Previous SectionIndexHome Page


Mr. Forth: In that context, does my hon. Friend recall that, when the Minister spoke, he said that he had paid a private visit to a fur farm in Denmark and that it was

5 Mar 1999 : Column 1401

at the top of the range. He seemed to imply that the practice in Denmark was either acceptable, or certainly much more acceptable. That suggests that we should listen carefully to the Danish experience because it may point the way in which we should go.

Mr. Paterson: That is an admirable intervention. I am coming on to that. Our regulation system and our Ministry have failed to enforce a substantial range of powers that already exist.

Mr. Leigh: Before time runs out, will my hon. Friend deal with the view that has been expressed by the National Farmers Union, which sums up the debate:


Will he deal with that philosophical point, which is the kernel of the argument?

Mr. Paterson: Again, I was coming to that point. We have a raft of regulation that should be properly enforced. The reaction should be to improve the regulation and enforce it better, rather than to go for the sledgehammer approach of banning the whole business.

We have the Mink Keeping Order 1997. There is the European convention on the protection of animals kept for farming purposes, and the European Union directive on farm animal welfare. I take just one. The European convention refers specifically to


It is very detailed. Article 3 states:


    "Animals shall be housed and provided with food, water and care in a manner which--having regard to their species and to their degree of development, adaptation and domestication--is appropriate to their physiological and ethological needs in accordance with established experience and scientific knowledge."

[Interruption.]

Mr. Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In the context of the debate, should Labour Members be protected against external stimuli applied by someone who is not here?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): That is not a sensible point of order.

Mr. Paterson: It was still quite amusing and relevant to the control of Labour Members.

Article 6 of the convention states:


Article 5 states:


    "The lighting, temperature, humidity, air circulation, ventilation, and other environmental conditions such as gas concentration or noise intensity in the place in which an animal is housed, shall"

have regard "to its species".

5 Mar 1999 : Column 1402

Time is running on. Although I could quote further from European legislation--

Mr. Swayne: No!

Mr. Paterson: As a gesture to my hon. Friend, I shall return home, to the United Kingdom, and deal with the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968, which gives the Minister huge powers to intervene.

Ms Candy Atherton (Falmouth and Camborne) rose in her place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:--

The House divided: Ayes 127, Noes 4.

Division No. 94
[2.5 pm


AYES


Amess, David
Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Atherton, Ms Candy
Atkins, Charlotte
Austin, John
Banks, Tony
Barnes, Harry
Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Benton, Joe
Betts, Clive
Blears, Ms Hazel
Blizzard, Bob
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Brake, Tom
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Buck, Ms Karen
Burden, Richard
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Cann, Jamie
Caplin, Ivor
Cawsey, Ian
Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Coaker, Vernon
Coffey, Ms Ann
Cohen, Harry
Colman, Tony
Cooper, Yvette
Corbett, Robin
Corbyn, Jeremy
Cousins, Jim
Cox, Tom
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Darvill, Keith
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Day, Stephen
Dismore, Andrew
Dowd, Jim
Drew, David
Drown, Ms Julia
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Efford, Clive
Etherington, Bill
Field, Rt Hon Frank
Fitzpatrick, Jim
Flint, Caroline
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Gapes, Mike
Gardiner, Barry
Gerrard, Neil
Goggins, Paul
Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Hancock, Mike
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Hill, Keith
Hodge, Ms Margaret
Hopkins, Kelvin
Horam, John
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Kelly, Ms Ruth
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Kumar, Dr Ashok
Lepper, David
Leslie, Christopher
Linton, Martin
Livingstone, Ken
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Loughton, Tim
Love, Andrew
McCafferty, Ms Chris
McDonnell, John
McIsaac, Shona
Mackinlay, Andrew
McNulty, Tony
Mahon, Mrs Alice
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Miller, Andrew
Morley, Elliot
Naysmith, Dr Doug
O'Hara, Eddie
Olner, Bill
Palmer, Dr Nick
Plaskitt, James
Pollard, Kerry
Pond, Chris
Pound, Stephen
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Roche, Mrs Barbara
Rooker, Jeff
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Ruddock, Joan
Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Ryan, Ms Joan
Sawford, Phil
Sedgemore, Brian
Shaw, Jonathan
Shipley, Ms Debra
Skinner, Dennis
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Soley, Clive
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Timms, Stephen
Tipping, Paddy
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)
Vis, Dr Rudi
Wareing, Robert N
White, Brian
Whitehead, Dr Alan
Wicks, Malcolm
Wise, Audrey
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

Tellers for the Ayes:


Angela Smith and
Ms Bridget Prentice.


NOES


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Hunter, Andrew
Maclean, Rt Hon David
Swayne, Desmond

Tellers for the Noes:


Mr. Owen Paterson and
Mr. Peter Atkinson.

Question accordingly agreed to.

5 Mar 1999 : Column 1403

Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put accordingly and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed to aStanding Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).

5 Mar 1999 : Column 1404

Road Traffic (Vehicle Testing) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

2.16 pm

Mr. Andrew Hunter (Basingstoke): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

I regret that there is so little time for a Second Reading debate. The Bill is not politically contentious, but is a solid, practical measure that is now needed. It has considerable cross-party support, which is not surprising since the evolutionary process that has led to it was started by the previous Administration. The main purpose of the Bill is to provide a statutory framework that maximises the benefits of establishing a central computer database of the MOT test status of vehicles. Computerisation of MOT testing will happen with or without the Bill--the public-private partnership is advancing--but, if it is not enacted, we shall not fully benefit from the advantages that computerisation can bring. That is why the Bill is needed.

First, a computerised central database will aid law enforcement: it will encourage registered keepers to have a valid MOT certificate, because the police will be able to check on the police national computer. Secondly, a computerised database will promote the efficiency and fairness of the MOT test: the Vehicle Inspectorate will be better able to control testing standards, because inspectors will more easily be able to spot abnormal patterns of test results which show possible irregularities. Thirdly, computerisation is motorist friendly: it prepares the way for paperless vehicle relicensing transactions and so makes it possible for us, one day, to renew our car licence by telephone; and motorists who cannot immediately produce an MOT certificate when asked will be spared the inconvenience of producing it later at a police station, because the police will be able to check vehicle test status on the PNC.

One further point is that the measure is cost neutral. The purpose of the provisions is to ensure that, with the introduction of computerisation, the MOT test scheme continues to be fully self-financing. The Bill sets out how the Vehicle Inspectorate receives its funding after computerisation. It also enables the Secretary of State to prescribe fees in several circumstances.


Next Section

IndexHome Page