forms of help.

New freedoms are conferred by this Bill for the local authority to deliver the services best suited to the needs of carers and most likely to help them to maintain their caring role; but they are limited to protect the independence of disabled, learning disabled and frail elderly people. Thus help for carers which takes the form of a service delivered to the person cared for may not, except in prescribed circumstances, include anything of an intimate nature.

Carers and those they care for alike will want to know how "prescribed circumstances" will be defined. I have been given by Tom Pendry the example of a non-intimate sitting service being delivered to the person cared for. If the carer's return to the house is delayed, the person cared for may need to be lifted and helped with toileting, and clearly it would be illogical if a paid sitter could not give that help in an emergency.

A second limitation on the new freedoms for the local authority to provide services to carers is that, while the Bill gives carers the right to services, even when the person they care for has refused an assessment or the delivery of services following assessment, services will not be provided to cared-for people against their wishes. Where a person being cared for has refused services, she or he might, of course, be happy to have a person they already know well come and sit with them while their normal carer takes a short break. In such circumstances this non-intimate sitting service could be delivered as a carers' service. I am very glad that in this way the Bill addresses the important issue of the balance to be struck between the needs of carers and the important principle of defending the independence of disabled people; and indeed that it does so in such a thoughtful way.

We know what carers want. They want good quality services for the person they care for so that she or he will have the best quality of life possible. Carers and parent carers want recognition of their caring role and practical help to maintain that role without detriment to their own health and well-being. They want to be supported so that they may, as my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley said, still have a life of their own outside of their caring responsibilities without being made to feel guilty for wanting to stay in work or for needing a break from time to time.

I am convinced that this Bill will help carers and parent carers of disabled children to achieve a better quality of life. For the first time, carers will have their own needs met. Moreover, the support carers receive will be delivered in ways sensitive to the needs of cared for people, recognising that carers often care in difficult circumstances and need support that is tailored to their individual needs.

Of course, there will remain much more to do when this Bill becomes law; but it is undeniably an important step forward for carers. In wishing the Bill all possible speed in reaching the statute book—and experience teaches that speed is most important to any Private Member's Bill at this stage of a parliamentary Session—again I thank my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley for her further endeavours in keeping up the momentum of helpful change for those whose work as carers is so very important to people they care for. Any Bill that helps and makes life easier for them deserves well of your Lordships' House.

My Lords, I begin by expressing my apologies for being unable to be present when my mentor rose to her feet to introduce this very important Bill. I also congratulate warmly and sincerely my noble friend Lady Andrews on her excellent maiden speech. I know that such congratulations are given often but I believe that not enough can be said on these occasions. On my third or fourth day here, I believe, I sat next to the noble Lords, Lord Rix and Lord Weatherill, on the Cross Benches. I was extremely comfortable there and did not want to get up. The Doorkeepers had to remind me to move but, not liking, as an adult, to be told what to do, I insisted on staying. I stayed there throughout Question Time before returning to my place. I was pleased to see my noble friend in her place today.

My contribution can be only a small addition to the comments of experienced and distinguished campaigners who have been interested in the issue since well before my time. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley and the Carers National Association for their valiant efforts and campaigns, which have helped us to get this far—the passage of the Carers (Recognition and Services) Act 1995 and the introduction of this Bill to bring in new provision for all carers.

The Bill will make it easier for this country's estimated six million carers to receive further support. The fact that it is a Private Member's Bill speaks volumes about how far we still have to go in recognising the rights of people who are disabled and their carers.

My right honourable friend the Prime Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Rix, have added their weight to those six million unsung heroes. I should be very grateful to hear from my noble friend the Minister any statistics that are available about the different ethnic origins of carers. That point may have been covered by my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley, in which case I apologise.

It is estimated that at least 1.7 million carers provide between 20 and 50 hours of care a week. The Bill is the first recognition of the sums saved by local authorities, which I am sure can be calculated in these days of best value unit costing. I would be interested to hear what the figures are.

The Bill will provide consistency and a recognition of carers' rights as well as recourse to the law if the authorities fail in their responsibilities. Although, as others have said, the 1995 Act provided important and valuable recognition of carers, they are still unable to access services directly to support their caring role. The Bill will enable them to ask for an assessment in their own right and to access services provided by their local authority. That will be welcome throughout Britain and perhaps looked at by other countries.

There has been some excellent practice in the absence of legal recourse and provision for disabled children and their families. I declare an interest. I have worked with the disabled children's services in Newham. Newham is an example of good practice, because it believes that it has a responsibility to provide mainstream services and assess the needs of all disabled children and their carers. The social services team has sought over many years to provide comprehensive and thorough assessment of disabled children from birth. The needs of their carers have been a central element of the strategy.

However, that has not always been the case in every part of the country, although many examples of good practice can be cited. The Bill will resolve that problem, establishing the right of all parents and carers to ask for an assessment by their local authority and, more importantly, providing direct payments or vouchers for them to buy in whatever appropriate services or breaks they need. It is particularly good news for carers from minority ethnic and faith communities, as they are more likely to want to purchase services more attuned to their particular needs rather than being restricted to in-house provision, which often lacks choices and sensitivity to their cultural, linguistic, social and religious needs.

Clause 2 allows the services to be anything that, in the local authority's opinion, helps the carer to care. I have some concern about the discretion given to local authorities to determine what it may be acceptable for carers to ask for. What will happen when authorities are not as enlightened or as committed as Newham social services?

The vouchers for short-term and respite breaks provided for in Clauses 3 and 7 are an excellent addition to the Children Act 1989. Boroughs such as Newham have used such ideas very imaginatively over the years. I should like my noble friend the Minister to tell us whether it will be possible for parents to use such schemes for trips abroad.

Clauses 5 and 7 deal with direct payments. I welcome the fact that disabled 16 and 17 year-olds will be able to receive direct payments for the first time, as my noble friend Lady Andrews said. The fact that parents can be more flexible in meeting the needs of the family is great progress.

It has already been said that the concept of charging for services is a matter of concern and needs to be monitored properly. We must ensure that service decisions are not based on ability to pay—an issue dealt with in Clause 4. Cash-strapped or not, local authorities have discretion and the needs of the carers and their families should be paramount.

Community care has always been based on putting needs first. That must not be confused when some authorities may be gazing at the market principle. It is good news that the Bill will ensure the maximisation of employment opportunities for carers. That is one of the key factors that keeps carers isolated from the community. Ensuring the integration in the community of carers and the people they care for is critical.

I hope that there will be wider consultation on local needs, particularly those of ethnic minority children and their carers. We are truly behind on that. It saddens me to have to repeat myself, but the mention of this need appears to have fallen on deaf ears. Will my noble friend the Minister consider researching and reporting back to the House on the matter?

When the Bill becomes law, there needs to be a proper campaign to ensure that excluded communities are made aware of their entitlements. What plans are in place for that? Will my noble friend the Minister also ensure that any resources allocated for that purpose are ring-fenced so that local authorities do not spend the money on other pressing priorities? As a local councillor, I know that vulnerable groups such as disabled people often lose out to so-called mainstream priorities.

There is no point in wasting financial resources and setting up structures simply to make assessments without recourse to resources to back up the physical and practical needs of carers. Any Bill must be accompanied by a commitment to resources. We do not want to have to come back to the issue in a year or two with another Bill to correct that anomaly. I look forward to hearing from my noble friend the Minister what resources are being put in. Funding for implementation, with the patchy progress of the 1995 Act, has become a concern for social services departments across the country. The issue can sometimes be seen as a burden rather than a duty.

The involvement of the NHS is critical to ensure that families are not shunted between local authorities and the health service. What plans are there for a co-ordinated effort, with truly joined-up services? The NHS cannot escape its responsibilities for the carers of disabled children, as it has done for so long, relying on education and social services to carry the load.

I look forward to the Bill becoming law. It is a privilege to be part of the process. I want to support the work of my noble friends and my heroes, my noble friends Lord Ashley of Stoke, Lord Morris of Manchester and the noble Lord, Lord Rix. Without them, this work would have fallen behind on the Government's agenda.

I speak today with some personal knowledge and understanding of these issues. For 22 years, my husband and I have been carers of our child. Like millions in this country, we have not done that out of obligation or duty but simply because we love the person we care for. We have saved the authorities from their responsibilities and financial obligations for too long. That has often left us totally disabled and incapacitated as a family. Families and children deserve the recognition that they should be able to live with dignity in the absolute knowledge that they are valued and entitled to be equal in our society. This Bill gives dignity and respect to us as carers.

My Lords, my duty as the first speaker, indeed the only speaker, from these Benches is to welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, to this House as a fully-fledged Member. It is said that the most difficult step on any journey is the first. The noble Baroness has started well. As regards sitting on the wrong Benches, I freely invite her to come and sit on these Benches any time she feels like it, especially as there is no great press for room at the moment. The offer is there.

The Bill which the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, is presenting today is extremely important for one reason in particular which features increasingly in any discussions relating to carers and people with disabilities; that is, the needs of the individual. That is an aspect of the Bill which really attracted me to it. It addresses individual needs and circumstances.

That is usually done by identifying groups of individuals. But assessments for people in their own right, as opposed to merely for their function, is something which I take from this Bill. It will help in trying to get people involved.

We cannot do without carers for one simple reason. A few weeks ago, I asked a supplementary question of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. We were discussing carers and the impact of their contribution. I asked what the cost would be to the state if it had to take on all the aspects of caring. I asked also whether it was not possible to give them more money. That is a fairly standard political knock-about. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, rose to her feet and drove me straight to the boundary by saying that carers provide a service which is so valuable—I believe it was in terms of billions of pounds—that if the state tried to provide such a service it would eat up the entire social services budget.

However, if we can start to give help around the edges of the problem, surely we should do so. This Bill addresses that head-on. It talks about making sure that individuals can be assessed for the help that they need so that society can continue to function in the way it does now. We should give this Bill our full support and make sure that it has as easy a passage as possible.

We all know that once the Bill is enacted, that is only the start of the process. We must then make sure that we provide the right types of services in the right areas. Then there will be the interminable—or at least it seems so for anybody involved with charities which are trying to attract public services—effort of making sure that local authorities know about the provisions available. People need to be convinced of the availability of the services and the fact that they should ask for them. On and on it goes. That always happens.

Most charities which are helping any group in society initially push for legislation, and then spend the rest of their time saying that the providers of the services know what they should be doing; and then they find out the client-base so that the right questions are asked. We have only just started here. The Minister nods his head. That is a great acceptance of his fate. But this is the start of the process.

It may be that we need to come back and address the position again with subsequent legislation. That should not be seen as a failure. It merely embraces the fact that this is an ongoing situation which must be revisited. Definitive legislation does not seem to exist unless something is being abolished altogether. Therefore, we are starting on a process which must continue. But the Bill promotes the idea that certain groups must be addressed as individuals.

Carers are often subject to a form of blackmail because they seem to believe that they are letting somebody down by wanting a break. People who are being cared for, due to fear of change or lack of control in their own society, are sometimes not the most convenient people with whom to work, certainly for short periods. We must realise that those people are human beings and are not all saints. Therefore, an assessment of the carer will need to be made. That needs to he said at least once or twice as we discuss these matters. We must look at the situation realistically and in a holistic way.

This Bill strikes me as a very useful addition to the way in which Parliament can provide help. It targets help more effectively. It will be the start of a great deal of argument about whether the right resources are available and where they should be focused. But that is the nature of the beast. Indeed, that is why we are here. I hope that the Bill will reach the statute book in the quickest possible time.

I make one last comment about the Commons sponsor of the Bill, Tom Pendry. I have often worked with him on sports-related issues. I believe that this is the first time that I have had any contact with him in connection with carers or those with disabilities. It is nice to know that one can move out of one's normal area with such success.

My Lords, there is no one in your Lordships' House better qualified to introduce the Bill than the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley. She has explained it with admirable clarity and the depth of knowledge and understanding of its subject matter that we all know her to have. I should like to reassure her, without further ado, that from these Benches we welcome the Bill warmly. It contains provisions that should make a real and lasting difference to the lives of informal carers and those they look after.

I should at the outset declare an interest as President of the South Bucks Association for the Disabled, which, for a number of years, has provided residential, respite and day care services for people with severe learning disabilities in the area of the Chilterns where I live. As a result of this, I am only too well aware of the degree of commitment shown by devoted parent carers towards their very severely disabled children, often, as the noble Lord, Lord Rix, reminded us, over a period of decades. I found the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, particularly moving in that context. Yet, as she will be aware, carers and cared for people such as these form only a small part of the overall picture. I was staggered when I came to look at the statistics on the number of individuals in this country who in one way or another care for a relative or someone close to them. The official figure, as we have heard, is about 5.7 million people. But there is a strong likelihood that even this huge figure is an underestimate.

Many people who look after someone they love are unknown to the statutory services and would not label themselves as "carers", even though that is exactly what they are. It is commonly recognised that there are many children of school age looking after disabled parents whose caring role is not revealed to anyone outside the family. I join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, on an excellent maiden speech and, in particular, on her remarks about young carers. I understand that the 2001 national census will contain questions which should bring us a lot closer to the real number of carers in this country. I welcome that.

As it is, the figures are humbling. For five years in the mid-1990s, I was a weekend and night-time carer to my mother, who had suffered a serious stroke at the age of only 66. She was unable to walk and required a great deal of attention, including an increasing amount of intimate care. Even though I looked after my mother for only a relatively few hours in the week—as I had a full-time job with which to contend—I can testify at first hand how emotionally and physically draining it was to fulfil that carer's role. I found myself having to call upon reserves of patience and inner strength which I had never dreamt of needing and which, once or twice, were simply not there to call upon. But, looking back now, and even at the time, I would not have had it any other way.

That period of my life gave me a flavour of the kind of commitment needed by those who devote themselves for many hours each week to looking after a disabled spouse or relative. The vast majority of carers give of themselves without hesitation and, indeed, often without proper regard for their own wellbeing. Frequently, that entails a considerable personal sacrifice. There is published research which shows that a high proportion of carers suffer from a stress-related illness or physical injury. Many are never able to take a break. The extent to which, as a nation, we depend upon such individuals has already been mentioned. The equivalent economic value of the work they do has been put at some £34 billion. That, in other words, is the saving to the public purse that stems directly from people who give themselves to others for free. It can therefore be argued that the duty of society to support carers is not simply a moral obligation. It is an economic obligation as well.

That is why the Bill is so important. As the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, is well aware, the needs of carers have been recognised in earlier legislation, notably in the Carers (Recognition and Services) Act 1995, which obliged local authorities, when arranging services for an individual being cared for, to take into account the carer's ability to look after that person. At the time, that provision represented a very visible step forward.

But the 1995 Act, landmark though it was, has not always been able to deliver the degree of support to carers that was originally envisaged. That is because the carer's right to an assessment was made dependent upon an assessment of the person cared for. That person may either refuse an assessment altogether or may already have been assessed by the time the carer comes to look after him or her. As a result, many carers who would otherwise have wished for at least the chance of some help from the local authority are not currently able to pursue that chance. The Bill, for the first time, gives carers a statutory right to an assessment independently of the person being cared for.

It also contains provisions which represent a welcome new empowerment for carers. The voucher scheme and the new power for local authorities to provide services directly to carers are features of the Bill that we fully support. We also particularly support the extension of the Community Care (Direct Payments) Act 1996, which will enable local authorities to make direct payments to carers, including parent carers and young carers. If we really mean business in providing support to carers who need it, it is no use a local authority providing that support on a "take it or leave it" basis or offering it in a form that takes no account of the carer's own circumstances. Empowerment only counts for something if it means being able to choose when you are going to take a short break or what kind of service will best suit your own needs. From that, of course, comes dignity and self-respect.

If I have any concerns about the Bill they relate more to its implementation than its drafting. I share the worry expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and others about the need to tell carers about their new rights. Printing leaflets is fine as far as it goes, but how in practice are the leaflets to get to those for whom they are intended, bearing in mind that many carers remain out of sight of local authorities? To what extent do the Government intend to work with the voluntary sector to disseminate that information?

I also believe that the role of the NHS will be important. Unfortunately, when the guidance on the implementation of the 1995 Act went out, the section that was addressed to the NHS was fairly limited in its scope, yet the contribution that the NHS can make to carers can be considerable. For example, at the point of hospital discharge, GPs and community nurses are in an ideal position to notice stress or rapidly deteriorating health in carers and to let them know, when a user is referred for an assessment, that they too may be eligible for one. There surely needs to be proper co-ordination between health and social services in preparing the assessments to ensure that carers get the right support from the right people.

I should like also to raise a question about the Bill's financial effects. It is estimated that that there are about 1.7 million carers who provide over 20 hours of care per week. In theory, then, that is the number of carers who might be in a position to benefit under the Bill. Carrying out assessments for that number of people—or even half that number of people—will be no mean task. What estimates have been made of the likely costs of implementation, and is the Minister confident that they can be absorbed within existing local authority allocations? As he will be aware, few carers currently ask for an assessment, and the demands placed on local authorities therefore look likely to be significant as a result of this measure. None of us wants to see waiting lists building up. What inquiries have the Department of Health carried out to ascertain whether there are enough staff for this work?

I worry, too, about the operation of the direct payments scheme. I recently heard that there are many local authorities which have not even begun to implement the scheme under the 1996 Act. In fact the National Centre for Independent Living tells me that throughout England and Wales there are only 2,000 people who are actually receiving direct payments at the present time, a tiny proportion of the number who could. In Wales one is very unlikely indeed to be in receipt of a direct payment. If this is the case now, what hope is there for an extended scheme? I wonder if the Minister can say why there is no systematic advertising of direct payment schemes by the Department of Health, say, in the form of a leaflet giving relevant information.

There are areas of detail which I shall wish to cover in Committee. I shall not take up valuable time now in listing them. I wish only to look forward to future stages and to congratulate the noble Baroness on having brought the Bill to the House today. We wish it a speedy passage.

My Lords, perhaps I may also start by thanking my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley for bringing forward this important Bill. As other noble Lords who have taken part in today's debate have said, few Members of your Lordships' House are better qualified to do so. I should also take this opportunity to pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Morris of Manchester. As the first Minister for disabled people, as the sponsor of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 and as a doughty champion of so many people in this country, we owe him a great debt of gratitude.

I pay tribute also to my noble friend Lady Andrews. I warmly congratulate her on the excellence of her maiden speech. Various Benches today have vied for her to come and sit with them. Fortunately, she is behind me; and there I hope she will stay.

I should also like to pay tribute to Mr Tom Pendry, whose efforts in the other place were absolutely tremendous. We owe him a great deal, and it is thanks to his efforts that we are discussing the Bill today. Rather like the Children (Leaving Care) Bill, which your Lordships' House considered only a few months ago, it is a Bill which I believe has the support of all noble Lords, and I consider it a privilege to he able to take part in our discussions on its passage through your Lordships' House.

This is an afternoon for tributes, and the noble Lord, Lord Rix, rightly pointed to his initiative with the short-term breaks Bill some years ago. His support for the cause of carers is acknowledged by all noble Lords.

The one thing about which we all agree is that carers play a vital role in the community and that society could not operate without them. That was, at heart, the reason for the establishment of a carers national strategy, which was aimed at empowering carers to make more choices for themselves and to have more control over their lives. It was the noble Lord, Lord Addington, who made it absolutely clear to us that we have to consider the needs of carers as individuals first and foremost. And there can be no doubt but that carers want and ought to have their positive contribution to society valued and acknowledged. This Bill achieves that by giving local authorities the power to provide services direct to carers to support them in their caring role, and by extending direct payment legislation to carers to meet their own assessed needs.

It is important that the Bill also empowers local councils to make direct payments to people with parental responsibility for a disabled child for services for the family. As a government we know that carers like to be as independent as possible in making arrangements for the care of their disabled children. This Bill will help them achieve a far greater level of independence than they have ever experienced before.

I also believe that the extension of direct payments to 16 and 17 year-old disabled children will offer them additional flexibility to meet their developmental needs. An extension of direct payments to that group of young people follows representations from voluntary organisations such as RADAR to the Government's recent review of direct payments.

There are also particular issues surrounding the power to make direct payments to 16 and 17 year-old carers. We do not want to burden any children with inappropriate caring responsibilities. Local authorities will only offer direct payments to 16 and 17 year-old carers after giving full consideration to the interests of the child and if those are best met by giving them a direct payment.

I should also like to stress the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, that advocacy and support will be important to young people who are thinking about or receiving direct payments. We have debated many times in the past few months the concept of independent advocacy. I am glad to say it is a familiar one to local authority social services departments. Advocacy and support schemes are relevant to direct payment and are already in existence in local authorities with good direct payment schemes.

There is no doubt that the short-term break voucher schemes are a useful way of giving users and carers more flexibility in the timing and choice of the way additional services are delivered to the person cared for to give carers a break. In a sense, vouchers are an intermediate step or arrangement between direct payments on the one hand and the provision of local authority arranged services on the other. Vouchers may be exchanged at a time of the voucher-holder's choosing for the services the person cared for or the disabled child has been assessed as needing while the carer takes a break.

A number of questions have been raised in relation to the implementation of the Bill. In many ways that reflects the consensus that we all feel in terms of the principle of the Bill. But there are understandable concerns about its implementation. No doubt as we progress this Bill—rapidly I hope—through this House, we will come back to some of the more specific issues. However, perhaps I may refer first to the issue of charges.

We have debated charges a number of times recently. The Audit Commission report informed that debate. Noble Lords will know that we are looking closely at the whole issue of charging by local authorities. We intend to make an amendment to the Care Standards Bill to allow us to amend the 1970 Local Authority Social Services Act, which will allow us to establish statutory guidance to local authorities. I believe that that will provide a more satisfactory solution and enable greater consistency throughout the charging regime of local authorities.

I also acknowledge the point that my noble friend Lord Morris made about the definition of the word "intimate". He specifically asked me about how we propose to develop our ideas. I can assure him that we shall consult in some detail with disabled people about what constitutes for them an intimate service. I want to take this opportunity to assure noble Lords that local authority support for carers must not and will not become a tool to erode the hard won independence of disabled people.

I turn to a number of other issues that have been raised. My noble friend Lady Uddin asked about a number of statistics. I have to say that reliable statistics on young carers are not available. There is an indication that children, especially girls from some ethnic groups, are under more pressure to undertake caring responsibilities. As the noble Earl, Lord Howe, suggested, we will have better information as a result of the next census, which will cover all age groups, in 2001.

I very much share and accept the point made by my noble friend Lady Uddin about considering the particular needs of black and minority ethnic carers. For instance, we greatly value the work of the London Black Carers' Group in helping us to develop our ideas concerning strategies. I can assure my noble friend that we shall be very happy to consider any further suggestions that she may have for ensuring that, within the implementation process, we shall be geared up to the needs of carers from all ethnic groups in our society.

I share the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, among others, that it is vitally important to ensure that appropriate information is available once the Bill has passed through the various stages and we have arrived at the point of its implementation. I shall be very happy to write to noble Lords with regard to how we intend to do that.

As a number of noble Lords have suggested, it is also important to ensure that the NHS plays its part. I believe that there are very positive overall signs in terms of relationships between the NHS and social service departments. Although there is still a long way to go in some areas, there has been a sea change in attitudes, upon which we clearly need to build. For example, I would like to encourage a greater development of community equipment stores. If we can do that, it would be a very great boon to people being cared for and their carers. We know that in some parts of the country where this has occurred a joint health and local authority service is being enabled to provide first-class services.

A number of questions have been asked about the cost of these measures to local authorities. Of course, the cost of these responsibilities has to be seen in the context of the overall allocation of resources which the Government are allocating to individual local authorities. I would also point out that the carers' grant of £140 million over three years is ring fenced. But, outside the specific grant for carers, it is for local authorities to allocate resources to meet local needs.

It is also worth pointing out that the Bill, while introducing a new power to local authorities, gives local authorities the ability to innovate with regard to how they support people who continue to live in the community by offering support to those who care for them. I am convinced that investment by local authorities in the provision of the support that carers want may well ensure that people being so supported may make fewer demands on local authority services in the future. Clearly, local government will have to consider most carefully how it will develop such services in the future. It must be seen in the context of the overall performance assessment framework, within which local authorities can be expected to operate.

I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and by my noble friend Lady Uddin regarding those performance issues. Noble Lords will know that we have spent a good deal of time and energy on assessing how the overall improvement and performance of local authorities can be developed. This must be seen in the context of the enhanced role that we have given to the Social Services Inspectorate in the development of performance indicators, and in a much stronger performance assessment framework. I give way.

My Lords, I am most grateful. The Minister mentioned the £140 million fund, which, as I understand it, has been allocated to respite care in particular. However, if one looks at the implementation of the 1995 Act, it is clear that progress around the country has, to say the least, been patchy. A survey found that implementation of that legislation was constrained for about three-quarters of all local authorities because of the lack of specific funding. The Association of Directors of Social Services has expressed its concern about the additional cost of this Bill, although it welcomes many of its provisions.

There is a worry in the country that, although the Government have allocated specific funding for aspects of the services, the assessments will eat up resources which, at present, are simply not there.

My Lords, I am not sure that I can go very much further today in relation to the issue of financing. I accept that local authorities will need to look most carefully at the likely financial impact of the responsibilities and powers that are placed upon them in this legislation. All I can say at this stage is that such matters must clearly be seen in the context of the overall settlement that has previously been made for local government. We are currently in the process of preparation for the spending review for the next period, the outcome of which should be known fairly shortly. One must set that in the context of the overall increase in resources that has been given to local authorities and, as I said earlier, a much stronger performance assessment framework.

One of the problems that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has raised is that of inconsistency in performance. Although I accept that part of such inconsistency can be put down to an issue of resources, I have to say—indeed, the evidence exists—that different local authorities with the same pound in their pocket seem to be able to produce great variations in the quality of service provided. The great challenge for us is to ensure that we have uniformly high standards of performance in relation to this Bill, and in relation to other Bills that we have put through Parliament this Session. Again, I have in mind the Children (Leaving Care) Bill. We shall be paying very close attention to the way in which that performance framework works to ensure that local authorities perform as effectively as possible.

I turn to deal briefly with a number of other matters raised by noble Lords during the course of the debate. I listened with great care to the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, as regards the difficulties experienced by people with learning disabilities. I very much accept the point raised about direct payments and the need to ensure that communications with those people are effective. We shall certainly do everything that we can to ensure that we do so.

In conclusion, I was indeed moved by the experience of Khalid at the Falinge Park School, Rochdale, that my noble friend Lady Andrews recounted. In many senses it brought home to us all the noble and sterling efforts of so many carers of all ages who help and support loved ones and enable them to live in the community. At heart, that is what this Bill is all about. I believe that it will contribute enormously to the care and support that need to be given to carers. My noble friend Lady Pitkeathley has done this House a considerable service in bringing this Bill forward.

My Lords, I believe that two things will immediately he apparent from the debate: first, the amount of support and concern for carers which exists in this House; and, secondly, the totally cross-party nature of that support.

Noble Lords have reminded us—especially those who have shared with us their personal experiences— that caring affects everyone. I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. I add my congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, on her excellent maiden speech. I also thank the Minister for his thoughtful responses. I convey my deepest gratitude to the officials in the Department of Health who have done such sterling work on the Bill.

Many important issues have been raised to which we shall return at later stages of the Bill. They have in the main concerned implementation and getting the message across, rather than the Bill itself. That bodes well for its future progress. The implementation issues will be taken on board not just by the Government but also by the many voluntary sector organisations which are concerned with the matter.

This Bill will not solve all the problems of carers, but it is another important step along the line. As my noble friend Lord Morris said, it is another in the suite of measures. It will help to maintain the continuous momentum of helpful change which carers so much deserve. I look forward to future stages of the Bill. Again, I thank all noble Lords who took part in the debate. I commend the Bill to the House.

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

House adjourned at twenty-three minutes before three o'clock.