| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, one way or another, very large sums are being provided for the new company by the Government. How will the Government explain to ordinary people, whose money in effect it is, how improvements will be obtained in three of the matters that cause the most concern: first, the lack of a proper engineering ethos within the former Railtrack; secondly, provision of safe and reliable services now; and, thirdly, the rapid increase in capacity of our rail services?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the formal answer to the question asked by the noble Baroness is the one that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State gave in his Statement on 27th June: the performance targets will be aligned to the Strategic Rail Authority's long-term plans, as well to Network Rail's obligations to its customers under its network licence. But the noble Baroness is right to say that the public will have to be convinced that that is the case.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, the Minister explained that the Government chose to follow European rules to keep Network Rail off the Government's balance sheet. Can he give one good, substantive reason for doing that? Can he explain how the Government differ from Enron, which also chose the accounting that suited it best?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government did not keep Network Rail off the balance sheet, it was the Office for National Statistics, which is independent of government, which decided to act under ESA 1995, with which the noble Baroness will be familiar. That is how we have to account to other European member states, so that serves a useful purpose. It is certainly entirely different from Enron, which concealed the fact that matters were off its accounts. We have been public in every way on the matter; we have declared everything to Parliament; we are in no way worried by such accusations.
Genetically Modified Organisms
3 p.m.
Lord Taverne asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether they agree with the views expressed by the Prince of Wales about genetically modified organisms in a recent speech in Germany.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the Government recognise that people have concerns about genetically modified crops. We have announced that we will encourage a full and informed public debate on GM issues, including GM crops and food.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, whether one agrees or disagrees with Prince Charles's speech about genetically engineered crops or with his denunciation of cheap food, we must all agree that, in a constitutional monarchy, it is quite wrong for the heir to the throne to make speeches about politically controversial issues. If he wishes do so, should he not renounce his claim to the throne?
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, what is quite wrong is for any aspersion or reflection to be cast on the Sovereign or any member of the Royal Family. I would advise your Lordships not to accept such questions.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, can I be in order by returning to the subject of GM crops? The Prime Minister said that he would like the science of genetically modified crops to be allowed to progress unhindered. Does the Minister agree with me that, if the Prime Minister intends to facilitate that by silencing the critics of genetic modification, he will do a disservice to informed and honest debate? Does the Minister also agree that Her Majesty's Government should set up a Select Committee on science to monitor developments in this field and advise government and Parliament?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the noble Lord questions whether the Government support a genuine debate on the issue: we do. We wish to identify the public's questions and provide people with the information that will allow them to formulate their response. We want people to reach their own informed judgment. The independent Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission has provided detailed advice on how the debate might be conducted. We will respond to that advice as soon as possible.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the precautionary principle should apply strongly in the trialling of GM crops? The manipulation of genes needs careful assessment, before any conclusions can be reached. Biodiversity is still of crucial importance.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the Government fully recognise the concerns. That is why great care has been taken in the establishment of the trials and the farm-scale evaluation. We will consider the results carefully when we know the outcome of those trials.
Lord Carter: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that Americans have consumed GM produce for years? Is there any evidence that any American has suffered ill effects as a result?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, we are aware of no evidence that suggests, in any way, that any Americans have been adversely affected by the use of such crops. It is not possible to have a direct read-across because the crops concerned and the
circumstances and style of farming in the United States and the United Kingdom are different. We have absolutely no evidence of ill effects.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, does the intervention by the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House indicate that there will be a change in the rules relating to the acceptability of questions?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, there is no change in the rules. The Question was in order; the supplementary question was not.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that one of the most depressing features of the debate to which she referred is the assumption that an entire technology is either good or bad? Does she agree that it is the application of the technology that is important and needs proper scrutiny? The technology has been shown to be valuable in the genetically modified organisms that produce a range of things, from vegetarian cheddar cheese to life-saving vaccines. Will the Minister ensure that the Government protect research that allows us to have a proper evaluation of crops and, in particular, their potential impact on the developing world?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for raising that point. She is right. Many people who suffer from diabetes already benefit from insulin produced from the medical application of the GM process. Like the noble Baroness, we believe that the crops are not inherently good or bad. However, they must be assessed on a case-by-case basis, in the context of the sort of concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Livsey of Talgarth.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the Food Standards Agency, set up under Sir John Krebs, has stated that it can find no evidence of harm caused by the eating of GM food?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I was not aware that that statement had been made. However, I can say that the Government are concerned that the debate that will attend the results of the trials, and the public dialogue must, as a central feature, take account of the concerns of consumers about quality and choice.
Business
3.6 p.m.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, at a convenient time after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement which is being made in another place on the spending review.
Public Services (Disruption) Bill [HL]
Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill
3.8 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Filkin): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Filkin.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 42 [Young asylum seeker]:
Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 142:
- Page 24, line 14, at end insert—
The noble Earl said: I would have said, "I rise", except for the fact that I have not yet had time to sit down. Anyway, I am deemed to have risen to move the amendment.
There is no youth training programme for asylum seekers. There is no New Deal for asylum seekers. So the reasons commonly advanced for paying a different rate for those over 16 and those under 16 do not apply. An asylum seeker over 16 who is not yet allowed to work and has not yet been here for six months is in the same position of financial dependence as his juniors. There is therefore a good argument for taking both cases together.
In the amendment, the use of the phrase "in advance" is also of considerable importance. The moment at which a claim for asylum is granted ought to be a moment of celebration for a refugee. All too often, it is one of the gravest spells of anxiety that they face. As they come off support under NASS they become eligible for benefits and that interval often can be extremely prolonged. Communication between NASS and the Benefits Agency has been very far from the best. Indeed, often the first that a refugee hears of his claim being accepted is a note from NASS saying, "Since your claim has been successful, your support has been terminated". The claimant takes the note to the Benefits Agency, which responds by saying, "We know nothing about this".
Considerable problems appear to surround the issue of form NASS 35, the signing-off form to be handed over to the Benefits Agency. I have been in correspondence with the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham. They have been extremely helpful, but it is too soon to know whether, as a result, things will get any better. In any case, it is clear that having one's claim as a refugee recognised ought not to be a reason for immediate destitution.
If provision is made for payment in advance, one will cut off two weeks from any period of destitution, even if nothing else is done to improve the situation.
"( ) Any financial support made available as a result of subsection (1) above shall be paid in advance and such support for children over 16 shall be set at the same level as for children under 16."
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page