Animal Health Bill

HL Deb 07 November 2002 vol 640 cc873-917

11.36 a.m.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty)

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

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

On Question, Motion agreed to.

MOTIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO BE MOVED ON

CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS AMENDMENTS AND

REASON

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

LORDS AMENDMENT

1 Clause 1, page 1, line 3, at end insert—0

"( ) In the Animal Health Act 1981 (c. 22) (in this Act referred to as the 1981 Act) before paragraph 3 of Schedule 3 insert—

"(2A) The Secretary of State shall give priority to a "vaccinate to live" policy prior to causing to be slaughtered animals on premises where no infection has been detected.""

The Commons disagreed to this amendment but proposed the following amendment in lieu thereof—

1A Page 10, line 9, at end insert the following new Clause—

"Duty to consider vaccination

In the 1981 Act the following section is inserted after section 14A (as inserted by section (National contingency plan)) of this Act.—

"14B Duty to consider vaccination

1. (1) In relation to any occurrence of foot-and-mouth disease the Secretary of State must consider what is the most appropriate means of preventing the spread of the disease.
2. (2) In particular he must consider whether in relation to the occurrence treating animals with serum or vaccine is more appropriate than any other means of preventing the spread of the disease."."

Lord Whitty

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1A in lieu thereof.

Yesterday, in reporting to the House the Government's response to the inquiries on foot and mouth, I indicated that the Government and, indeed, technology and circumstances had led to a shift in the approach to the use of vaccination and, in particular, to a preference to vaccinate to live. I indicated that that would be our preferred strategy if emergency vaccination were used.

However, I also stressed that there may be scenarios where, following veterinary and scientific advice, the culling of animals on non-infected premises is deemed more appropriate than vaccination to live. We would not wish to be restricted in the disease-control methods available to us. Therefore, it is important that whatever we say about vaccination reflects those realities. In relation to the amendment previously passed by this House, I also made clear that both the reality of dealing with disease and EU legislation will require the slaughter of livestock which is diseased, which is on infected premises and which has an epidemiological link to infected premises—the category that we tend to call "dangerous contacts". By and large, those dangerous contacts would not be on the same premises, whereas the amendment would advocate vaccination in those circumstances as the prior consideration. Those are situations where slaughter would be the normal approach, even with the position on vaccination. The amendment would run counter to that and counter to the EU requirement on stamping out disease. Therefore, it cannot be accepted.

I note that Amendment No. 1C in the name of the noble Countess, Lady Mar, which has replaced Amendment No. 1B, would place a duty on the Secretary of State to consider, rather than give priority to, a vaccinate-to-live programme. But the rest of her amendment remains the same and therefore would include the issue of dangerous contact on non-infected premises. That runs counter to the strategy which we are behind, which is in our contingency plan and which is required by EU law.

Amendment No. 1A, which the Government, in the Commons, have inserted in lieu of Amendment No. 1, was carefully drafted to address what I and the Government recognise as the widespread concerns that when vaccination can be used it should be used in future disease outbreaks. It explicitly sets out that,

the Secretary of State must consider what is the most appropriate means of preventing the spread of the disease".

In particular, she must consider whether vaccination is more appropriate in the circumstances.

That reflects many of the concerns of Members of this House and elsewhere that vaccination should be given due priority and prominence in the armoury of weapons to combat any future disease. The inquiry reports and the recent discussions at EU level have also underlined the need for vaccination to play a higher profile in future disease outbreaks. We have clearly indicated that we agree with that strategy by taking those recommendations forward.

Last night in another place, when these issues were considered, it was noticeable that a number of Members accepted that the balance that the Government have established is now more appropriate than the amendment previously passed by this House. Indeed, Mr David Curry, the chair of the appropriate Select Committee, who has considerable experience in these matters, said:

On vaccination, the Government have got the balance about right. The other place has gone too far—it has run a little ahead of the science".—[Official Report, Commons, 6/11/02; col. 318.]

I believe that that would be the general feeling in the farming community. We recognised that we had to do more than was in the previous version of the Bill, but the steps taken by this House went a little too far. We accept that we should attempt, on the face of the Bill, to clarify the Government's position on the matter. The clause, on which I propose that we should support the Commons, would help to achieve that end. Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1A in lieu thereof.—(Lord Whitty.)

[Amendment No. 1B had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

11.45 a.m.

1C The Countess of Mar

rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1A in lieu thereof, leave out from "disagreed" to end and insert ", do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No 1A, and do propose the following amendment in lieu thereof—

Page 1, line 3, at end insert—

( ) In the Animal Health Act 1981 (c. 22) (in this Act referred to as the 1981 Act) before paragraph 3 of Schedule 3 insert—

(2A) The Secretary of State shall consider a "vaccinate to live" policy prior to causing to be slaughtered animals on premises where no infection has been detected.""

The noble Countess said: My Lords, I move this amendment in the firm conviction that what I am asking the House to agree is correct. I do not need to repeat all the details of the horrors that arose in the last epidemic of foot and mouth disease. We have heard them often enough. I ask noble Lords to look forward and to make provision for the protection of our livestock and agricultural industry on the basis of the lessons that we have learned from the events of 2001.

I can understand that when the Bill was first published, Ministers believed that the epidemic had got out of hand because they did not have the powers to enter premises and slaughter animals as and when they wished. In the year since publication we have had three official reports and several county reports, all of which have been extremely critical of the ruthless and inefficient policy of mass slaughter. Those facts are still very much at the forefront of the memories of the British population, and particularly of the rural population. They still feel very sore.

Science has moved forward by leaps and bounds and vaccination is now much more important than it was a year ago. I recognise the willingness of the Government, who have put in an amendment of their own. Noble Lords have fought long and hard to gain that concession, although I am disappointed that they have chosen to place their amendment at the end of the Bill, in Part 4. I would like to see vaccination come first to the mind of the Secretary of State. I do not read books from back to front and I do not expect those who will have to implement the measures laid out in this Bill to do so either.

I shall try to deal with the objections of the Minister and his colleagues in another place. His honourable friend Mr Elliot Morley made clear yesterday, and the Minister has repeated today, that,

we will, ideally, want to use a vaccinate-to-live strategy if emergency vaccination is used. There may, however, be scenarios in which, following the appropriate veterinary and scientific advice, culling of non-infected premises is deemed more appropriate than vaccination".

That statement makes me feel a little uneasy and I would be grateful if the Minister would explain when those scenarios may occur. He has spoken about the "dangerous contacts" animals. Are there any other scenarios in which that may occur?

Mr Morley went on to explain

We do not want that advice to be restricted artificially in terms of the most appropriate disease control methods that could he applied".—[Official Report, Commons, 6/11/02; cols. 307–08.]

I understand that. On occasions Ministers have inferred that I want infected or contact animals to be vaccinated. I hope that noble Lords will give me the credit of knowing what I am talking about and that I would not dream of asking for that.

I accept all that. I have always accepted that animals that are infected or are dangerous contacts must he slaughtered. However, I was saying that for all other circumstances the Secretary of State should give priority to a "vaccinate to live" policy. I understand that the word "priority" has caused a major stumbling block. In an attempt to overcome that I have changed "give priority to" to "consider". Perhaps in view of all the discussions that we have had about the word "think" I should have used the phrase "think about" because that is what I mean.

I know that this Bill is about slaughter. Everyone who has had anything to do with the Bill, however remotely, knows that. I am attempting to put, right at the beginning of the Bill, the declared intention that the almost indiscriminate slaughter of last year will never again be repeated.

In the light of the recommendations of the Royal Societies of London and of Edinburgh, following the ruling of the OIE (Office International des Epizooties)—that means animal diseases—that resulted from the development of new vaccines and tests, that emergency vaccination should be the prime control strategy in the event of a future outbreak, it is not good enough for a much watered-down clause to be inserted at the end of the Bill. The amended version of my original amendment does not, as far as I can see, restrict the Secretary of State unless the word "considering" has suddenly become restrictive. Neither do I believe that the time that the Secretary of State may take to consider "vaccination to live" would hinder the rapid implementation of the remaining clauses of the Bill when it becomes law.

Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1 A in lieu thereof, leave out from "disagreed" to end and insert ", do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No 1A, and do propose the following amendment in lieu thereof—

Page 1, line 3, at end insert—

( ) In the Animal Health Act 1981 (c. 22) (in this Act referred to as the 1981 Act) before paragraph 3 of Schedule 3 insert—

(2A) The Secretary of State shall consider a "vaccinate to live" policy prior to causing to be slaughtered animals on premises where no infection has been detected."" "—(The Countess of Mar.)

Lord Greaves

My Lords, I rise to speak to the amendment moved by the noble Countess, Lady Mar, and the government amendment passed by the other place yesterday.

This is a time when, after months and months of argument on the Bill, this House should proclaim victory and welcome the very substantial concession that the Government have made. We should not be churlish and continue to argue over the small differences that now remain on the wording of the clause. I repeat, I believe that the government amendment passed by the Commons represents a great—I was going to say "triumph", but this is not a triumphalist place—a substantial victory for noble Lords from all sides of the House who have argued interminably about this matter since Second Reading at the beginning of the year. There comes a time when we should say, "We have won; the wording may not be exactly what we want, but we are not the Government and at the end of the day the Government put in the wording that they want". The substance of this government amendment is what so many noble Lords have been arguing about in your Lordships House for so long.

Having said that, I pay tribute to the work that has been done during these many months by the noble Countess. She has provided us with expertise, knowledge and single-minded commitment on this and on other issues, in particular on the scrapie issues where her knowledge is unrivalled almost anywhere, never mind in your Lordships' House. In saying that we cannot support her last-ditch amendment, I am not suggesting that we are trying to undermine the work which everyone—the noble Countess in particular—has done over the past few months.

We have had the Bill for almost a year. There have been two long gaps: first, one for several months after the House refused to commit the Bill; and, secondly, over the Summer Recess. So it seems a very long time. I read the Second Reading debate last night as one means of getting myself to sleep and of not getting too worked up about this exciting occasion here today. From the beginning we debated the question of vaccination as opposed to slaughter and the question of putting the issue of vaccination on the face of the Bill in a clear way. On Report a number of amendments were moved. The amendment moved from these Benches sought to establish a four-stage sequential test that the Secretary of State would have to apply when deciding how to tackle a particular outbreak or occurrence of foot and mouth disease. In essence, the government amendment that has come from the Commons accepts that principle of a sequential test. It is a two-stage test. What it says is very clear. It states:

In particular he"—

that is the Secretary of State, who is a she but never mind—

must consider whether in relation to the occurrence treating animals with serum or vaccine is more appropriate than any other means of preventing the spread of the disease".

Elsewhere in the Bill we have a government amendment that was put forward previously at the request of the House. One might say that it is a concession, but, nevertheless, it is a very important amendment. It states that where the Secretary of State decides that slaughter is the appropriate means of going ahead he has to publish the reasons for that.

So we have a very clear test now that the Secretary of State has, first, in relation to any occurrence of foot and mouth, to consider vaccination before slaughter. If the Secretary of State decides that slaughter is nevertheless necessary, he must then publish his reasons why.

If people then want to challenge that in the courts—seeking judicial review, an injunction or whatever—that is the basic structure that is required in order to be able satisfactorily to test and challenge the decision of the Secretary of State. So I think that in many ways the government amendment provides much of what noble Lords have been asking for.

A few minor differences remain. The difference between priority and consideration has been removed because the amendment of the noble Countess now says consideration. So there is little difference between what the noble Countess and the Government propose. In many ways it comes down to where the issue appears in the Bill. I have to say that I cannot advise my colleagues in this House to continue fighting a battle about whether this clause appears at the beginning or later on in the Bill.

There are many noble Lords in the House who, if they were sat on the Government Benches, would not have introduced the Bill. We would have introduced a Bill with a very different structure, balance and approach. Although we all want highly effective and rapid means to deal with such an outbreak, we disagree about the means of achieving it. But we are not the Government. We are dealing with the Government's Bill and we have to accept the structure of the Bill as put forward by the Government. What we are able to do is to look at issues within the Bill—often very important issues—and to make changes here and there. We are not able to throw the Bill out and put something completely different in, which I think is what the noble Countess would really like to do and perhaps what I would like to join her in doing. But we are not able to do that. We have a government Bill and we have to accept it.

The amendment is a major and important concession on one of perhaps the two or three major issues about which we have been arguing all these months. It is my view that it would be churlish now further to reject the government amendment. I hope that there will not be a Division because I think that a consensus is developing on the issue. That consensus was helped very much by the Statement yesterday. We still have some differences. We still have some criticisms of the speed and commitment of the Government in regard to these matters. Nevertheless, I think that a consensus is now developing. The deliberations of this House over the past month have contributed greatly to the development of that consensus. With that in mind, it would be churlish now to oppose the government amendment. If a Division is called on the amendment I shall advise my colleagues to support the Government.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

My Lords, the concession on the amendment in lieu in effect—and it is not mere semantics—confers a priority because reasons have to be given as to which is the most appropriate form of treatment. Those reasons must support what is the most appropriate form. That, in essence, involves the concept of priority. It is not a question of mere semantics. I think that the Government have met the substance of the point.

I also wish to associate myself with the tributes that have been paid to the noble Countess who started the matter off and the noble Lord the Minister who carried it on.

Lord Willoughby de Broke

My Lords, in spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has said, I believe that we should support the amendment of the noble Countess, Lady Mar. During the debates we have had in the House it has been your Lordships' feeling that the balance of the Bill has been wrong. That has been said from every quarter of the House. It is disappointing after all that that although the Government have swallowed the camel of vaccination they are still straining at the gnat of where it should go in the Bill.

The Bill as it stands is still a slaughter Bill. The amendment on vaccination will appear on page 9 of the Bill, before the clauses entitled Commencement, Finance, Extent and Short Title. We are dealing with vaccination. As the noble Countess has pointed out, every report dealing with the foot and mouth epidemic has recommended vaccination. We still await the formal report of the European Union committee, which no doubt—I think that the leaks we have had indicate this—will indicate that vaccination should be the priority. Vaccination should be "considered"—I believe that is the right term to use—early on in the Bill. This should not be a Bill about slaughter with a tip of the cap towards vaccination late on in the Bill. It should be dealt with early on and be given clear priority.

I do not know whether the noble Countess will divide the House. But I think that the Government might consider putting vaccination earlier in the Bill, in spite of their acceptance of vaccination as one of the tools for dealing with a future foot and mouth crisis—if we are ever unlucky enough to have one.

Noon

Baroness Byford

My Lords, I rise on behalf of these Benches to pay great tribute to the noble Countess, Lady Mar. My name was linked with her original amendment. Noble Lords know that. I still think that vaccination is a hugely important issue. I have heard what other noble Lords have said and I accept their views.

In another place yesterday the Minister said that there were conflicting views between some of my colleagues on my side of the House. Indeed, that is right. I suspect that if one took a straw poll there might be conflicting views on his side too. But I am grateful to the Government for the way that they have responded. They have come forward with something that is not quite perhaps as perfect as we would like, but it is at least a recognition of the way that science has moved on. In the amendment before us, the noble Countess, Lady Mar, has changed the wording from, a priority to consider. I understand why she has done that.

I shall underline one or two things that we should put on record about our deliberations on the matter. We all accept that all of the inquiries have recognised the importance of vaccination now and in future—and not just of vaccination-to-kill. The Royal Society, which was cited yesterday, has been clear about that. The most recent of all reports is the European Parliament working group document 5A. I remind your Lordships of the two quotations that I have given before from paragraphs 54 and 57. Paragraph 54 states:

The vaccines currently available make it possible—at least on a herd by herd basis—to distinguish between infected and vaccinated animals".

Paragraph 57 states:

In future, therefore, emergency vaccination with the aim of allowing animals to live for normal further use should no longer be regarded only as a last resort for controlling FM D but must be considered as a first-choice option from the outset when an outbreak occurs, except in the cases of the actual farms which unequivocally have to be regarded as being infected".

There may have been a misunderstanding between the Minister and my colleagues at the other end of the Corridor when he questioned whether we were against the control system of slaughter of infected animals. I again put clearly on record that if animals are infected, they should be slaughtered. At no stage have we on these Benches in this House suggested differently. I hope that the Minister will accept that.

Responding to the debate at the other end of the Corridor, my honourable friend James Gray said that the Minister seemed to suggest that the amendment that they were considering—the amendment moved previously by the noble Countess, Lady Mar, which stated that vaccination shall be a priority—would require vaccination to be used. It would not; it would merely require the authorities to make it a priority and put it at the top of the tree, to use my honourable friend's expression. Of course a contingency cull would still be allowed. It is important to place that on record. Yesterday's Statement helped to clarify one or two points that were still in doubt, so even since yesterday, when the Commons debated the Bill and we debated the Statement, things have moved on. However, I refer the Minister to the words of Mr Morley. He said:

During the last outbreak, a minority of people objected strongly to the contiguous cull and there were many appeals to the district veterinary manager, many hundreds of which were upheld, according to circumstances".

We all agree with that. But I did not especially care for what he said next:

If we move to emergency vaccination, however, there would also be a minority of people who would not wave flags when they saw the vaccination teams coming down the road".—[Official Report, Commons, 6/11/02; col. 325.]

That is not true. Will the Minister clarify that? What grounds did the Minister in the other place have on which to make that assumption? I do not follow the logic of that. Those animals would not be killed; they would be vaccinated to live. I am perplexed by Mr Morley's statement yesterday and seek clarification of it.

The Minister rightly referred to my honourable friend David Curry and a couple more of my colleagues who are content with the Minister's amendment; I do not say that we on these Benches are not. However, the noble Countess, Lady Mar, wants to raise the issue at the beginning of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said that we have obviously considered the matter for some time. We have altered what I classed as a bad Bill to make it a better Bill. That is right. However, I am concerned that vaccination is still not at the forefront of the final version of the Bill. We have all talked at length about trying to get a strategy. There is still nothing about that at the start of the Bill.

Having said that, I do not wish to quibble. We certainly welcome the Government amendment. I should like clarification of the points that I have raised. All of us in this Chamber are acutely anxious to ensure that we achieve the best control of animal disease. There is no disagreement on that. We also recognise, and have argued throughout, that in doing so, we must rebuild the trust that has been so devastated in the country. I had hoped that the Government would accept the new amendment moved by the noble Countess, Lady Mar, which mentions not priority but must consider.

I wait with interest to hear what the Minister has to say, but I hope that he accepts that our concern is genuine, will clarify the points that I have raised and will explain the comments of his honourable friend at the other end of the Corridor, when he said that people will immediately object to a vaccination policy, even if it is a vaccinate-to-live policy. I do not accept that, nor do I understand why the Minister made that comment.

Lord Carter

My Lords, I am sure that noble Lords who are concerned about the placing of the new section in the Bill would agree that it is the words of an Act of Parliament that matter, not the page number. The wording of new Section 14B sets out all that those who support the vaccination approach could wish for.

The noble Countess, Lady Mar, asked about various scenarios. Yesterday, we heard that the Government intend to prepare an emergency vaccination programme and to keep a stock of vaccines for the seven major strains of foot and mouth disease. Viruses mutate. It is unlikely, but not impossible, that we will face a strain that is not one of the seven major strains but a mutation. In that case, we would not have the vaccine for it, so we must allow the Government flexibility. It is clearly stated that the Government,

must consider whether in relation to the occurrence",

vaccination is more appropriate. We should bear in mind such unlikely but not impossible eventualities.

Perhaps my noble friend would reinforce the point made yesterday by the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, during the Statement on the Government's response to the inquiries. He said that there is now a test that can distinguish between an infected and a vaccinated animal in the laboratory—I think he said—but not yet on a farm scale. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, referred to a herd scale. There is confusion about whether a test is available that could be used on the farm to distinguish all the animals. I am sure that my noble friend can clarify that.

Yesterday's Statement contained the interesting idea that research could continue on a European basis on a polyvalent vaccine—a single vaccine for all species. If that were to come to fruition, that would be extremely good news. To repeat what I said in Committee, no government in their right mind would consider slaughter in future if an alternative were available.

Lord Whitty

My Lords, I am grateful for many of the remarks made during this debate and for the recognition that the Government have come a considerable way to meet the concerns expressed on all sides of the House about giving priority to the use of vaccination.

The remaining objections to our amendment, when compared to that moved by the noble Countess, Lady Mar, boil down to whether the provision is in the right place in the Bill, and in what scenarios we may not in practice give vaccination priority. My noble friend Lord Carter has already spelled out that Bills have a structure and there is a certain legalistic logic, at least, to them. We suggest that it should be inserted after the passage dealing with the national contingency plan, which will, of course, spell out how we will deal with an actual occurrence of the disease. The rest of the Bill deals with powers to do so; the new clause deals with actual decisions and strategies to deal with the disease itself. This is, therefore, the most logical point.

One of the difficulties with the Bill is that people regard it as solely a slaughter Bill. We touched on that issue a few days ago. In fact, most of the powers relate to vaccination, as well as slaughter. The central power to vaccinate already exists whereas some of the powers to slaughter do not, and that has, perhaps, got the Bill a worse name than it might otherwise have had. The House should not divide on the issue of where the new clause comes in the Bill.

The noble Baroness—I have done it again; I mean the noble Countess, and I beg her pardon—has made a great contribution to our discussions on the subject. Certainly, I never suggested that she did not know what she was talking about; nor have I suggested that noble Lords have failed to recognise that slaughter would have to occur on infected premises and among diseased animals. However, I am not entirely sure that that is the position of the public at large. The greater emphasis that the Royal Society and we have put on vaccination has been interpreted as meaning that there will be no slaughter. It must be made clear that diseased animals on diseased premises will be slaughtered and that, in addition, dangerous contacts will normally be slaughtered.

The problem with the amendment is that, as most dangerous contacts will be off the original premises, it implies that we would consider slaughter on premises away from the original infected area. In that contingency, we would have slaughter, rather than vaccination. There may be other such contingencies, and that is why we sought wider powers of pre-emptive cull in the Bill. Other contingencies could include the situation referred to by my noble friend Lord Carter in which it would take time to develop the means of delivering the serum and in which we can deal only with the main strains. We could have either a logistical problem or a supply problem, and we would therefore be bound to go for slaughter in those circumstances. In other cases, there might be topographical difficulties with administering vaccination. Much depends on the lay of the farm, the size of the farm and the distance between farms.

There is also the question of how rapidly we can get to a position in which vaccination is an immediate proposition. Once Royal Assent is given, the Bill will be law, but we have indicated, as has the Royal Society, that it will take some time—a relatively short time. I hope—before we can deliver the vaccinate-to-live policy. We need to clear up some technical issues, and we must make sure of the logistics. We must also ensure that the trade and the consumers understand that, in those circumstances, vaccinated meat can go into the food chain in the normal way. That will take a little time, and, prior to that, we will need to consider other methods of controlling the spread of the disease.

The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, suggested that she did not believe my honourable friend Elliot Morley, who said that there would still be opposition to vaccination. During the epidemic, a large section of the farming community was seriously opposed to vaccination, primarily on the relatively rational basis that the product would lose value. They were thinking of a vaccinate-to-live policy or a vaccinate-to-kill policy. We have made it clear that, if it were a vaccinate-to-kill policy, which we would try to avoid, the Bill provides for equal compensation. That rather defuses that argument, but there is still a residual belief that the product of a vaccinated animal may be less valuable than the product of a non-vaccinated animal or the compensation that farmers would get for a slaughtered animal.

12.15 p.m.

Baroness Byford

My Lords, had we had this conversation a year ago, the Minister might have been right. However, the farming community has moved on. As the Minister will recall, the difficulty that farmers had at that time was that the Government were unable to answer their questions about what would happen to vaccinated animals. Would they be worthless? Would they be vaccinated and then killed? There was a range of questions then, which shows that it is a blessing that the Bill was delayed. I hope that we are coming up with some of the right answers now.

The Minister is right: a year ago, many people would have been hesitant. A year on, as the NFU has indicated, those people would support a vaccinate-to-live policy.

Lord Whitty

My Lords, I accept that case entirely, as the noble Baroness now puts it. Opposition has diminished, and support for a vaccination strategy at that stage in the disease control operation has grown. The noble Baroness is slightly more confident than I am that opinion throughout the entire farming community has changed. We must recognise that there may be some opposition to people coming onto farms with syringes or tests, just as there would be to slaughter. That is partly catered for elsewhere in the Bill. Certainly, if there were substantial opposition in a particular area, the Government must take account of that in carrying out disease control measures.

More generally, it is realised that the Government have shifted. The clause's position in the Bill is not something over which the House should divide. With our amendment, we have met the vast majority of the concerns that have been expressed during the many months of the Bill's passage. I urge the House to accept the Commons amendment.

The Countess of Mar

My Lords, the Minister did not answer the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, on the basis of the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior. The noble Lord, Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, said:

However, if we are to get to the desired position with regard lo vaccination, we will need a vaccine that produces prolonged immunity and can differentiate between vaccinated animals and infected animals".—[Official Report, 6/11/02; col. 755.]

I quoted from the OIE, that unpronounceable organisation. In November 2001, it accepted that there were validated tests to detect the difference between vaccinated and non-vaccinated animals. Why cannot that test, which has been validated in many countries, including Holland and France, be accepted in this country?

Lord Whitty

My Lords, the test to which the noble Countess refers and to which the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, referred earlier this week, is accepted in some countries. However, it has not been validated for EU purposes—or, beyond certain strains, for OIE purposes—for farm-level trials. Validation will not take long: indeed, the pressure from the EU to ensure that we get validation is substantial. As of now, however, there is no confirmed, validated test that would convince the whole of the world trade that we could distinguish effectively herd by herd—let alone animal by animal—between vaccinated animals and diseased animals. That time is not far off, but we are not there yet.

The Countess of Mar

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who took part in the debate, and I am humbled by the comments made about my participation. I acted from a sense of conviction and from a feeling that a great injustice has been done to many people in the agricultural community and must be righted. That is why I have pressed, until the very last minute, for my amendment to go right at the beginning of the Bill. However, I recognise that one comes to a point at which discretion is the better part of valour. I propose to exercise the latter and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment No. 1 C, by leave, withdrawn.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT

13 After Clause 4, insert the following new Clause—

"20-day livestock movement restriction rule

In the 1981 Act the following subsection is inserted after section 8(1) (movement generally)—

"(1A) In making an order under subsection (1) restricting the movement of animals in connection with an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, any restriction of 20 days or more shall lapse at the end of a period of 8 weeks following the last confirmed case.""

The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—

13A Because it would be inappropriate to terminate automatically a restriction on the movement of animals.

Lord Whitty

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on Amendment No. 13 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered Amendment No. 13A.

The amendment relates to the 20-day standstill, which is causing concern around the country. The Government have substantially modified the original standstill restrictions but in principle a 20-day standstill remains.

That standstill was originally and is still supported by strong scientific and veterinary advice. It represents the Government's best view as of now of an appropriate precautionary peace-time control. It is to deal with the possibility of future outbreaks rather than the aftermath of the past one. The Lessons to be Learned inquiry recommended that the 20-day standstill be retained, as did the Royal Society, until wide-ranging cost benefit analysis based on a risk assessment could be completed. The Government are having that study carried out, as we discussed yesterday. It would be highly undesirable to pre-empt those studies. My central objection to the amendment is not what it says about what we would do now, which is a matter of ongoing discussion, but what we would do eight weeks after the last confirmed case in this country. It requires any standstill of 20 days or above to be dropped eight weeks after the last confirmed case.

Perhaps I may take the House back to eight weeks after the last case at the end of September last year, which took us to the end of November, almost exactly a year ago. At that point we were still in a state of high alert and did not have clearance from the EU for the resumption of trade or disease-free status from the OIE. There was still great concern in the farming and veterinary communities and beyond that the disease might still be lurking.

In terms of international negotiations we were able to reassure the EU and the OIE that we still had restrictions in place that would limit the spread should such a recrudescence occur. One cannot be absolutely sure of that, but despite the devastation the disease caused, those negotiating obtained the lifting at the first available opportunity under EU and OIE rules. Part of our case was that those restrictions remained in place.

We would not have obtained that lifting had we after eight weeks removed all the restrictions on movement or indeed moved them to below the level veterinary advice was strongly suggesting. Three months is the minimum period after the last confirmed case required by the international community and the EU. Eight weeks would be two-thirds of the way through that period. It would not have been appropriate and would not be appropriate in any future outbreak of foot and mouth or any other disease for us to lift standstill arrangements at that point. It would jeopardise our international obligations.

Lord Jopling

My Lords, will the Minister explain what the objection in this case would be? If there was a degree of uncertainty in the days coming up to the point of eight weeks following the last confirmed case, surely the Government could move another order to start the process again. There would be nothing to stop the Government replacing the existing order with a new order lasting 20 days.

Lord Whitty

My Lords, that is not what the amendment says, nor what the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, said on the previous occasion. I believe that he said—I beg his pardon if it was not him who said it—that we could impose an order of 19 days. He shakes his head; it was not him and I beg his pardon. Amendment No. 13 says that we should drop any standstill of 20 days or above irrespective of veterinary advice, scientific views and the views of our international trading partners and our obligations to the EU.

That is what is unacceptable about the amendment. I hope that the House will accept the removal of that provision as discussed in the Commons last night and that noble Lords will recognise that the issue of what should replace the 20-day standstill in time for the spring movements is a separate issue. Injecting this provision into our exit strategy from disease control is not appropriate and could be damaging to the farming industry. I beg to move.

Moved, That the House do not insist on Amendment No. 13 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 13A.—(Lord Whitty.)

Lord Livsey of Talgarth

My Lords, in responding to the Minister I address the reason numbered 13A. The Commons have said that they disagree to the amendment,

Because it would be inappropriate to terminate automatically a restriction on the movement of animals".

The word automatically" is a wide power. We all have a heavy responsibility to the rural areas and the agricultural industry in discussing this matter because it is of such importance at the present time. I detected in last night's debate in the other place and also here a certain defensiveness about the 20-day rule; in particular, the eight-week provision.

I consulted widely before drafting Amendment No. 13 with some of the highest authorities in the land in the veterinary profession. I asked whether they thought that was a reasonable time limit. They said that it was perfectly workable within the present constraints. I questioned them carefully about the length of time that a risk assessment would take. The answer I received was, "How long is a piece of string?" It was qualified by, "It all depends on the parameters in the risk assessment", which I understand.

Even after the worst ever outbreak of foot and mouth, certainly in the European Union, the EU lifted the restrictions after three months plus a few weeks. The Minister was able to reassure the European Union that safety and biosecurity measures were in place in the United Kingdom before the trade restrictions were lifted. We all know that the 20-day rule has continued for a further 10 months after that decision was made in early February. Other decisions were made on 22nd January, one of which related to exports, if my memory serves me.

We have seen the worst outbreak of foot and mouth that we could imagine or experience, but there was a virtually automatic lifting of restrictions in the European Union.

Earlier this week, or maybe last week, the Minister said that 20-day controls do not exist in other European Union countries. Is it the case that as a result of the volume of imports coming into this country we have the draconian situation of the 20-day rule, which has been in force for such a long time? I suspect that it is.

Again, I would like to thank the Minister for accepting our amendment on imports, which now forms part of the Bill. I believe that it will strengthen security measures on controlling the possibility of disease through imports. I am delighted and I thank the Minister as I know he has worked hard on this matter. The problem is that the farming community is suffering grievously from having the continued imposition of the 20-day rule. It is likely that the risk assessment will be completed before Christmas; that some results will be ready by February; and some relaxation will be possible. What that relaxation will be is difficult to perceive. However, I understand that not all the tests will be completed until June, which is a very long time. Had I originally proposed in the amendment three months rather than eight weeks, that might have made quite a difference because it would have been contiguous—in another sense—with what the European Union was doing.

We have an enormous responsibility to the farming community and to the rural areas because normal trading conditions are distorted by the rule. Yes, we must have bio-security and, yes, we must have it at the height of an outbreak. All of us without exception would agree with that. The question is, what is the exit strategy for the 20-day rule and where does the line have to be drawn?

There is a way through, although it may not be in the amendment as it is presently drafted. If the Minister has reservations about this, I understand that, hut he still has to find an exit strategy for the 20-day rule. If, God forbid, there is another outbreak, the farming community, industry and the individuals involved will need to know what are the rules on movement. There will be an impact not just on farmers but on, for example, hauliers, on rural areas and on tourism.

I went to the other place last night and listened to much of the debate. I must say that a number of crass comments were made by people who are not informed about matters affecting the livestock industry and the countryside. One comment was, Surely we really need a permanent 20-day rule because all the animals are going to be slaughtered". Whether we are talking about dairy herds, beef herds, upland flocks or normal lowland flocks, most of us know that in upland areas stock has to be moved about for breeding purposes and that store lambs have to be moved to a marketplace to be sold. However, all these restrictions are affecting the returns in the farming industry.

I beg the Minister to consider the matters; not just to forget them today but really to address this problem. If the Government want to have better relations with the farming industry, solving this problem will go a long way to doing so. I believe that Amendment No. 13 should remain in the Bill.

12.35 p.m.

Lord Monro of Langholm

My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Livsey of Talgarth, for raising this issue of the 20-day rule through amendments. He has put fairly the problems that farmers are having in moving stock, particularly over the autumn period when there are so many sales.

On the other hand, the Minister has a good point that a fixed eight-week period does seem to be rather brief and inflexible. There is much to say for an extended period. But farmers want to know how extended it is going to be. It is already nearly a year since the 20-day restriction was put in place and from what we have heard today from the noble Lord, Lord Livsey of Talgarth, and others, it may be another six months before the rule is lifted, provided we have no further outbreaks.

It would be helpful if in winding up the debate the Minister could be absolutely clear in telling the House what discussion he has had with the Scottish Executive so that the rules on both sides of the Border are exactly the same. As he knows, nowhere can be closer to the Border than Longtown. where the original case of foot and mouth occurred. That shows the importance of having the same rules and regulations relating to the movement of stock and to foot and mouth.

Much has been said about the Executive discussing the matter and there being close co-operation and co-ordination. However, we have not heard much in the way of fact about the 20-day rule and when it might be lifted in Scotland or in England, or in both countries. There is a good case for disagreeing to the proposal of eight weeks. In return, the Minister should make it clear where we are going and how long we are going to wait, provided that there is no further outbreak, for the 20-day rule to be lifted. He should also say whether it is certain that it will be as soon as practicable and as soon as the State Veterinary Service says it is safe to do so.

The Countess of Mar

My Lords, I want to make a special plea for the little man—and the little woman, come to that. Concessions have been made on the 20-day rule. In certain circumstances, if one buys and sells, animals can be put 50 metres away from other animals. However, there are many small farmers in this country. I am thinking in particular of the beef fattener who buys calves, grows them up to fat and sells on. As he sells one he replaces it with another young one. He does not have vast expanses of buildings or buildings several fields apart. His risk is likely to below.

As regards breeding animals—and here I return to my goats—the practice has always been that the female goat goes to the male goat. The concession states that the male goat may go to the female goat. I understand it was given because the DEFRA understanding, which is perfectly valid, is that a ram goes into a field full of ewes. A bull goes into a field full of cows, does his business and goes away at a later date. However, goats come into season at different times. The male goat is visited by the female, who is then taken back to her premises and hopefully is in kid.

The owner of the male goat cannot function on that basis because he will probably have several female goats at different premises. As I explained a few weeks ago, the poor old male goat does not travel well. He is also extremely smelly and difficult to handle. It is much easier if the female can be popped into his pen and then hauled out again rather than the other way round. I know that it is a huge joke—even we goat keepers have fun about it—but it is a serious matter. We have already had one year when goat breeding has been impossible and we are now well into the breeding season for goats for this year. Goats must surely be low on the priority list of animals with regard to possible infection with foot and mouth disease. Could not some kind of concession be made for them? I support the noble Lord, Lord Livsey.

Earl Peel

My Lords, I spoke to the amendment at Third Reading but I did not vote for it because I believed that the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, was wrong to specify eight weeks. But that is irrelevant.

I support the comments made by my noble friend Lord Monro. When I spoke to the amendment, I was looking for some degree of assurance from the Minister that he was considering very seriously ways of getting round the 20-day restriction. I did not feel that we heard any.

There is no question or doubt that the restriction is causing enormous difficulties. In my part of the world, the uplands of North Yorkshire, I hear constantly from farmers that this issue has to be resolved. Everyone acknowledges the need for sensible measures of control, but I urge the Minister to look at the matter urgently. It has to be resolved, otherwise the obvious disadvantage will continue.

Lord Carter

My Lords, on a procedural point, the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, will not be able to insist on his amendment because he has not tabled a Motion to do so. Some years ago I was responsible for ensuring that the procedure we follow on Commons amendments is the same as the one we follow when dealing with amendments to a Bill. The noble Lord would need to table a Motion to insist on the amendment or a further amendment in lieu.

The noble Lord was concerned about the word automatically in the Commons reason—it is not an amendment from the Commons but a reason, and we all know what happens when there is a committee of reasons—but the word is correct. The noble Lord's amendment states "shall lapse"—it does not say "may lapse" so it would be automatic. Obviously for those on the committee of reasons, when they got their heads together, that was fairly logical.

I hope that my noble friend may find this point helpful. In considering what we can now do with the 20-day restriction, will he look at the proposal floated by the NFU, perhaps unofficially, that most well-run livestock farms have an animal health plan? We certainly did on the farms with which I was involved. We had a monthly visit from the vet as a part of that plan and he reported each month on how we performed against it. Such a plan could include arrangements for isolation of new animals on a farm. Most farms, in practice, isolate animals because of the risk of disease. They do not wish to mix the animals until the incubation period of a disease is out of the way. If the farmer could show that he had arrangements in place to isolate new animals as they come in, that could be perhaps a factor the department could take into account when considering what will replace the 20-day rule.

12.45 p.m.

Baroness Byford

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, for raising this issue again. He knew very well that it would put some of us in an awkward position because the amendment was technically flawed. The House has been very forbearing in accepting a technically flawed amendment and it has given us an opportunity to discuss a very important issue. I am convinced that the noble Lord would not dream of pushing the matter to a vote, but it has given our colleagues in another place an opportunity to consider an issue on which there has been no movement for a year. As my noble friends Lord Monro and Lord Peel said, this is a very real issue.

Can the Minister tell the House why Scotland is able to work a more flexible scheme and yet this Government, a year later, have stated that England cannot do the same? That does not seem logical. My right honourable friend David Curry, and other colleagues who farm on the Border, said yesterday that they find themselves in an impossible position. They can take certain actions on one side of the Border and yet cannot take them on the other side. I should like an answer to that question because the situation seems totally illogical. If the debate does nothing else but move the Government forward with a degree of urgency, it will have been well worth while.

Can the Minister say whether the proposals for the action strategy they have in hand will not be implemented until summer 2003? We need clarification on this because summer 2003 is nine months away and the issue is still causing a problem.

My noble friend Lord Monro raised the important question of whether we will still be in the same position in future if further disease control measures need to be put in place. Is the Minister hopeful that the research and negotiations the Government are currently undertaking will ensure that in the future we will not have to go through what we are going through at the moment? In other words, will we have moved on or will we still be at square one if another outbreak should occur in one or two years' time? Will these arrangements stay in place for X number of years? We have no idea. This is an urgent matter.

In the context of the more general debate, my next question of the Minister may seem a little light, but again it is important. The noble Countess, Lady Mar, referred to the breeding season for rams and ewes, but we should like to know about the directions that the Government will give to those people organising agricultural shows for next season. It is a small point but it is of huge importance.

In my home county, Leicestershire, the agricultural shows start in May and contracts should be signed now. There is no permanent showground and any extra events constitute big commitments. Because it is among the earlier shows, a decision has to be taken early on whether there will be no livestock animals apart from horses. This is a very urgent problem because we cannot afford to wait until February.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth

My Lords, I endorse what the noble Baroness has said. In our area alone there are 48 shows between 20th May and 15th September and there are huge problems.

Baroness Byford

My Lords, the organisers of the shows need to know whether movement restrictions will be lifted. As the Minister knows, some made a loss last year. They can sustain a loss for one year. but they will find it very difficult to sustain a loss for a second year.

I am sure that most noble Lords know that such shows raise money for charity. One of the attractions is that people not only see good quality livestock but the shows promote a better understanding among those who do not live and work in the countryside of how their food is produced. The opportunity for people to see the animals, stroke the animals and be with the animals is under threat. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, for giving me the opportunity to raise the issue.

So I have two questions for the Minister. First, will there be any change in the position with Scotland and why cannot we adopt the Scottish system? Secondly, will he address the question of the future for those organising agricultural shows?

Lord Whitty

My Lords, as I predicted, this debate is taking place on two different levels—that is, first, whether the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, is appropriate and, secondly, what are we going to do now about the 20-day standstill.

As to the first question, it has been widely recognised that the eight-week provision is not appropriate and that we do not have before us any alternative. The point is not, as the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, implied, how long it takes to do a risk assessment and what is the veterinary advice in that period, but whether we would be able to provide our trading partners with sufficient assurance if we lifted the restrictions four or five weeks before the earliest point at which the trading arrangements could be lifted.

A number of factors persuaded the EU and the OIE to lift the restrictions earlier. In my opinion, one was that we still had restrictions in place; hence, three months would not be appropriate either. The restrictions would have to continue up to some point beyond that. Obviously, the issue arises of whether the length of the period should be, for example, three months, 10 months or 13 months. But that is not the issue before us. Noble Lords on all sides of the House would not wish to support an eight-week period. Even were the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, able under our procedures, so ably contrived by my noble friend Lord Carter, to press such an amendment, it would not receive significant support. It is incumbent on me to respond to the many issues raised in regard to the present situation. First, it is not true that we have remained rigid over the 20-day rule. There have been substantial relaxations, both in Scotland and in England and Wales, compared with the period when the disease finished; and a substantial number of exemptions were provided for the current breeding season.

Secondly, the inquiries recognise—as do many responsible elements within the farming community—that whatever we do for February and beyond, we are not reverting to the status quo ante. There will always be some form of greater restriction on the movement of animals than existed previously, in terms of actual movements and traceability. One of the concerns—and one of the reasons why this country is in some ways different from our European partners—is the rapidity of movement, particularly of sheep, which was revealed in its totality in terms of tracing movements and the spread of the disease in the early weeks, in February and March last year. That indicates that some restriction on movement will continue to be necessary.

We shall be in a position to take at least the emerging findings of the cost-benefit analysis and the risk assessment at the end of this year. We hope to be able to introduce a regime that will come closer to being a more permanent one in time for the major spring movements of animals next year. Under the current devolution arrangements, that will be for England and Wales.

On occasions, devolution leads to different regimes. We keep in close contact with our Scottish colleagues and, in conjunction with the all the devolved Ministers, we recognise that it would be helpful if we could move closer, if not to a single system at least to a compatible system. However, the devolution settlement allows us to reach different judgments on the basis of the same facts and on the basis of somewhat different facts in terms of the structure and size of farms in Scotland as compared with those in England. The Scottish Executive has for the moment taken a different decision from that taken in England and Wales. That will be one of the considerations that we shall bear in mind when we examine alternatives to the 20-day rule beyond February.

Part of those alternatives may well involve other biosecurity measures. My noble friend Lord Carter and the NFU have referred to the requirements on animal health plans, which of themselves could include provisions on movement in farm and off farm and the provision of isolation facilities on farm. That may be part of a longer-term solution. It is a very heavy responsibility on government to ensure that the situation that arose in February and March last year, in terms of the rapidity of spread of the disease, never occurs again. At this point, we believe that that will involve some continuous restriction on movement, even if it is not in the form of the current 20-day rule. We hope to base future decisions on both scientific and economic assessment, and also on widespread consultation with the farming community and with our devolved colleagues. However, it would not be right to give the House the impression that, come February, we should return to the situation that existed before 2001.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth

My Lords, before the Minister sits down, will he acknowledge the situation in Wales, where sheep farming is of much greater importance? There are more sheep in Wales, for example, than there are in the whole of Scotland. What assurance can he give that administration of these policies by the National Assembly for Wales will take account of the matters to which I referred?

Lord Whitty

My Lords, I recognise that the operation in compliance with the 20-day rule causes greater difficulty among sheep farmers in the uplands; therefore, in Wales, a large proportion of the agricultural community are faced with a more difficult situation than farmers in lowland England or cattle farmers in the lowlands—where the 20-day rule, although at times irritating, is not a major imposition. Therefore, the situation in the uplands and in Wales will be taken into account. I cannot speak for the devolved administration. However, I can say that it has made its views and those of the farming community in Wales well known to us and to the State Veterinary Service, which serves both administrations. That will be taken fully into account in making the final decision.

It is probably strictly out of order for me to have talked about the 20-day rule as of now and in the future. So far as concerns the amendment previously carried by this House, I do not think that it would be appropriate. I therefore commend acceptance of the Commons' amendment removing the clause.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT

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

"(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

Lord Whitty

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 14A to Lords Amendment No. 14. In so doing, I shall refer to the other amendments in this group, all of which deal with the warrant procedure.

The Commons have not accepted the amendments inserted by this House in this respect. I recognise the degree of feeling on these amendments, but I emphasise that it was one of the central pillars of the Bill that we adopted a procedure which speeded up the ability to adopt strategies both on slaughter and on access for vaccination and testing purposes for the effective conduct and control of foot and mouth or any other disease. The provisions cover entry to farms for all of those purposes and in relation to the scrapie provisions as well.

Before we returned the Bill to the Commons, this House had already tabled a number of safeguards relating to the way in which the warrant procedure would be carried out. But I cannot accept the basic proposition previously carried by this House on representations to the magistrate and the delay that that would build into the system, and the unprecedented effect that it would have on other equivalent warrant procedures.

I have pointed out on a number of occasions the fact that the occupier of the premises or the owner of the livestock has other means of making representations. In particular, he has the right to make representations to the divisional veterinary manager. It has been a tendency in this House in discussing this matter previously to dismiss that as not likely to lead to any change in the situation because the DVM is merely part of the administrative structure which is carrying out—noble Lords did not put it quite this way—the diktats from the centre, and in any case it would uphold the decision of its vet on the ground.

It is worth spelling out that that was not actually the case during the last epidemic. Because of the speed of events during the control, full information was not always available. But we now know how many representations were made to DVMs and their outcome. During the outbreak, in the most contentious area—the area of contiguous cull—534 appeals, all relating to the contiguous cull, were made to the DVM. Of those appeals, 336 were upheld. In other words, significantly over half of the appeals to the DVM were dealt with rapidly and the majority were upheld. So, contrary to the view put forward in this House, in the farming press and elsewhere, that procedure provided some means of representation. It also provided a significant means of relief in cases where it was clear to the DVM that a contiguous cull was not appropriate or had been misinterpreted in the circumstances. That is a substantial indication that current provision for occupiers and the owners of livestock already gives significant protection.

Having moved to warrant procedures, were we to go the other way by requiring occupiers to make a farm al representation to the magistrate, delay would be inevitable. The magistrate would need to consider the representation and take legal advice on the grounds for representation. It would slow down the process. But the key element of all inquiries and all commentary on how the operation was carried out was that it needed to be speeded up. One of the problems during the previous epidemic was that the strategy was not effectively carried out in certain areas within an effective timescale. That applies to culling for all purposes, including disease on infected premises, as contained in various amendments. It also applies to the administration of tests and of vaccines. For all those reasons, the authorities need access as rapidly as possible. Any slowdown is therefore not appropriate.

We provide occupiers with an appeal through the DVM, so their human rights are not infringed. The DVM has exercised appeals with a high degree of judgment. Even during the fraught times of the previous epidemic, over half of the appeals were upheld. Moreover, other provision exists in the form of injunctions and judicial review, neither of which are affected by our clauses. The House has been reminded many times, not least by my noble friend Lord Carter, that the Joint Committee on Human Rights has always said that the provisions do not infringe the European Convention on Human Rights.

I am aware of the strength of feeling about the matter in the House. But I am afraid that I cannot accept the views previously taken by this House on including in the Bill these representation rights and the connected rights that would have been inserted by previous amendments adopted by the House. I therefore draw the House's attention to the provision for farmers to make representations to the DVM. That is a sufficient guarantee as are the standard legal provisions on the ability to seek an injunction.

I beg to move that the House accepts the Commons deletion of those amendments and recognises that the provision that the Government seek and is now in the Commons version of the Bill will be appropriate in any future outbreak.

Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 14A to Lords Amendment No. 14.—(Lord Whiny.)

14B Lord Greaves

rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 14A to Lords Amendment No. 14, leave out "agree" and insert "disagree".

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 22B, 35B and 65B.

This is the last big ditch at the end of this Bill that we must cross, or not cross as the case may be. It is the last major item of contention that has run throughout the passage of the Bill. We regret that the Government have been unable to concede, or at least to move further, on the fundamental issues behind the amendment; first, to give people the right to see the sworn information on the basis of which the magistrate will make a decision, and, secondly, the right to put their view to the magistrate before that decision is made. We want those two rights to be written into the Bill. This House approved them previously, and the other place has now removed them, which is why we are discussing them again today.

It is only three days since we had a fundamental, long debate on the matter. I do not want to repeat everything I said then or to go through the issues. But I want to pick up remarks made on behalf of the Government since then. Having read the comments of Elliot Morley as reported in yesterday's House of Commons Hansard, and having listened to the Minister today, it is clear that there are two main issues. The first is the question of delays, which we have discussed in great detail. We simply do not accept that this procedure would introduce a huge and unacceptable delay. There is a clear difference of view. Elliott Morley said:

The risk is that we would have further delays if the court then required additional expert evidence, or if there were an application for legal aid".—[Official Report, Commons 6/11/02; co1.368.]

That is reading into our proposal something that is simply not there. We are simply suggesting that people have the right to put their view directly to the magistrate who is making the decision about the warrant. To talk about courts, legal aid, et cetera, is simply to fail to understand our proposal.

There was much interesting discussion in the other place yesterday about the role of the DVM. The statistics that the Minister gave us today were cited there also. Interesting questions were put by my honourable friend David Heath, among others, about the relationship between the appeal application to the DVM against a slaughter of stock, as part of a contiguous cull or a wider cull, and the application for the warrant. From my reading of Hansard, no satisfactory answer was given to that. In particular, questions were asked about whether the knowledge that the application to the DVM had been made would be provided automatically to the magistrate. That is not clear to me, and a clear answer was not given yesterday. Secondly, it was asked whether, if the DVM upheld the appeal, the application for the warrant could still go ahead in those circumstances, and, if it did, whether the reasons for the appeal being upheld by the DVM would be provided to the justice of the peace before making a decision. The relationship between the two processes is not clear. I do not believe that it was clarified in the other place yesterday. Quite apart from the merits of this amendment, it will be helpful if the Minister could clarify it today.

My honourable friend Andrew George said yesterday that this was an acceptable and progressive measure. I would add that it is also a very modest one. It will help to increase trust on all sides in the process. It will lead to fairer decisions and therefore to fewer time-consuming appeals, whether for judicial review or to the High Court for injunctions. It is therefore likely to speed up the process rather than slow it down in critical cases. It is certainly likely to reduce the number of occasions on which disgruntled occupiers of property—farmers or whoever—try to keep people out physically and cause all that kind of aggravation.

We therefore believe that this remains a sensible although modest amendment and we would like to pursue it. I beg to move.

Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 14A to Lords Amendment No. 14, leave out "agree" and insert "disagree".—(Lord Greaves.)

Lord Jopling

My Lords, we have all discussed these matters on a good many occasions during the passage of the Bill through your Lordships' House. I feel just as strongly now as I have always felt in favour of the amendment as we sent it to another place.

I very much hope that at the end of the debate we shall divide on the amendment and insist on it. I also very much hope that we shall win that vote so that the amendment goes again to another place. We are in danger of getting into a protracted phase of parliamentary ping-pong.

I shall take my life in my hands and risk infuriating my noble friends, and maybe some Liberal Democrats and Cross-Benchers as well. I passionately hope that we defeat the Government, but if we are looking for a compromise somewhere, I wonder if I might have the temerity to suggest how we might arrive at one in which we who believe strongly in this can give up something and so can the Government.

I understand perfectly the problem of delay. I suggest that, in the event of the Government losing a vote on this matter and the amendment going back to another place, the Minister might use his good offices with his friends in the Government there to propose that maybe paragraph (e) could be deleted. That is the provision for the opportunity to present sworn information in person or in writing to a justice of the peace. Paragraph (d) could also be altered. I fully acknowledge that my drafting is not professional, but my suggested compromise wording is something like:

he has been provided with an opportunity to make written representations to the justice of the peace within six hours of being informed under subsection (5)(c), excepting the hours between 8 p.m. and 8 a.m.".

That proposal may infuriate some of my friends, who may accuse me of selling the pass. As one who has spent time looking for compromises in one role or another, I wonder whether this is a compromise that the Government might accept in another place. Having said that, I passionately hope they are defeated when we come to a Division.

Earl Peel

My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, perhaps he can explain his proposal further. His wording refers to written evidence. Presumably if the occupier or his legal representative were prepared to attend in person, that would also suffice.

Lord Jopling

My Lords, that was the pass that I may have sold. My proposal to delete subsection (5)(e) might take away the opportunity for those concerned to appear in person. That is exactly why I felt the dagger poised over my heart.

1.15 p.m.

Lord Monson

My Lords, I have a possible alternative compromise that goes even nearer the Government's position. Following the helpful explanation by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, I can just about see that the Government might possibly have a case for wanting paragraphs (d) and (e) deleted, but I can see no case for trying to truncate paragraph (c). Why on earth should not the farmer be given a full explanation for the issuing of the warrant?

Lord Carter

My Lords, I was interested to hear how the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, thought the amendment would work. I am told that it would be a new procedure in the magistrates' court. It is unprecedented to allow representations on a warrant. He dismissed the idea of legal aid. Does he also dismiss the idea of legal representation? Is the farmer to do this himself in person? If not, and if he requires legal assistance, presumably he would also be eligible for legal aid. The noble Lord seems to brush that aside.

I am not sure what procedure the noble Lord envisages for the representation to be made in front of the magistrate. It is probable that a farmer who wished to do that would intend to seek some legal help. The procedure is unprecedented. I am sure that the noble Lord has thought through exactly how his proposal would work in a magistrates' court.

I do not apologise for replying to the point that I made before about the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. It is an important committee. The House understandably and correctly calls it in aid when the committee criticises the Government. We should bear in mind its conclusions when it supports the Government.

I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Peel. I do not have the Hansard for our previous debate in front of me, so I shall have to paraphrase his memorable words. He said that we are not talking about human rights here; we are talking about justice. That threw a new light on the whole legal process.

Finally, speaking as an ex-Chief Whip, we know that if the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats vote together they have 100 more votes than the Government, if everyone is here. Everyone will not be here, but there will still be enough to defeat the Government. If the amendment is sent back, an interesting situation will arise. We know that the Opposition can defeat the Government if they vote together on any occasion on which they wish to do so. We then have to reflect on the previous convention that we used to observe that the elected Chamber should finally have its way. I hope that that will not be called into question with ping-pong. If there is a vote I hope that we win it. If we do not, the House will have to think very carefully about what happens when the amendment comes back.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, keeps referring to the fact that the Joint Committee said that this was not incompatible with the Bill as drafted. It is not. Nobody has said that it is. The noble Lord misses the point that it is the implementation of these provisions by the Secretary of State that can engage and inevitably will engage the convention requirements if they do not accord with the minimum requirements of natural justice. They engage not only the convention provisions, but the very heart of our own administration of justice.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jopling. I had already crossed out paragraph (e) because it is not essential. We are concerned with the absolute bare minimum essentials of our administration of justice. I shall go on voting and voting for this, even if I go down, because I cannot conceive of the injustice. If you cannot have a copy of the sworn information and an opportunity to make some representations, the issue of that warrant—as I think I have said before—is merely a rubber stamp for slaughter. That is wholly unacceptable.

I hope that I can have the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for a moment, because he also dealt with the minutiae of procedure. Perhaps I may point out to him that it is the obligation of the Secretary of State to devise and implement a procedure that accords with our principle of natural justice. It is for him to do that, in his own interests and in the interests of the farmer or the occupier. If the Secretary of State does not do so, the High Court has a supervisory jurisdiction to strike down the wrong decision.

However, it does not end at that point because the Bill pre-empts that jurisdiction only to the extent that you cannot stop the slaughter of the animals, but it does not pre-empt the jurisdiction of the High Court later to adjudicate on the matter. The High Court will say that there was a manifest injustice, and order compensation for the animals that have been slaughtered because the owners have been caused misery. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, is a farmer and that he understands all about the practical problems involved, which I do not; indeed, I have never pretended to do so. However, I do understand the rudiments of justice. There is no reason for this disagreement: the delay is minimal.

As for the question of representation posed by my noble friend Lord Peel, I should have thought that the man could go along himself, unrepresented, so long as he is allowed to appear before the magistrate and has the grounds for the warrant with him. I am not insisting on an elaborate legal procedure; I am insisting on the bare minimum concepts of justice.

I ask the Minister to reconsider the matter. I know that he has heard me on the issue before, and the House has been patient with me on previous occasions, but some of us simply cannot accept this. It is not a question of confronting the Government. We are trying to help the Government to do what they should do; namely, to administer the statutory provisions of the first and second conditions and to do so within the rules of fair and due administration. That is all we ask.

The Countess of Mar

My Lords, I support noble Lords in their defence of the original amendment, although I may perhaps agree about paragraph (e). The noble Lord, Lord Carter, speaks with great authority. We have huge respect for him as a former Chief Whip, but sometimes he talks a lot of rubbish.

A magistrate does not have to sit in the splendour—

Lord Carter

The noble Countess has used an unparliamentary phrase.

The Countess of Mar

I apologise to the noble Lord. But he misleads the House when he says that people have to go to a magistrates' court in order to make an application to a magistrate. In fact, a magistrate can deal with such matters in his dressing gown, complete with bedroom slippers, while sitting in his armchair at home. There is no reason why Farmer Giles, say, should not make such an application dressed in his Wellington boots and an old jacket. The process should not take many minutes.

It may be helpful to the House if I point out that mistakes are made. Of all the infected premises that were culled out, 41.2 per cent in Wales, 34.5 per cent in Scotland, and 20.6 per cent in England were incorrectly diagnosed. As for the percentage of farms tested positive for FMD, in Wales the figure was 7.4 per cent, in Scotland the figure was 7 per cent, and in England the figure was 16.3 per cent. So hundreds of farms were culled out when there was no disease present. The farmers were aware of the situation, but had no means by which they could gain redress at that time.

The Minister will have rather a difficult task in trying to prove his point. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, may well call upon precedents, and other measures, but your Lordships also have a duty to perform in ensuring that the law is right before it is enacted.

Baroness Byford

My Lords, I rise to speak to the Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. As noble Lords will remember, the original amendment gathered support from all sides of the House. It is not a party-political issue. We are only sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, is not able to be present today. If she were here, I am sure that she would strongly support us. If I remember correctly, I believe she said that it is no use appealing after your animals are already dead, because they are gone. We should bear that in mind.

I am intrigued by my noble friend's suggestion. As ever, he is a very wise person and a very experienced parliamentarian. As he was speaking, I wrote myself a little note saying, "At the end of the day it is the art of the possible". Perhaps the Liberal Democrats will look again at this amendment. I hope that we send it back to the other place. But, should it be returned to us, perhaps those in another place will consider the suggestions that have been made—for example, that paragraph (e) might be an area that we could revisit.

There are a few important issues that I wish briefly to mention. First, I should remind the House that we are not talking about killing infected animals; we are talking about healthy animals. Secondly, the Government keep saying that they believe this provision would cause delay. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, said that it may be a small delay. There will be delay because, in any event, the DVM must make representations to magistrates. I cannot see the difficulty at that point in the farmer, or someone speaking on his behalf, being there at the same time so that such a discussion can take place. I accept that there may be a few minutes extra delay, but both matters could be dealt with at the same time.

I also remind noble Lords that the evidence presented in the National Audit Office's June 2002 report clearly states that,

the three main factors contributing to delays in slaughter were: shortages of resources, of vets, of value men, of slaughtermen, and equipment".

Under inspection and diagnosis protocols, the report goes on to state that,

occasionally delays may have occurred when laboratory tests or initial tests were inconclusive".

Initial requirements for such visits are also set out in the report; namely, that the department's vet should check on all livestock before carrying out a detailed clinical examination of the infected animals.

The NAO lays down those three causes of delay very clearly. Therefore, the Government should not say that their amendment, which we are trying again to reject, will solve the problem. That was not the main cause of the problem last time: the problem was as stated in the NAO report. Let us not be misled by that particular argument. My noble friend Lord Jopling said that he feels as strongly now on these matters as he did previously. I share that feeling. As each day goes on and I become more tired, I feel it even more strongly. I hope that other noble Lords will support this Motion.

My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway is quite right: what we are looking for is basic, natural justice and what should be seen to be done on people's behalf. Although the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, claims that 346 representations to the DVM out of the 534 were upheld, does he recognise that a large number of those were upheld only after they had been won through a High Court case? I am referring in particular to MAFF v Upton. Such decisions are not much use after the animals have already gone. We have therefore brought back our proposal, which I believe that the Government should now accept.

I return to an earlier point. We are trying to ensure that the public can feel that all new legislation is fair and just. Neither noble Lords nor, I suspect, millions of other people believe that this provision is fair and just. I hope that we shall resolutely say to the Government, We think that you have it wrong. We hope that, after this short debate, you will think again". We are anxious to build bridges. We have had the Curry investigation into the future of food and farming, and the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, has been appointed to examine the way in which DEFRA works. The Government seem to be saying, "We are approaching these issues with a blank sheet and nothing has been finalised. We are here to talk and to listen. In this case, however, we are not willing to listen". I hope that noble Lords are resolute in this matter.

1.30 p.m.

Lord Whitty

My Lords, I am as always willing to listen. I am not, however, willing to take on board an amendment, or a reversion to an amendment, that would seriously undermine our ability to control future disease. That is what noble Lords on the Opposition Benches are proposing.

The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, referred to this as a last ditch, and the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, asked us to try to bridge it. Frankly, however, there is a difference of approach here that is very difficult to bridge. I have tried to point out that the concessions and changes which we have already built into the legislation—such as what the magistrate has to take into account—already provide a huge number of safeguards. I have also pointed out, as my honourable friend Elliot Morley has pointed out in another place, that, even without these new safeguards, the rights of a significant number of livestock owners are already protected by the DVM administrative procedure under the previous regime.

The whole point of this Bill is to enable us to administer more effectively control mechanisms—whether vaccination, testing or slaughter, and regardless of the status of animals—to achieve the rapid curtailment of a disease that is enormously damaging to the whole of the livestock industry and to the economies of huge swathes of rural England.

I know that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, and others feel very strongly about the human rights dimension of this. However, I do not believe—nor, as I said, does the Joint Committee on Human Rights believe—that these provisions infringe those human rights. The provisions that already exist for appeal to the DVM clearly demonstrate that that process upholds the ability to raise those issues.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

My Lords, I have no interest to declare; I have just resigned from the Joint Committee on Human Rights. However, I know the Committee's reports as I have read them all. The noble Lord is under a misapprehension. It is true, as I tried to explain once, that the Bill as drafted does not infringe human rights. It is the implementation of it without regard to natural justice which also engages articles of the convention.

Lord Whitty

My Lords, I accept that point. We are, however, dealing with the Bill which is before us. In the Government's judgment and in the judgment of the Joint Committee, nothing in this Bill infringes human rights. As I have also pointed out, the way in which this process is operated—under the administrative appeal, if one cares to call it that, to the DVM—clearly upholds human rights without infringing or jeopardising the ability to deal with this disease as rapidly as possible.

Lord Willoughby de Broke

My Lords, the noble Lord gives us no reassurance on the implementation of appeals through the DVM. As my noble friend Lady Byford pointed out, however, the majority of those successful appeals were carried out after the Government had lost the Upton case—the Grunty the Pig case. Prior to that, most of those appeals were dismissed. It was only after that that the DVM realised that it had no grounds for upholding continuation of the contiguous cull.

Lord Whitty

My Lords, that is a strange and erroneous interpretation of that case. However, even if everything that the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, has just said were true, in future outbreaks, the magistrates would have to take those decisions into account—as the adjustment in the outlook would have to be taken into account—when they considered appeals. So I do not think that that point destroys my central argument.

In their positive response to the Government's response yesterday to the inquiry reports, noble Lords accepted that we are moving to a more positive, constructive and engaging way of dealing with future disease. The basis of that approach is the availability of a range of possible weapons against disease, among which vaccination should be given greater priority. However, to be able to vaccinate and test as well as to slaughter, we need these powers of entry, and we need those powers to be operational and to be rapidly deliverable. As I said, one criticism which the inquiry made and many people underlined during our campaign against the disease was that we were not carrying that out quickly enough and that we were therefore allowing the spread of the disease.

The noble Lords, Lord Jopling and Lord Monson, have suggested some compromises, none of which is before us now. If I understood the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, aright, although he would delete the part of the amendments that constitutes probably the largest element of the delay, he would then build in a six-hour delay, excluding the period between 8 p.m. and 8 a.m. The noble Lord may wish to correct me, but I believe that that exclusion could amount to 18 hours' delay. In dealing with such a virulent disease which can spread as rapidly as this one, a delay of 18, 12 or even six hours is an important restraint on the authority's ability to curtail the disease. I do not think that the farming community, if it thought about it, would be prepared to accept that as part of the normal procedure in dealing with this disease. The Government's judgment is that it would certainly not be in the livestock industry's interests to build in the restraint to the process for dealing with any future disease. Therefore, although I understand the passion on the other side of this argument, I think that the proposal is seriously misplaced. It is certainly not in the interests of the livestock industry of Great Britain. I should therefore hope that noble Lords will not press Amendment No. 14B, but will agree to Commons Amendment No. 14A.

Lord Greaves

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have participated in this debate, to which I listened carefully. I have been trying to decide whether any of the points raised today have not been adequately dealt with by any of those who spoke, and I have come to the view that there are very few. I shall not repeat the points that others have made. It is time that we made a decision on this matter.

I must, however, challenge one of the Minister's comments. He said that these amendments seriously undermine the Government's strategy. That is nonsense. We have gone out of our way to be as modest as we can, precisely because we do not wish to undermine the strategy. We are talking about a few hours at the very most. It is therefore incorrect to suggest that the amendments would drive a coach and horses through the provision. As we all know, in the most recent outbreak, the delay had nothing to do with this kind of procedure but everything to do with administrative competence or incompetence. That is the issue that will determine whether a future outbreak can be dealt with properly. Our ability to do that will not be determined by whether or not people have absolutely minimal rights—not to go to court, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, suggested, but to express their point of view when the magistrate is making the decision.

The only other thing I want to say is that I hope that the measure will be sent back to another place. I hope that, when it is, or if it is, the Government will seriously consider some of the compromises that have been suggested because I believe that compromise is possible here. If the Government make some effort to compromise, I shall certainly accept that. Clearly, I do not want to be here until this time tomorrow sending the measure backwards and forwards and I am sure that no one would support such a step in the Lobbies. Having said that, I ask the House to agree to Amendment No. 14B.

The Deputy Speaker (Viscount Allenby of Megiddo)

My Lords, the original Question was that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 14A to Lords Amendment No. 14, since when an amendment has been moved to leave out "agree" and insert "disagree". The Question is that this amendment be agreed to.

1.40 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 14B) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 144; Not-Contents, 108.

Division No. 1
CONTENTS
Addington, L.	Kingsland, L.
Allenby of Megiddo, V.	Laing of dunphail, L.
Ampthill, L.	Linklater of Butterstone, B.
Anelay of St Johns, B.	Liverpool, E.
Arran, E.	Livsey of Talgarth, L.
Astor, V.	Luke, L.
Astor of Hever, L.	Lyell, L.
Attlee, E.	MacGregor of Pulham Market, L.
Avebury, L.
Barker, B.	Maddock, B.
Beaumont of Whitley, L.	Mar, C.
Biffen, L.	Mar and Kellie, E.
Blaker, L.	Marlesford, L.
Blatch, B.	Mayhew of Twysden, L.
Boardman, L.	Miller of Hendon, B.
Bowness, L.	Molyneaux of Killead, L.
Brabazon of Tara, L.	Morro of Langholm, L.
Bradshaw, L.	Monson, L.
Bridgeman, V.	Moran, L.
Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.	Mowbray and Stourton, L.
Brougham and Vaux, L.	Moynihan, L.
Burnham, L.	Murton of Lindisfarne, L.
Buscombe, B.	Newby, L.
Byford, B.	Newton of Braintree, L.
Campbell of Alloway, L.	Noakes, B.
Carlisle of Bucklow, L.	Northbrook, L.
Carnegy of Lour, B.	Northover, B.
Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]	Norton of Louth, L.
Craig of Radley, L.	O'Cathain, B.
Craigavon, V.	Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.
Crathome, L.	Oxfuird, V.
Crickhowell, L.	Park of Monmouth, B.
Cuckney, L.	Pearson of Rannoch, L.
Denham, L.	Peel, E.
Dixon-Smith, L.	Perry of Walton, L.
Dundee, E.	Pillcington of Oxenford, L.
Elis-Thomas, L.	Quinton, L.
Elles, B.	Razzall, L.
Elliott of Morpeth, L.	Reay, L.
Elton, L.	Redesdale, L.
Rather, B.	Rennard, L.
Fookes, B.	Renton, L.
Fowler, L.	Renton of Mount Harry, L.
Garel-Jones, L.	Roberts of Conwy, L.
Geddes, L.	Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.
Glenarthur, L.	Roper, L.
Glentoran, L.	Russell, E.
Goschen, V.	Russell-Johnston, L.
Greaves, L.	Ryder of Wensum, L.
Greenway, L.	Saatchi, L.
Hamwee, B.	St. John of Bletso, L.
Harris of Richmond, B.	Sandberg, L.
Henley, L.	Sanderson of Bowden, L.
Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.	Scott of Needham Market, B.
Howe, E.	Seccombe, B.
Howe of Aberavon, L.	Selsdon, L.
Howe of Idlicote, B.	Sharp of Guildford. B.
Howell of Guildford, L.	Sharples, B.
Hunt of Wirral, L.	Shaw of Northstead, L.
Jacobs, L.	Shrewsbury, E.
Jellicoe, E.	Shutt of Greetland, L. [Teller]
Jenkin of Roding, L.	Smith of Clifton, L.
Jopling, L.	Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Stewartby, L.	Thomson of Monifieth, L.
Stoddart of Swindon, L	Tope, L.
Strange, B.	Trefgarne, L.
Strathclyde, L.	Wade of Chorlton, L.
Swinfen, L.	Wallace of Saltaire, L.
Taverne, L.	Walmsley, B.
Tebbit, L.	Watson of Richmond, L.
Thomas of Gwydir, L.	Wilcox, B.
Thomas of Walliswood, B.	Williams of Crosby, B.
	Willoughby de Broke, L.

NOT-CONTENTS
Acton, L.	Harrison, L.
Ahmed, L.	Haskel, L.
Andrews, B.	Hayman, B.
Ashton of Upholland, B.	Hollis of Heigham, B.
Bach, L.	Howells of St. Davids, B.
Bassam of Briahton, L.	Howie of Troon, L.
Berkeley, L.	Hoyle, L.
	Billingham, B.
Hughes of Woodside, L.
Blackstone, B.	Hunt of Kings Heath, L.
	Borne, L.
Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)
Bragg, L.
	Brennan, L.
Jay of Paddington, B.
Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.	Jones, L.
	Brookman, L.
Jordan, L.
Brooks of Tremorfa. L.	Judd, L.
	Bruce of Donington, L.
Layard, L.
Burlison, L.	Lea of Crondall, L.
	Campbell-Savours, L.
Lipsey, L.
Carter, L.	Lockwood, B.
	Chandos, V.
Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.
Chorley, L.	Macdonald of Tradeston, L.
	Christopher, L.
McIntosh of Haringey, L.
Clark of Windermere, L.	[Teller]
	Clarke of Hampstead, L.
MacKenzie of Culkein, L.
Clinton-Davis., L.	Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.
	Corbett of Castle Vale, L.
Mason of Barnsley, L.
Crawley, B.	Merlyn-Rees, L.
	David, B.
Milner of Leeds, L.
Davies of Oldham, L.	Mitchell, L.
	Desai, L.
Morgan, L.
Dixon, L.	Morgan of Huyton, B.
	Donoughue, L.
Morris of Aberavon, L.
Dubs, L.	Parekh, L.
	Elder, L.
Pendry, L.
Evans of Parkside, L.	Radice, L.
	Evans of Temple Guiting, L.
Ramsay of Cartvale, B.
Evans of Watford, L.	Randall of St. Budeaux, L.
	Falconer of Thoroton, L.
Rea, L.
Farrington of Ribbleton, B.	Rendell of Babergh, B.
	Faulkner of Worcester, L.
Rooker, L.
Filkin, L.	Sainsbury of Turville, L.
	Fitt, L.
Sawyer, L.
Gale, B.	Sewel, L.
	Gibson of Market Rasen, B.
Sheldon, L.
Gladwin of Clee, L.	Simon, V.
	Goldsmith, L.
Symons of Vernham Dean, B.
Gordon of Strathblane, L.	Taylor of Blackburn, L.
	Goudie, B.
Temple-Moms, L.
Gould of Potternewton, B.	Thornton, B.
	Graham of Edmonton, L.
Turner of Camden, B.
Greengross, B.	Walker of Doncaster, L.
	Grenfell, L.
Whitty, L.
Grocott, L. [Teller]	Wilkins, B.
	Hardy of Wath, L.
Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seal)
Harris of Haringey, L.	Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.

Motion, as amended, agreed to.

1.50 p.m.

LORDS AMENDMENT

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

Lord Whitty

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 22A to Lords Amendment No. 22.

Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 22A to Lords Amendment No. 22.—(Lord Whitty.)

22B Lord Greaves rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 22A to Lords Amendment No. 22, leave out "agree" and insert "disagree".

Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 22A to Lords Amendment No. 22, leave out "agree" and insert "disagree".—(Lord Greaves.)

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Motion, as amended, agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT

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;
909
5. 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

Lord Whitty

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 35A to Lords Amendment No. 35.

Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 35A to Lords Amendment No. 35.—(Lord Whitty.)

35B Lord Greaves

rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 35A to Lords Amendment No. 35, leave out "agree" and insert "disagree".

Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 35A to Lords Amendment No. 35, leave out "agree" and insert "disagree".—(Lord Greaves.)

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Motion, as amended, agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT

45 Before Clause 14, insert the following new Clause—

"Biosecurity guidance

In the 1981 Act the following sections are inserted after section 6 (eradication areas and attested areas)—

"6A Biosecurity guidance

(1) The Secretary of State must prepare guidance on the appropriate biosecurity measures to be taken in relation to—

1. (a) foot-and-mouth disease;
2. (b) such other disease as the Secretary of State by order specifies.

(2) After preparing a draft of the guidance the Secretary of State—

1. (a) must send a copy of the draft to such persons and organisations as he thinks are representative of those listed in section 6B (5) having an interest in biosecurity measures;
2. (b) must consider any representations made to him about the draft by such persons and organisations;
3. (c) may amend the draft accordingly.

1. (3) After the Secretary of State has proceeded under subsection(2) he must publish the guidance in such manner as he thinks appropriate and distribute it to registered owners and keepers of animals, registered animal hauliers, and any owner or manager of a registered slaughterhouse or slaughtering premises.
2. (4) The Secretary of State must from time to time review the guidance and if he thinks it appropriate revise the guidance.
3. (5) Subsections (1) to (3) apply to a revision of the guidance as they apply to its preparation.
910
4. (6) But if the Secretary of State thinks that it is necessary to revise the guidance urgently he may publish revised guidance without proceeding under subsection (2) provided that, in such a case, he includes in the guidance an explanation of why this was necessary.
5. (7) Biosecurity measures are measures taken to prevent the spread of causative agents of disease.
6. (8) Causative agent includes any virus, bacterium and any other organism or infectious substance which may cause or transmit disease.
7. (9) The power to make an order must be exercised by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
8. (10) It is immaterial that anything done for the purposes of subsections (1) to (3) is done before the passing of the Animal Health Act 2002.

6B Biosecurity compliance

1. (1) A person having a function under this Act relating to foot-and-mouth disease or a disease specified by order under section 6A(1) must not exercise the function unless the guidance under section 6A has been published and distributed to all those listed in section 6A(3) and has not been withdrawn
2. (2) Any act which is done in contravention of subsection (1) is done without lawful authority.
3. (3) If a person to whom subsection (5) applies fails to comply with the guidance he is not by reason only of that failure liable in any civil or criminal proceedings.
4. (4) But the guidance is admissible in evidence in such proceedings and a court may take account of any failure to act in accordance with it in deciding any question in the proceedings.
5. (5) This subsection applies to—

1. (a) any person having functions under this Act;
2. (b) any person who is the owner or occupier of premises on which animals are kept;
3. (c) any person who has charge of animals;
4. (d) any person who is under the direction of a person mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (c).""

The Commons agreed to this amendment with the following amendments—

45A Line 13, leave out listed in section 6B(5)

45B Line 45, leave out from published to and in line 46

Lord Whitty

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 45A and 45B to Lords Amendment No. 45.

In moving these two amendments—

The Countess of Mar

My Lords, it might be helpful to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, if I point out that I will not be moving my amendment. Will that save time?

Lord Whitty

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Countess.

Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 45A and 45B to Lords Amendment No. 45.—(Lord Whitty.)

The Deputy Speaker

My Lords, the Question is that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 45A and 45B to Lords Amendment No. 45.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

My Lords, I believe that the noble Countess has withdrawn her amendment. We are considering government Amendment No. 45A.

Lord Whitty

Amendment No. 45.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

Amendment No. 45?

The Deputy Speaker

My Lords, the Question is that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 45A and 45B to Lords Amendment No. 45.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT 47

Insert the following new clause—

"National contingency plan

Before section 15 of the 1981 Act (requirements on certain persons relating to animals infected with disease) there is inserted the following section—

"14A National contingency plan

(1) The appropriate authority must prepare a document (the national contingency plan) indicating the arrangements the authority intends to put in place for the purpose of dealing with any occurrence of—

1. (a) foot-and-mouth disease;
2. (b) such other disease as the authority by order specifies.

(2) The appropriate authority shall include—

1. (a) a three-yearly review of the world-wide incidence of each of the diseases listed in Schedule 2A;
2. (b) the resultant recommendation of steps to be taken in the United Kingdom to prevent the incidence of each disease listed in Schedule 2A;
3. (c) the incorporation of the steps identified in paragraph (b) into the national contingency plan;
4. (d) the implementation of the contingency plan upon the outbreak of any disease;
5. (e) the monitoring of the implementation of the contingency plan.

(3) The appropriate authority may investigate, recommend and implement vaccination programmes—

1. (a) for the emergency control of any disease listed in Schedule 2A in any animal species; and
2. (b) for the permanent control of all such diseases in animals in particular circumstances.

(4) After preparing a draft of the national contingency plan the appropriate authority—

1. (a) must send a copy of the draft to such persons and organisations as the authority thinks are representative of those having an interest in the arrangements;
2. (b) must consider any representations made to the authority about the draft by such persons and organisations;
3. (c) may amend the draft accordingly.

(5) After the appropriate authority has proceeded under subsection (4) the authority must—

1. (a) lay the plan before Parliament (unless subsection (11) applies);
2. (b) publish it in such manner as the authority thinks likely to bring it to the attention of persons who may be affected by the arrangements.

(6) The appropriate authority must from time to time (but not less frequently than at intervals of one year) review the plan and if the authority thinks it appropriate revise the plan.

(7) Subsections (4) and (5) apply to a revision of the plan as they apply to its preparation.

(8) The power to make an order must be exercised by statutory instrument.

(9) The instrument is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament (unless subsection (11) applies).

(10) The appropriate authority is—

1. (a) the Secretary of State in relation to England;
2. (b) the Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales acting jointly in relation to Wales (except for the purposes of subsection (1)(b));
3. the National Assembly for Wales in relation to Wales for the purposes of subsection (1)(b).

(11) This subsection applies to a plan prepared in relation to Wales.

(12) It is immaterial that anything done for the purposes of subsections (1), (4) and (5) (except the making of an order under subsection (1)(b)) is done before the passing of the Animal Health Act 2002.""

The Commons agreed to this amendment with the following amendment—

47A Leave out lines 12 to 29

Lord Whitty

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 47A to Lords Amendment No. 47.

This amendment relates to that part of the Bill that prescribes the form of the national contingency plan. Your Lordships' House inserted a number of amendments that, in the judgment of the Government and the Commons, were not appropriate for this part of the Bill or for the contingency plan. The whole point of the plan is to reflect the fact that during the 2001 epidemic it became clear that we were not fully prepared for an outbreak on that scale. The contingency plan will deal with an outbreak on any scale, including the form of last year's epidemic.

The main purpose of this provision, as it was originally drafted, is to provide an assurance that the Government are serious about being prepared and that the contingency plan is referred to in the Bill. Good contingency planning and better preparedness are highlighted in the two reports. The contingency plan, which was updated and issued yesterday, will fill many of the requirements of those reports. Clearly, the plans will be reviewed and amended as policies and facts change and develop. Proposals for emergency vaccination, for example, are being developed so that vaccination can be integrated into one overall plan, which will relate to all aspects of disease control policy.

The contingency plan will cover the control of diseases using culling and/or emergency vaccination as appropriate, and that will be done within the context of the relevant EU legislation. I anticipate that the final contingency plan will be laid for the first time before Parliament in spring 2003.

The approach to contingency planning is a risk-based approach. The plan spells out what we would do in the event of disease. The requirements that have been added to the original proposition—at new Sections 14A(2) and 14A(3)—do not relate to the purpose of the clause, which is to define a requirement for a contingency plan to deal with occurrences of the disease.

The change would not allow us to target our resources appropriately in that respect. New Section 14A(2) could require us to expend a great deal of resources in relation to all the diseases listed in Schedule 2A. That contingency plan will deal with foot and mouth and extend to other diseases.

The risk to the UK comes not only from countries that report honestly to OIE, but also from those that do not report the disease situation or where there is no mechanism—or no effective mechanism—to diagnose and report disease. That means that we have to have, in preparation for disease, surveillance information from OIE and elsewhere. In relation to the contingency plan when the disease breaks out, that is not relevant. That should have been in place prior to the contingency plan being triggered.

That is not to suggest that the concerns that lie behind the amendments are not being addressed. However, those provisions are relevant to prevention of the disease, surveillance and international co-operation; they are not part of what would happen once the disease was here and the contingency plan had been triggered. That is where the broader issues of strategy, to which the amendments relate, will arise. This provision relates to what we would do once the disease was regrettably here. The proposals are therefore extraneous to this part of the Bill. I do not object to the thought that is behind the amendments but it is not appropriate to include such matters in the list of items to be included in the contingency plan. I beg to move.

Moved, that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 47A to Lords Amendment No. 47.—(Lord Whitty.)

2 p.m.

47B Baroness Byford

rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 47A to Lords Amendment No. 47, leave out from "House" to end and insert "do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 47A, and do propose the following amendment in lieu thereof—

Leave out lines 24 to 29.

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation of the national contingency plan. Had it not been for the hard work in this House, I doubt very much that there would ever have been a national contingency plan on the face of the Bill.

As noble Lords will remember, when we returned on Monday 7th October, I apologised yet again for putting forward an amendment which dealt with strategy. One thing was obviously clear from the Bill as it stood in November last year; that is, it was a Bill designed to kill animals. It was not designed to look at other alternatives nor to look into the future. The long debate that we had then—I am grateful to all noble Lords who took part in it—was the start of moving the Bill in a different direction. The noble Lord, Lord Livsey, is nodding and, I believe, agrees with that. If I were to compliment him, I would have to say that it was the wonderful rare air in the Brecon Beacons that made that possible. We spent four days walking and discussing how to get the Bill to do what it was supposed to do.

The Bill is designed to control animal disease—God forbid that we have another outbreak in this country—and it is right that the Government have their legislation. However, at the same time, it is this Chamber's duty to scrutinise Bills, to ensure that they work, that they are representative and that they reflect the concerns of the wider community. We have spent days debating the balance of the Bill.

I repeat, as I have done on many occasions, that I am very grateful for the patience of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. He has been patient because the Bill has been in gestation for a long time. However, I believe that ultimately he will agree that what was a very bad Bill will leave this House a better one. Had it not been for the resolution that this House made in March, none of this would have been possible. The Bill would have been passed in April or May and we would probably now be revisiting the subject in a whole new Bill. I make no apology for challenging the Government and for trying to insert an additional direction on the national contingency plan. As the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and other noble Lords will have realised, I have deleted the third part of the original amendment. Having heard the Statement yesterday and having had a chance to read the debate, I am well aware that the Government have at last accepted the urgency and the degree of weight that should be placed on vaccination. I shall not go through that argument again. However, had that not been so, I would not have removed that part of the amendment because, although the wording stated may instigate—there was no question of must—I realise that there are implications for funding and others matters.

The amendment before the House requires a little more meat to be placed on the wretched skeleton that we have been debating for some time. In another place, Elliot Morley considered the first part of my amendment, which would have required a three-yearly review of exotic diseases, and commented that he did not consider that to be often enough. In reply, I say that a three-yearly review does not preclude a yearly or a six-monthly review being carried out if that is what is required, but it gives direction to the provision.

I shall not go over all the arguments because we have done so already. But I say again to the Minister that I hope that, even at this late hour, he will consider accepting the amendment. I believe that I have removed the parts which the Government found difficult. However, there would have been no contingency plan had we not put forward the important amendment on strategy—an amendment to which other noble Lords have rallied. From that, we now have import control and biosecurity clauses and a requirement for Parliament to have a contingency plan. I beg to move.

Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 47A to Lords Amendment No. 47, leave out from House to end and insert do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 47A, and do propose the following amendment in lieu thereof—Leave out lines 24 to 29.—(Baroness Byford.)

Lord Livsey of Talgarth

My Lords, I shall not detain the House long. First, I congratulate the noble Baroness on the work that she has done on the Bill. I mention, in particular, the importance that she places on this amendment. I also take the opportunity to say how much I have enjoyed working with the Minister, who has displayed great patience and, in many respects, great perception. It has been a pleasure to do business with him—sometimes successfully and sometimes not.

Briefly, I want to raise one point about subsection (2)(a) of Amendment No. 47, which concerns the three-yearly review of the world-wide incidence of diseases. I do not understand why the Minister finds that so difficult to accept. Surely in a contingency plan it is immensely pertinent that, if we know that certain strains of foot and mouth disease are rife in Asia and perhaps even in eastern Europe and if we are to enter a vaccination mode, sufficient stocks of serum are available immediately in order to attempt to keep the disease out of this country. I believe that that is an extremely prudent measure, which is equalled by some of the other measures within the amendment. I support the noble Baroness in her amendment.

Lord Whitty

My Lords, I thank both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for their kind words. I do not disagree centrally with their analysis. I might have put it somewhat differently myself. Nevertheless, while I do not accept that we would not have had a contingency plan, clearly such a plan would not have been embedded in the Bill in the way that the House urged on us and in the way that we responded at earlier stages. All credit is due to the Opposition and to the House as a whole for ensuring that the plan was included.

The only point that I make now is not that I disagree with having three-yearly reviews, the monitoring of the implementation of the plan or, indeed, the various preventive measures which are to be included in new Section 14A(2) of the noble Baroness's amendment; it is simply that that is not part of the contingency plan. It is part of what the Government should do outside the contingency plan, before there is any disease. The contingency plan must be about the actuality of the disease and how we deal with it. It is not a point of principle; it is a point of logic. We would engage in at least three-yearly reviews of the situation and we would engage in the preventative motions that are implied by new Section 14A(2)(b).

If this went anywhere in the Bill it should go before mention of the national contingency plan and not under the content of the national contingency plan, with which this clause is concerned. I thought that that was what the House urged on us originally.

This is not a sensible point on which to divide. Logically, all legal advice is that it should not be in this clause, even though the Government may want to implement it in precisely the way in which the noble Baroness wishes. Therefore, I ask her to consider the logic of the position—as distinct from the previous amendment on which we voted where there was a clear difference of opinion—as this relates simply to the tidiness of the Bill. The noble Baroness has made great play about this being a better Bill, as it is in many respects, but that would detract, if only slightly, from the way in which we have improved the Bill. Therefore, I hope that she and her colleagues will not pursue this amendment.

Baroness Byford

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his courteous response. I have written down the word disappointed. When debating the Bill we have often been told that something is a good idea, but that it does not fit in here, or that it should be somewhere else, or that the Government are already doing what we ask, and so on. Bearing in mind what the Minister has said, perhaps, even from a sedentary position, he would indicate whether he is willing to take this issue away. I do not mean for him to put it in the Bill, but perhaps he could write to me or give a commitment that the Government will take the matter on board. At this late hour, that would help us.

When in Opposition matters are much more difficult. They are much easier on the other side of the Chamber. One tries one's best; one puts forward arguments; one wins the arguments and then one is told that it is not relevant or it is not in the right place. I am disappointed, but if the Minister could indicate that the matter will be taken further and that it will not just die a death I would be very grateful.

Lord Whitty

My Lords, I do not offer to swap places with the noble Baroness. We have both had different kinds of difficulties with this Bill. However, I shall certainly undertake to write to the noble Baroness, and to other noble Lords, outlining how we would carry out the obligations that are implied by what she wants.

Baroness Byford

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. I am worried about two things: climate change and the consequent possibility that more exotic diseases will be more likely to enter the country. That is a huge problem. I am grateful to him. I shall await his letter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Question, original Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT

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

65ALine 10, leave out from "warrant" to end of line 17

Lord Whitty

My Lords, I beg to move.

Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 65A to Amendment No. 65.—(Lord Whitty.)

65BLord Greaves rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 65A to Lords Amendment No. 65, leave out "agree" and insert "disagree".

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.

Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 65A to Lords Amendment No. 65, leave out "agree" and insert "disagree".—(Lord Greaves.)

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Motion, as amended, agreed to.

Bill returned to the Commons with the reason.