| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, last year, during the foot and mouth outbreak, a party of about 30 people came to the Brecon Beacons National Park apparently unaware that part of it was in an infected area. Officials had to turn them away. The amendment addresses such a problem and spells out the situation for the future.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that during the foot and mouth outbreak someone, walking through stock, when challenged by a farmer, said, "I am all right; I am a vegetarian"? Many people just did not understand the situation.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I too support the amendment. My anecdote is of someone who was responsible for the burial of infected animals. When driving home, he stopped to walk his dog, which was on a lead, in a field containing sheep. He openly admitted that he had not thought about what he was doing. It is important that such people are included.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, those who carry out duties under the Act are covered by the amendment as it stands. While we would not close down the countryside, as we did last time, in the area immediately around any infected premises the footpaths would be closed. The situation would depend on what we meant by "infected area" if the footpaths within three kilometres of that area did not have footpaths or rights of way open under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act.
I understand the concern of the noble Baroness about others in that situation. Clearly we need to ensure that biosecurity provisions are as widely understood as possible. Anyone visiting the countryside—that is the intention of the amendment, because, as under the first amendment, designated areas could include the whole of the country—being made aware in the same way that contractors for the Government or occupiers of farm premises are made aware, is not appropriate and would be unenforceable.
The noble Baroness has a point about wider awareness. However, I do not believe that it would be appropriate to add such a broad list of people to the list of those who have specific responsibilities and requirements to understand biosecurity provisions in detail. She has indicated that she will not press the amendment. Therefore, I ask her to withdraw it.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. He recognises that there is a problem. My intention was to highlight the matter. Under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act we spoke of having information centres so that in non-disease
times people know what is or is not open. The matter needs to be addressed. I am glad to have on the record the fact that the Minister recognises that there is a problem. I hope that the Government will bring forward a system to cover the point. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.Amendment No. 29, as an amendment to Amendment No. 20, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, as Amendment No. 30 is grouped with Amendment No. 20, we must deal with that amendment first.
On Question, Amendment No. 20, as amended, agreed to.
The Countess of Mar moved Amendment No. 31:
- Page 17, line 8, after "genotypes" insert "and phenotypes"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is another attempt at an amendment that I tabled on Report. It would enable the Secretary of State to specify phenotypes as well as genotypes. Sheep can be genetically susceptible to scrapie, although some such sheep may never contract it. In the country a number of areas and a number of breeds of genetically susceptible sheep have never had scrapie. As the science is still young, perhaps the Secretary of State would consider the phenotypic properties of sheep as well as the genetic properties. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, we recognise that the noble Countess has concerns about this issue. However, no scientific evidence or basis exists to suggest that phenotypic characteristics contribute in any way to resistance or susceptibility to scrapie. Resistance and susceptibility to scrapie are linked to variations in amino acids encoded at three specific points of the PrP gene—that is, the genotype—that confers genetic resistance or susceptibility to scrapie in each individual sheep.
We are aware that there are those who claim that beneficial traits, as the noble Countess said, will be lost through breeding for resistance, but there is no hard and fast evidence to support that view. However, we are currently funding research—I hope this reassures the noble Countess—to see whether scrapie-resistant sheep have different production traits—for example, carcass weight at slaughter—than scrapie-susceptible sheep. Further research is also planned to extend that to look at more breeds and to consider the effects of breeding for scrapie resistance on biodiversity, sheep health and welfare and production traits.
In the absence of any scientific justification, we believe that it would be inappropriate to accept the amendment.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her explanation. I hope that she and her colleagues will keep an open mind on the
matter and bear in mind that there can be new developments in science. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Greaves moved Amendment No. 33:
- Page 21, line 13, at end insert "and of the reasons for that decision including a copy of the sworn information;
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the fourth amendment in the group led by Amendment No. 7. Following the Division on Amendment No. 7, Amendment No. 33 is consequential. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 34 and 35 not moved.]
Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 36:
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 37 and 38 not moved.]
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments and reasons be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments and reasons be now considered.—(Lord Sainsbury of Turville.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
( ) he has been provided with an opportunity to make representations to the justice of the peace about whether the warrant should be issued;
( ) he has been provided with the opportunity to present sworn information in person or in writing to the justice of the peace who is to consider the application for a warrant."
Page 21, line 22, leave out "issue" and insert "approval by the justice of the peace, which date shall be clearly visible on the warrant"
6.21 p.m.
1Clause 1, page 1, line 5, after "corporate" insert "with both a chairman and a chief executive" The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
The amendments would provide for a statutory post of chief executive of the Office of Fair Trading. As originally drafted, the Bill provided for the OFT to consist of a chairman and no fewer than four other members, appointed by the Secretary of State, with the Secretary of State consulting the chairman before appointing any other member. That is a real de-personalisation of consumer and competition regulation. Instead of power being concentrated in the post of Director-General of Fair Trading, it will be vested in a statutory authority with at least five members, including the chairman. We expect the OFT to have a majority of non-executive members. That is an important change.
In our debates on whether the OFT should have a separate chief executive, noble Lords have referred to reports on corporate governance that advocate a separation of those roles. The combined code produced by the Hampel committee in 1998 is the most current of those reports. The code makes it clear from the outset that it is aimed at public listed companies. The OFT will not be a public listed company, nor will it be a commercial organisation. It will have no shareholders. There is no automatic read-across from the code to a public authority such as the OFT. We should not automatically assume that what is right for the private sector is right for all public authorities.
That said, the overriding principle of the code in relation to the roles of chairman and chief executive is to prevent a dominant individual from running a company unfettered by others. The code states:
It is also important to remember that the chairman will be accountable for the OFT's performance to the Public Accounts Committee and the Trade and
The OFT's particular circumstances have been critical to our decision not to separate the roles of chairman and chief executive at this time. The Secretary of State will appoint John Vickers as chairman of the OFT for the remainder of his term as Director-General of Fair Trading. That honours the commitment that the Government made to him when he was appointed to that post. John Vickers will work together with the other members of the OFT to lead the organisation.
Given John Vickers's position, and in order to provide for an important degree of continuity through this period of great change, the OFT should not separate the roles of chairman and chief executive at this time. However, I emphasise that that does not mean that the OFT will never be able to have a chief executive. If, at any time, the OFT wishes to create such a post, it can do so and select the appointee. The Bill leaves open that possibility. I shall repeat a commitment given by my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Competition, Consumers and Markets in the other place on 30th October. My honourable friend said that she envisaged that the arrangements at the top of the OFT would be considered again when John Vickers retired in 2005, in order to establish whether they would still be appropriate after that time. So, we are making it clear that what is appropriate now for the OFT may not necessarily be appropriate in the future.
Your Lordships' amendments would create a post of chief executive appointed by the Secretary of State. In contrast, the approach that we propose would allow the OFT itself to appoint a separate chief executive in the future. That is consistent with the approach taken towards the OFT throughout the Bill and with the approach adopted for other regulators. The chief executive of Postcomm is appointed by the chairman, who is a Secretary of State appointment, and the chief executive of Ofcom will be appointed by the board. It would not be appropriate to create a statutory post of chief executive of the OFT in the Bill, for the reasons that I have given.
The House has now played its role of making the other place think again about the matter. On 30th October, it did just that and the elected Chamber did, of course, confirm its view. For all those reasons and in view of the reassurance given by my honourable friend the Minister for Competition, Consumers and Markets in the other place, which I am happy to repeat in this House this evening—she envisages that the arrangements at the top of the OFT will be considered upon John Vickers's retirement in 2005—I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 1 and 176 to 186 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 1A.—(Lord Sainsbury of Turville.)
1A Because it is inappropriate to make express provision about the chief executive of the Office of Fair Trading.
1B Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 1 and 176 to 186 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 1A.
"There should be a clear division of responsibilities at the head of the company which will ensure a balance of power and authority, such that no one individual has unfettered powers of decision".
It goes on to say:
"Whether the posts of Chairman and Chief Executive are held by different people or the same person, there should be a strong and independent non-executive element on the Board, with a recognised senior member other than the chairman to whom concerns can be conveyed".
By creating a statutory authority with a majority of non-executive members who will collectively be responsible for the OFT's performance, we are already ensuring that one person could not assume a dominant position at the OFT. Because members of the OFT will be appointed by the Secretary of State, following a fair and open competition, it will not be possible for the chairman to appoint a board in his own image that, he feels sure, will automatically support him at every turn. That is real de-personalisation. We envisage that one of the non-executive members of the OFT will be designated as a deputy chairman, to whom concerns can be conveyed and who will fulfil the role of a recognised senior member, as advocated by Hampel.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page