HL Deb 07 November 2002 vol 640 cc949-57
Lord Whitty

My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.

Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.—(Lord Whitty.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS INSISTENCE ON CERTAIN COMMONS

AMENDMENTS TO LORDS AMENDMENTS AND

COMMONS AMENDMENTS TO THE BILL IN LIEU OF

WORDS LEFT OUT OF CERTAIN LORDS

AMENDMENTS

[The page and line refer to HL Bill 37 as first printed for the Lords.]

LORDS AMENDMENT

14 Clause 6, page 3, leave out lines 28 to 37 and insert—

(5) The second condition is that each of the following applies to the occupier of the premises—

  1. (a) he has been informed of the decision to seek entry to the premises and of the reasons for that decision;
  2. (b) he has failed to allow entry to the premises on being requested to do so by an inspector;
  3. (c) he has been informed of the decision to apply for the warrant and of the reasons for that decision including a copy of the sworn information;
  4. (d) he has been provided with an opportunity to make representations to the justice of the peace about whether the warrant should be issued;
  5. (e) 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."

(6) The third condition is that—

  1. (a) the premises are unoccupied or the occupier is absent and (in either case) notice of intention to apply for the warrant has been left in a conspicuous place on the premises, or
  2. (b) an application for admission to the premises or the giving of notice of intention to apply for the warrant would defeat the object of entering the premises."

The Commons agreed to this amendment with the following amendment— 14A Line 8, leave out from "warrant" to the end of line 16

The Lords disagreed to Commons Amendment No. 14A for the following Reason—

14B Because it is appropriate to require that information should be provided about the reasons for the decision to apply for a warrant for entry to premises, and that there should be an opportunity to make representations to a Justice of the Peace before the warrant is issued.

The Commons insist on their amendment to the Lords Amendment No. 14, but propose the following amendment to the Bill in lieu of the words left out of the Lords amendment—

14C Page 3, line 25, at end insert—

( ) The information must include—

  1. (a) a statement as to whether any representations have been made by the occupier of the land or premises to an inspector concerning the purpose for which the warrant is sought;
  2. (b) a summary of any such representations."

Lord Whitty

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its disagreement to the Commons in their Amendment No. 14A to Lords Amendment No. 14 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 14C to the Bill in lieu of the words so left out. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 22, 35 and 65, which in effect deal with the warrant procedure at the four points of the Bill in equivalent form.

Throughout the passage of the Bill, there has been considerable concern about making representations to the magistrates procedure on the part of Opposition Members and others. On my side, there has been concern not to put into the Bill a process that would slow down the procedures. I emphasised during the last discussion of this part of the Bill the importance of the right to appeal to the DVM, which is a form of administrative appeal. During that discussion, the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, asked about the relationship between the DVM procedure and the magistrates procedure. I failed to respond to him at that point—deliberately, in a sense, if he will excuse me—because confusing the administrative and legal procedures is difficult. On the other hand, I felt that there might be some room for at least a degree of compromise in what he was asking.

The amendment that the Commons have now agreed would require the magistrate, in making his decision, to take into account the statements and representations that had been made to the DVM. In other words, the fact that representations had been made to the inspector of the DVM would have to be in the statement to the magistrate—in other words, in the application for the warrant. Therefore, the fact that those representations had been made would formally have to be before the magistrate in taking his decision.

That would not slow down the process. Therefore, my objectives would be fulfilled. Indirectly, the ability to ensure that the representations were taken into account would also be fulfilled, thereby meeting, at least in part, the objections from those who have sought to amend this part of the Bill more substantially.

I think that is as far as the Government can move without causing delay in the process. However, it represents a real move in the direction of some of the arguments that have been put in this Chamber and in another place in support of what would otherwise be more radical changes to the warrant procedures. I beg to move.

Moved, That the House do not insist on its disagreement to the Commons in their Amendment No. 14A to Lords Amendment No. 14 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. I 4C to the Bill in lieu of the words so left out.—(Lord Whitty.)

Lord Greaves

My Lords, tempting as it would be to divide the House again—in a masochistic way it becomes quite fun after a while—I should say at the beginning, as the mover of the four offending amendments that your Lordships' House has now carried twice, that we welcome the movement that the Government have made on this issue and we are prepared to draw a line under it at this stage and declare a score draw. I am not sure that it is quite a score draw, but at least we have scored the odd goal, so we are quite pleased about that.

I should like to speak generally on the issue. As I said a few hours ago, this is an issue that we have worried at over many months, especially during the past few weeks, in order to try to find a way of providing occupiers, owners of animals, and farmers with a basic right to have their view and their case presented to the magistrate who will be issuing the warrant that could result in the slaughter of their animals, or, indeed, if it is another kind of case, other action being taken.

The proposal from another place is not as ideal nor as simple, clear, or straightforward as we would have liked. Nevertheless, it will provide a route by which the case on behalf of the owner of the animals/the farmer can be presented to the magistrate. That is to be welcomed. In the circumstances, it is possibly as much as we would have achieved in any event; indeed, it may be a little more than some of us had hoped would be achieved. I warmly thank the Government for meeting us as far as they have. I am not sure that it is halfway, because we had gone halfway towards them before we even tabled our amendments. However, it will provide some reassurance to people faced with such circumstances.

I have a few questions for the Minister. First, the part of our amendments that does not appear in the Commons amendments now before us is the reference to "sworn information", which we wanted to be provided to the owner of the animals or the occupier of the land. Can the Minister explain to us the status of that sworn information? Is it a public document? Is it information that can be revealed to anyone on request, or to the occupier to whom it relates? It would be extremely helpful if the noble Lord could give us that information, even at this late stage.

Secondly, I turn to the new procedure set out in the government amendments. It is most important that the owner of the animals/the occupier of the land should know about his right of appeal. What steps do the Government intend to take to publicise the system that will he in place for appeal to the DVM—the district veterinary manager—and via the DVM as regards passing the case on through this "summary" of information to the justice of the peace? What time-scale does the Minister envisage for this process? What is the procedure that the owner of the animals must go through to set this process in operation?

As regards the "summary" statement, there is some concern that what is being proposed here is just,

a summary of any such representations"— to quote the new subsection, rather than being a full account of the representations. I understand from discussion with the Minister that the word summary has been used so as to cover not only written but also verbal representations that may not actually he written down. But people are worried that the summary put forward may not reflect the actual case that the owner of the animals would put forward if he were starting the process from scratch; in other words, an intermediary is summarising the facts. What is the status of the summary statement? Is it available at any stage in the process? Will the person who made the representations in the first place be able to check the contents to ensure that it is a fair and accurate summary of the case that he wishes to make?

The latter are the probing questions that arise from the Government's new amendment. I shall be grateful to hear the Minister's response. It will he most helpful to have those answers on record in the Official Report. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us both full and fair answers to those questions.

Having said that, we find ourselves at the end of a very long process. The proceedings on this Bill have been going on for almost a year. I join the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, in thanking the Minister and his capable assistant, the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, for their help and good humour during our consideration of this very difficult Bill.

I particularly thank Conservative Front-Benchers, in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, for the way in which they co-operated with us and allowed us to co-operate with them. Today's two very important concessions by the Government demonstrate that our co-operation on this Bill, if on nothing else, has been very active, helpful and profitable.

Baroness Byford

My Lords, I rise very quickly to record again our thanks to the Minister for trying to meet our concerns on this part of the Bill. I thank him most warmly. The amendment is not perfect, as the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said, but I think that it will be a very useful stepping stone. These warrants are extremely important. The Minister will be only too well aware that this legislation comes at a time when farmers are going through very difficult circumstances and that clarification of this matter is hugely important. Earlier today, we spoke openly of the need to build on trust and to move forward. I think that this amendment helps very much to do that.

I should like briefly to raise two important issues. I apologise to noble Lords for that, but I feel that I must raise them before the Bill is passed. The first issue has been raised with me by others. Can the Minister tell us what sort of guidance and training magistrates will receive? If he cannot answer that question now, would he please acknowledge that there will be such guidance and training? Magistrates may have no knowledge at all about this matter. Although their knowledge covers a variety of subjects, it would not normally extend to this. I think that the Minister indicated that it will be dealt with in written guidance, and it would be helpful to know that that is the case. We have come to the end of our long consideration of this legislation. I remember when we began the process as the debate on Second Reading was held on my birthday, 14th January. That was a long time ago, since when another year has passed and even more grey hairs have appeared.

Once again, I sincerely thank the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, for their help in moving this legislation forward. More than anything else, we on these Benches want this legislation to rebuild trust. Of course we want to prevent disease coming into this country in the first place. If it does, however, we want a much better understanding of how it will be dealt with.

Lord Willoughby de Broke

My Lords, I should like very briefly to add to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, on the summary of such representations. If I were the occupier of the land in question here, I would like to be able to see the summary and sign it off to ensure that the DVM was not even inadvertently traducing the position which I had put forward that my animals should not be slaughtered. I wonder whether that could be made much more secure from the point of view of the farmer or occupier? Currently, the summary would be presented to the magistrate by the DVM, and it may not, as the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said, entirely reflect the position of the occupier. Is there any way of securing his agreement to what is presented to the court?

Lord Campbell of Alloway

My Lords, I have only one short query. Will the Minister just perhaps consider whether that summary of representations ought to be signed by the farmer and the occupier? Otherwise, there really is no real security.

Lord Whitty

My Lords, I am grateful for the general support—even if the Opposition Benches, Front and Back, are not entirely satisfied—for the proposition that this is a move in the right direction. As for the various questions, I really cannot go much further than what is written on the page. We are dealing here with a warrant procedure, and the information given to a magistrate in applying for a warrant is never public information.

Moreover, in this particular case, were it to go through the process of being countersigned by the occupier—as the noble Lords, Lord Willoughby de Broke and Lord Campbell of Alloway, suggested should happen—we would be back to the problem of delay. The DVM is under an obligation to act reasonably and to give an accurate summary of the farmer's representations. The magistrate is under an obligation to take that seriously. However, this is not a public document and therefore subject to countersigning.

I believe that the same is true as regards the matter of time-scale mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. As far as I am concerned, the time-scale must be as rapid as possible. It will be as long as it takes the DVM to assess the situation and to apply for the warrant and, if necessary, apply to the magistrate.

As regards owners knowing of their ability to apply to the DVM, they were aware of that in the last epidemic. Therefore, that is clear. The inspector—the authority—who goes to the farm in the first place and is refused entry has to inform the farmer that he is applying for a warrant. Alternatively, the authority can approach the DVM and, subject to the outcome of that approach, apply for a warrant. Either way, the farmer would be informed by the inspector that there was a right of appeal to the DVM. As I said earlier today, well over 500 farmers made use of that provision. It was already fairly well established.

There is already some guidance to magistrates. That guidance would have to be augmented at the beginning of an epidemic when the contingency plan was triggered so that magistrates would be aware of the general strategy and the general procedure. The sworn statement is not a public document, but were there to be subsequent legal action, it would become a disclosable document. However, as regards the immediate situation, I cannot go any further to meet the suggestions of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, and the noble Baroness.

I refer to the concern that this is not a watertight measure. I have never claimed that it comprises everything, or anywhere near everything, that was argued for at earlier stages of the debate. However, it constitutes a significant move by the Government to recognise the concern that has been expressed. I hope that it will be understood not only in this House and in another place but also by the farming community should we ever find ourselves in this tragic situation again.

As I intend to move the remaining amendments formally, I wish to reciprocate the sentiments expressed by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. This has been a long and difficult Bill. It is probably the most controversial Bill that I have dealt with, and that is saying something. There was a point not many days ago when I thought that we would probably reach the noble Baroness's next birthday before we were absolutely clear what we were going to do.

I thank noble Lords for their courtesy. Much passion has been expended on the Bill's provisions both in and outside the Chamber. We dealt with it sensibly and rationally within the Chamber but we also recognised the profundity of the issues with which we had to deal. I hope that no future agriculture Minister will have to use the Bill, but if he or she does, I believe that we have a better Bill than we started out with.

Taken with the response to the inquiries that we dealt with yesterday, we have a significantly better basis for dealing with any future outbreak of disease.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENTS

22 Clause 7, page 4, line 33, leave out from beginning to end of line 1 on page 5 and insert—

(3) The second condition is that each of the following applies to the occupier of the premises—

  1. (a) he has been informed of the decision to seek entry to the premises and of the reasons for that decision;
  2. (b) he has failed to allow entry to the premises on being requested to do so by an inspector;
  3. (c) he has been informed of the decision to apply for the warrant and of the reasons for that decision including a copy of the sworn information;
  4. (d) he has been provided with an opportunity to make representations to the justice of the peace about whether the warrant should be issued;
  5. (e) 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.

(4) The third condition is that—

  1. (a) the premises are unoccupied or the occupier is absent and (in either case) notice of intention to apply for the warrant has been left in a conspicuous place on the premises, or
  2. (b) an application for admission to the premises or the giving of notice of intention to apply for the warrant would defeat the object of entering the premises."

The Commons agreed to this amendment with the following amendment—

22A Line 8, leave out from warrant to end of line 16

The Lords disagreed to Commons Amendment No. 22A for the following reason—

22B Because it is appropriate to require that information should be provided about the reasons for the decision to apply for a warrant for entry to premises, and that there should be an opportunity to make representations to a Justice of the Peace before the warrant is issued.

The Commons insist on their amendment to the Lords Amendment No. 22, but propose the following amendment to the Bill in lieu of the words left out of the Lords amendment—

22C Page 4 line 30, at end insert—

"( ) The information must include—
  1. (a) a statement as to whether any representations have been made by the occupier of the land or premises to an inspector concerning the purpose for which the warrant is sought;
  2. (b) a summary of any such representations."

35 Clause 8, page 6, leave out lines 14 to 23 and insert—

(3) The second condition is that each of the following applies to the occupier of the premises—

  1. (a) he has been informed of the decision to seek entry to the premises and of the reasons for that decision;
  2. (b) he has failed to allow entry to the premises on being requested to do so by an inspector;
  3. (c) he has been informed of the decision to apply for the warrant and of the reasons for that decision including a copy of the sworn information;
  4. (d) he has been provided with an opportunity to make representations to the justice of the peace about whether the warrant should be issued;
  5. (e) 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.

(4) The third condition is that—

  1. (a) the premises are unoccupied or the occupier is absent and (in either case) notice of intention to apply for the warrant has been left in a conspicuous place on the premises, or
  2. (b) an application for admission to the premises or the giving of notice of intention to apply for the warrant would defeat the object of entering the premises."

The Commons agreed to this amendment with the following amendment—

35A Line 8, leave out from warrant to end of line 16

The Lords disagreed to Commons Amendment No. 35A for the following reason—

35B Because it is appropriate to require that information should be provided about the reasons for the decision to apply for a warrant for entry to premises, and that there should be an opportunity to make representations to a Justice of the Peace before the warrant is issued.

The Commons insist on their amendment to the Lords Amendment No. 35, but propose the following amendment to the Bill in lieu of the words left out of the Lords amendment—

35C Page 6, line 11, at end insert—

"(3) The information must include—

  1. (a) a statement ad to whether any representations have been made by the occupier of the land or premises to an inspector concerning the purpose for which the warrant is sought;
  2. (b) a summary of such representations."

65 Schedule 2, page 18, leave out lines 25 to 34 and insert—

"(3) The second condition is that each of the follow ing applies to the occupier of the premises—

  1. (a) he has been informed of the decision to seek entry to the premises and of the reasons for that decision;
  2. (b) he has failed to allow entry to the premises on being requested to do so by a person mentioned in section 36G(1);
  3. (c) he has been informed of the decision to apply for the warrant and of the reasons for that decision including a copy of the sworn information;
  4. (d) he has been provided with an opportunity to make representations to the justice of the peace about whether the warrant should be issued;
  5. (e) 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.

(4) The third condition is that—

  1. (a) the premises are unoccupied or the occupier is absent and (in either case) notice of intention to apply for the warrant has been left in a conspicuous place on the premises, or,
  2. (b) an application for admission to the premises or the giving of notice of intention to apply for the warrant would defeat the object of entering the premises."

The Commons agreed to this amendment with the following amendment—

65A Line 10, leave out from warrant to end of line 17

The Lords disagreed to Commons Amendment No. 65A for the following reason—

65B Because it is appropriate to require that information should be provided about the reasons for the decision to apply for a warrant for entry to premises, and that there should be an opportunity to make representations to a Justice of the Peace before the warrant is issued.

The Commons insist on their amendment to the Lords Amendment No. 65, but propose the following amendment to the Bill in lieu of the words left out of the Lords amendment—

65C Page 18, line 21, at end insert—

"( ) The information must include—

  1. (a) a statement as to whether any representations have been made by the occupier of the land or premises to an inspector concerning the purpose for which the warrant is sought;
  2. (b) a summary of any such representations."
Lord Whitty

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their disagreement to Commons Amendments Nos. 22A, 35A and 65A and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 22C, 35C and 65C. I spoke to the amendments with Amendment No. 14.

Moved, That the House do not insist on their disagreement to Commons Amendments Nos. 22A, 35A and 65A and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 22C, 35C and 65C.—(Lord Whitty.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Forward to