Animal Health Bill

HL Deb 08 October 2002 vol 639 cc223-52

House again in Committee on Clause 7.

The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux)

I have to advise the Committee that if Amendment No. 256 is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 257 to 262 due to pre-emption.

Lord Plumb moved Amendment No. 256:

Page 5, leave out lines 9 to 11.

The noble Lord said: We have already discussed this issue at length. We have covered the amendment, but I would like to hear the Minister's response. I speak also to Amendments Nos. 259 and 261 with which it is grouped, although we spoke to Amendment No. 259 in the group with Amendment No. 231. I beg to move.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth

I wholly concur with the noble Lord, Lord Plumb. We have already covered a great deal of this territory. The amendment relates to assistance, which we have covered from all angles. I too am anxious to hear the Minister's response.

Lord Whitty

I regret that even now I have little new to say. We have already dealt with the issue at some length. The amendment we agreed to earlier meets some of the anxieties behind it and is a reasonable basis for proceeding.

Lord Plumb

I thank the Minister for his brief reply. My question was also brief, but we were so involved in this issue earlier. We also discussed it at considerable length when debating the scrapie Bill. Since we still have to consider a number of amendments this evening, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 257 not moved.]

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 258:

Page 5, line 9, after "premises" insert "who falls within subsection (3A)"

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 259 not moved.]

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 260:

Page 5, line 10, leave out "reasonably needs" and insert "may reasonably require"

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 261 not moved.]

Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 262 and 262A:

Page 5, line 11, at end insert—" (3A) The following persons fall within this subsection—

1. (a) the occupier of the premises;
2. (b) a person appearing to the inspector to have charge of animals on the premises;
3. (c) a person appearing to the inspector to be under the direction or control of a person mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b)."

Page 5, line 11, at end insert— (3B) If the inspector enters any premises by virtue of a warrant issued under section 62B he must at the time of entry—

1. (a) serve a copy of the warrant on the occupier of the premises, or (if the occupier is not on the premises),
2. (b) leave a copy of the warrant in a conspicuous place on the premises."

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Plumb moved Amendment No. 263:

Page 5, line 17, leave out "(proof of which shall lie on him)"

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 263, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 299.

This is very much a probing amendment. It is not clear whether the phrase in parenthesis in each paragraph governs the word "excuse" alone or whether it relates to "lawful authority or excuse". We take "lawful authority" as being something along the lines of a policeman directing traffic around a road accident and waving a driver to cross double white lines. On the other hand, "lawful excuse" should surely be defined in the legislation in order for anyone to go to court and to use it as a defence.

I would welcome the Minister clarifying the relationship of the words in the paragraphs and perhaps giving examples of the circumstances under which an occupier of premises may refuse admission by "excuse". Perhaps he will also give examples of how "lawful authority" can be the justification for an occupier to take action which results in the spread of infection, even though he may know that it would do so. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty

The intention of the Bill generally is that the inspectors should avoid delay in the entry to premises. Therefore, any reason for preventing them from doing so must have lawful authority. The effect of the amendment would be to shift the burden of proof.

In terms of the importance of the ability to control the disease, it is practical and reasonable to require that the farmer or the occupier should demonstrate the existence of any lawful authority or lawful excuse that he has not to comply with the inspector's requirement, rather than the inspector having to prove that he has been impeded. The effect of the change in the burden of proof would be to hold up the powers that the Bill confers.

As to what are "lawful authority" and "lawful excuse", I believe it is the other way round to the definition given by the noble Lord, Lord Plumb. "Lawful authority" is normally powers given by statute; a "lawful excuse" is one which could be legally proven in court as a reason for not complying with an order. If we go back to "reasonableness", "mitigating circumstances" and so on, that is what "excuse" means. But "authority" would be something that is statutorily based and would be a right accruing to the owner of the property in those circumstances.

Lord Plumb

I thank the Minister for that response. My note states that "lawful excuse" should surely be defined in the legislation in order for anyone to go to court and use it as a defence. There is not much difference between us in regard to the definitions of "excuse" and "authority". I am not satisfied with the Minister's answer. It is a matter of general concern as we discuss the whole question of legislation. I give notice that we shall raise this issue again on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Deputy Chairman of Committees

In calling Amendment No. 264, I should advise the Committee that if this amendment is agreed to I shall be unable to call Amendments Nos. 265 and 267.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth moved Amendment No. 264:

Page 5, leave out lines 22 to 24.

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 264 addresses the issue of where, under the Bill as it stands, a person commits an offence if he is required to give assistance under Section 62C(3) and he fails to give it. The amendment seeks to delete that part of the Bill.

Under Section 62C(3), which deals with supplementary slaughter, the inspector may require any person on the premises to give him such assistance as he reasonably needs for the purpose mentioned in section 62A". As the Bill stands, a person will commit an offence if, when required to give assistance under Section 62C(3), he fails to give it. The amendment, in effect, seeks to delete such an offence.

The Minister has taken a draconian power in this respect. It would be better if he accepted our amendment to ensure that a greater degree of fair play occurs when any person is asked to give assistance in these circumstances. I beg to move.

8.45 p.m.

Baroness Byford

Our names are attached to this amendment alongside those of noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches. We very much support the amendment. We seem to be coming full circle, as the noble Lord indicated. The amendment is very important. If the Minister is not able to give a satisfactory answer today, I hope that he will take the matter away and give some thought to the strength of feeling there is in regard to this amendment.

The Countess of Mar

Unlike the amendments related to vaccination, I wholeheartedly support the amendment. It is tantamount to torture to expect a man or a woman who has raised cattle, sheep or pigs, or even goats—we have not mentioned goats; as a goat-keeper I am very concerned about goats—over a number of years to be there while their animals are being slaughtered. It is awful. I ask the Minister to withdraw this particular part of the Bill. I should be grateful if he would think carefully about that.

Lord Whitty

It would be impracticable to remove this power. In nearly all cases where slaughter is involved there will need to be a rounding up of animals. It is difficult to envisage how personnel coming onto a farm would be able to do so without the assistance of the fanner or someone who works on the farm. While recognising the very difficult circumstances in which people found themselves, in the vast majority of cases the farmers or those working on farms co-operated and provided that vital assistance. It was only in a minority of cases that that did not take place. Were the inspector to have no power to enforce that assistance—which is all that is provided for in the clause—we could find ourselves in a situation whereby far more premises were not dealt with effectively.

The demands on the farmer must, of course, be reasonable. Officials will have to act within reason. There are limits to their requests regarding what is necessary to carry out their task. I know there have been reports that there have been requests to make cups of tea and all kinds of extraneous activities, but that is not the case. The requests would have to be reasonable and in support of the task to be carried out. The offence created in the clauses is intended as a deterrent in order that resistant and uncooperative owners should recognise that, at the end of the day, the inspectors do have the power. We would require them to operate it reasonably and expect them to operate it tactfully. One is aware that during the last outbreak there were situations where neither of those requirements operated, but, legally speaking, we are making sure that inspectors do act reasonably and confine requests to what is needed to carry out their duties. To remove the ability to enforce that and thereby deter unreasonable resistance would again be to undermine the disease control measures.

The Countess of Mar

Speaking personally, I should be much happier making cups of tea for the inspectors than having to round up my animals and watch them being slaughtered. I speak from personal experience. You build a bond with your animals. That applies particularly to people with small herds. That is where the Minister's department found difficulties during the recent foot and mouth outbreak. Much of the conflict occurred with owners of small herds or flocks. That is where particular tact is needed. With a small herd, for heaven's sake, it is quite easy for someone else to come in and round up the animals and leave the owner to make cups of tea for the officials. That would be much better.

Baroness Byford

Before the Minister replies, perhaps I may raise a couple of points in addition to those raised by the noble Countess, Lady Mar. She touched on the fact that she is a keeper of goats and would find it very difficult were she asked to help with their slaughter. She referred to small herds. There is also the question of those who have rare breeds.

Rare breeds are very specific. In our earlier discussions the Government recognised their importance. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, who is presently not in her place, spoke about those who keep stock for breeding purposes. It is traumatic enough to lose your own animals, but there is a slight difference between an animal for commercial purposes which you have for only a short amount of time and one with which you work in establishing a high-quality breeding herd. It is important for the Government to bear that point in mind.

On this point, what does the Minister think will be covered by subsection (2) of the proposed new Section 66A that will not be covered in subsection (1)?

Lord Whitty

The proposed new subsection (1) deals with impeding entry to the premises. Subsection (2) deals with the issue that we are discussing; namely, rendering assistance.

Baroness Byford

My reading of the subsection may not be right. As I understand it, in subsection (1): A person commits an offence if without lawful authority", he does any of the three things listed in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). Secondly, he commits an offence if, he is required to give assistance under section 62C(3), and…he fails to give it". I should have thought that his actions would already have fallen within the provisions of paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) in subsection (1). The noble Lord shakes his head.

Lord Whitty

He may accede to admission, but then refuse to give assistance. The first provision deals with an attempt to prevent an inspector entering the premises in the first instance; the second provision deals with a refusal of reasonable assistance to an inspector who has entered the premises.

The Countess of Mar

In response to the noble Baroness, I should be prepared to let someone into my premises, but I should not be prepared personally to take part in rounding the animals up and seeing them shot.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth

Examining the responses to this series of amendments, one sees that the situation is extremely difficult. For example, Amendment No. 264 is three-dimensional. The amendment seeks to leave out lines 22 to 24. Those lines contain a reference to new Section 62C(3), which contains a reference to new Section 62A. When you get to new Section 62A, you see that, An inspector may at any time enter any premises for the purpose of…ascertaining whether a power conferred by or under this Act to cause an animal to be slaughtered should be exercised, or…doing anything in pursuance of the exercise of that power". The noble Countess and the noble Baroness rightly mentioned specific circumstances where this is effectively a humanitarian issue—it relates to whether you can stomach rounding up your animals to be slaughtered. We all know of cases where members of the family—young children, for example—have pet lambs which have to be rounded up and slaughtered. That is a terrible thing. Children understandably become devoted to an animal that they have reared. Indeed, the Young Fanners Movement began by rearing calves. I recollect that it started in 1938 to 1940 with "calf clubs", with youngsters rearing young animals.

There are very sensitive issues under discussion here. To allow this provision to remain in the Bill is abhorrent—I use the word advisedly. Unless you have seen the circumstances and have had to do this, it is difficult to understand what you are asking people to do. It is a humanitarian issue and I ask the Minister to consider that point. Clearly we cannot press the amendment to a vote now, but I hope that when the Bill returns for its Report stage the feelings that have been expressed will have been taken into account. I hope that in some way these powers can be less malign than they are at present. I have no alternative in the circumstances but to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 265 to 267 not moved.]

Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.

[Amendment No. 268 not moved.]

Clause 8 [Tests and samples: power of entry]:

[Amendments Nos. 269 to 271 not moved.]

Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 272 to 275:

Page 5, line 36, leave out "during that period"

Page 5, line 37, at end insert— (c) whether any causative agent of disease is present on the premises.

Page 5, line 39, leave out "Minister" and insert "Secretary of State"

Page 6, line 3, at end insert— (3A) Causative agent includes any virus, bacterium and any other organism or infectious substance which may cause or transmit disease.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 276 to 279 not moved.]

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 279A:

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.

(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."

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 280 to 283 not moved.]

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 283A:

Page 6, line 25, at end insert— (6) A warrant issued under this section must be executed only at a reasonable hour unless the inspector thinks that the case is one of urgency. (7) In relation to any premises to which entry is obtained by virtue of a warrant under this section the Secretary of State must retain for a period of not less than 12 months beginning with the day after entry—

1. (a) a copy of the warrant;
2. (b) a copy of any record of the steps taken to effect entry to the premises and the actions taken on the premises by the inspector and any other person entering the premises with him."

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 284 not moved.]

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 285:

Page 6, line 30, at end insert— (b) such equipment as he thinks necessary.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 286:

Page 6, line 32, leave out "on the premises" and insert "biologically susceptible to the disease"

The noble Baroness said: Yesterday, we debated Amendment No. 211, a very similar amendment in which we asked the Government to consider the position of those animals that were not susceptible to infection with foot and mouth disease. We are anxious that nobody should decide to use slaughter backed up by draconian powers of the Bill to eliminate animals or birds that may or may not have been in contact with infected animals. Scientific theories seem to multiply faster than rabbits, and the speed at which they are taken up and often dropped is both bewildering and frightening. The thought of what might happen, particularly if some of the more exotic diseases made it over here, should ensure that everyone in this Chamber supports the amendment. I hope that the Government will consider the matter and assure me that it applies only to animals that are susceptible to the disease. I beg to move.

9 p.m.

The Countess of Mar

Once again, we have this business of how the Bill appears. This is another clause that has earned the legislation the name the Animal Death Bill as opposed to the Animal Health Bill. I ask the Committee to look seriously at the noble Baroness's amendments. It is the appearance that matters.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth

I concur with the noble Countess. This is a matter of great concern, and various points have been made during the debate. However, biological susceptibility to disease is a material fact that cannot be ignored.

Lord Whitty

The amendment would prevent the taking of samples from animals that were not susceptible to the disease. As matters stand, the Animal Health Act defines animals in terms of cattle, sheep, goats, swine, other ruminants, and, for a reason that escapes me, elephants. The same applies to this Bill. The Bill does not propose to extend that list, and any extension would be by order. Nothing in the clause extends that list. Nevertheless, it provides a framework for disease control, and non-susceptible animals could be found to carry either foot and mouth disease or another disease to which the legislation is extended. That does not appear to be the case as regards foot and mouth disease at the moment, but it is possible. We do not therefore wish to exclude the ability to test those animals—we are talking about testing rather than slaughter. I therefore think that the provision should remain.

Baroness Byford

I thank the Minister for his response. I have to say that I am no happier than I was with his response to Amendment No. 111 yesterday, about which I am sure he is not surprised. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 287 and 288 not moved.]

Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 289 and 290:

Page 6, line 34, after "premises" insert "who falls within subsection (4A)"

Page 6, line 35, leave out "reasonably needs" and insert "may reasonably require"

On Question, amendments agreed to.

[Amendment No. 291 not moved.]

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 292:

Page 6, line 36, at end insert— (4A) The following persons fall within this subsection—

1. (a) the occupier of the premises;
2. (b) a person appearing to the inspector to have charge of animals on the premises;
3. (c) a person appearing to the inspector to be under the direction or control of a person mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b)."

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 292A:

Page 6, line 38, at end insert— ( ) If the inspector enters any premises by virtue of a warrant issued under section 62E he must at the time of entry—

1. (a) serve a copy of the warrant on the occupier of the premises, or (if the occupier is not on the premises),
2. (b) leave a copy of the warrant in a conspicuous place on the premises."

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 293 to 295 not moved.]

Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.

Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 296: After Clause 8, insert the following new clause—

"CODE OF CONDUCT The Minister shall lay before Parliament, within six months of this Act coming into force, an order setting out a code of conduct for those entering premises for the purpose of this Act.

The noble Baroness said: With the leave of the Committee, I beg leave to move Amendment No. 296, in the name of my noble friend Lord Jopling, who, regrettably, cannot be with us. I thought that it was particularly relevant to move the amendment at this stage so that the Government could consider it more fully before we meet back again on Report.

My noble friend, in his amendment, asks the Government to insert a new clause requesting that the Minister lay before Parliament within six months of the Act coming into force an order setting out a code of conduct for those entering premises for the purpose of this Act.

We have had several debates about entry. We have reflected on the outbreak of foot and mouth disease in 2001. The noble Lord will appreciate that in some circumstances people felt coerced—perhaps arms were twisted and action may not have been taken in the most sympathetic fashion. Obviously, we understand that it was an extremely difficult time for those who were trying to deal with the foot and mouth outbreak.

The purpose of the proposed new clause is to ensure that in future we have a code of conduct. I ask the Minister to accept the contents of the new clause.

Lord Whitty

I have already indicated my intention to table an amendment on Report to introduce a requirement to consult on and publish a disease-control protocol, which will cover the issues referred to by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, in his amendment. The protocol will indicate the relevant factors that must be taken into account after taking specific decisions at farm level and will cover many of the matters we discussed. We have just published a draft of that protocol.

In addition, I intend to table an amendment requiring the Secretary of State to publish the reasons for the use of powers more broadly, which will probably deal with the other part of what the noble Baroness was saying.

Rather than accept this amendment, I should prefer to deal with the issue when I table an amendment on Report.

Baroness Byford

I thank the Minister for his response. We are very appreciative that the Government have listened to some of the arguments that were put forward in writing before we were able to move the amendment formally in this Chamber. The Government have given an important undertaking. The Minister mentioned that the Government have produced a draft protocol. Maybe it has not come my way, or perhaps I have seen it and mislaid it.

Lord Whitty

It has only just been published.

Baroness Byford

Then, no doubt, I will see it. The only issue the noble Lord did not address was the request of my noble friend Lord Jopling that the code of conduct should be laid within six months of the Act coming into force. Can the Minister guarantee that?

Lord Whitty

I think I can.

Baroness Byford

In that case, I know that my noble friend will thank the Minister and will be glad to hear his response. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 9 [Inspection of vehicles]:

[Amendment No. 297 not moved.]

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 298:

Page 7, line 15, leave out "Minister" and insert "Secretary of State"

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 10 agreed to.

Clause 11 [Deliberate infection of animals]:

[Amendment No. 299 not moved.]

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 300:

Page 8, line 3, leave out "Minister" and insert "Secretary of State"

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 301:

Page 8, leave out lines 4 to 6 and insert— ( ) No statutory instrument containing an order under subsection (3) shall be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.

The noble Baroness said: We have already tabled an amendment to add rabies to the list. In light of the report of a bat with low contagion infection at an animal sanctuary, this may be timely. By the nature of this legislation, anything else that may be added to the list will be very serious. It may well have implications for human health. As with foot and mouth, the way in which it is handled may be crucial to its speedy eradication.

It is to be hoped that no government would leave establishing a method of dealing with such a disease until it had been identified in the United Kingdom. It will rather be a case of watching a new bug emerge and deciding that it could present a threat at some time in the future. At that moment, the government in power should open the subject for debate and proceed as a result of an informed consensus by laying it before Parliament for debate. I beg to move.

Lord Carter

In my previous incarnation as Chief Whip I worked extremely hard on departments to make them realise that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in this House is very powerful and that its recommendations should always be followed if possible—and if not, that departments should have extremely good reasons for not following them. The obverse is that when the Committee has no objection to the powers taken in a Bill, be they affirmative or negative, it would be as well for this House to listen to the advice of that committee. I understand that the Delegated Powers Committee has no objection to the procedure that the Government have taken in the Bill.

Baroness Byford

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carter. Has the Delegated Powers Committee looked at the Bill recently, since all the new amendments were tabled? Circumstances have moved on. That might have a bearing. Is the noble Lord referring to the committee's original review of the Bill when it was first presented back in November?

Lord Carter

The committee will have considered the provision in the Bill that we now have. It would also have to comment on any order-making powers contained in amendments. This provision was in the Bill already, so I am pretty sure that the report will be on the Bill as presented to that committee, which is the Bill in front of us.

Baroness Byford

I thank the noble Lord I need to look at the issue again. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Deputy Chairman of Committees

In calling Amendment No. 302, I inform the Committee that if it is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 303 because of pre-emption.

9.15 p.m.

Lord Plumb moved Amendment No. 302:

Page 8, leave out line 11.

The noble Lord said: The next two or three amendments are related. Under new Section 28A, inserted by Clause 11, A person commits an offence if…he knowingly does anything which causes…an animal to be infected with a disease". That is the gist of my concern on this amendment. It is a delicate situation. This sort of thing is rare, but it can happen. The Bill does not say, "if he knowingly causes infection", but if he knowingly does something that in turn results in infection—and not just any infection, but one from the list in Schedule 2A.

I believe it would be possible to obtain a conviction under this heading were a farmer to hear on local radio that foot and mouth disease was suspected three miles away and then move his flock to new pastures almost immediately. I am not suggesting that he would do that; I am just putting forward a hypothetical case.

The farmer may have moved his flock so that it would not be confined to tired grass by a movement restriction, and his peers or the local magistrate may feel that that action went against the spirit of the law. I do not believe that it would be fair or reasonable to punish that man and his family by removing animals about which there is no concern, such as cats, dogs, horses and ponies. I do not think that the law should be so phrased as to allow that to happen. Should a court feel that his crime was so serious that he cannot be trusted to look after any animals, such a ban can still be imposed under the phrase, any animals of a specified kind". That is our concern about paragraph (b) of new Section 28B(1).

I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 303 to 309. Unenforceable legislation seems to be increasingly common, but banning a farmer from keeping "any animals" has to be one of the best examples yet. The ban will apply to the farmer who has offended against the law. However, farmers live with friends or family, and many of them have children at home. One often expects to see animals even on arable farms. Many farms, particularly those with livestock, have places for keeping animals. However, if a farmer is banned from keeping any animals, what will happen to those that he already has? What will happen to animals on the farm which are treated more as pets than products? How will anyone prove that a pony ridden by the youngest child but purchased by the farmer belongs to him—if it ever did—in any meaningful sense?

Will those charged with enforcing the ban simply remove all the animals bought by the offender? What about the offspring of animals bought by the offender? Will calves born to a pedigree cow be regarded as the farmer's property? What about the pups or full-grown dogs born to a bitch paid for by the farmer? What if he bought his wife a Siamese cat for their wedding anniversary? He paid for it, but who can prove who owns it in these circumstances?

Paragraph (a) of new Section 28B(1) would be difficult to enforce on a single person living on the 14th floor of a high-rise block. How can we contemplate enforcing it on a farm? It seems ludicrous. Our Amendment No. 303 is an attempt to reintroduce a little common sense.

Amendment No. 304 proposes amending line 33 on page 8, replacing "one year" with "three months". The grounds for finding someone guilty of knowingly doing something that led, or could have led, to a spread of infection range from a misdemeanour to full-blown fraud. Will the Minister explain where the dividing line between the letter and the spirit of the law will be placed? Would a farmer moving newly purchased pigs from the market in Hereford to his farm in Yorkshire be breaking the law if he ignored a radio announcement that foot and mouth disease had been found in Staffordshire, for example, and a movement ban was expected at any moment?

Such an action may be deemed to be covered by the law, but it is very different from, for example, seeking out a source of infection, using it to infect a herd or flock and claiming compensation. However, the punishment for both actions is exactly the same. A year's ban for a farmer would be very difficult. It is rather worse than losing one's licence for 18 months for drunk driving in that, in the latter case, one could employ someone else to drive so that one can work. By reducing the interval before the first application for removal or variation of the order can be made, the serious offender can still be subject to a heavy penalty and the lesser offence can be treated appropriately.

Amendment No. 304 would make a similar amendment to line 36, replacing "one year" with "six months". Subsection (7) of new Section 28B also sets an extremely harsh punishment for a misdemeanour. I have already pointed out the ambiguity of the phrase "lawful authority or excuse". It is unthinkable that someone whose excuse is not believed by the court should be fined, banned from keeping certain animals and then stopped by statute from applying for the ban to be lifted for a further year.

Amendment No. 307 proposes leaving out lines 40 and 42 on page 8. I do not know whether there is a special word for those who abuse and maltreat animals; all I know is that such people are around. I am sure that no one would want to allow them to have anything to do with the control or care of animals. A complete ban, including being kicked off the management board of the local cats' home, would be thoroughly justified upon conviction in some of the cases brought, for example, by the RSPCA. I have recently had much discussion with that organisation on this very subject.

The range of offences covered by this legislation is wide and the penalty that we are discussing is considered to be draconian. It is unnecessary and it may do the body concerned a great deal of harm. One has to consider the case of the fundraising director of a charity concerned with the care of small animals who lives in a city. He is relatively successful at his job. He goes out to try to persuade some people to donate some money to the charity. He drives over an infection barrier, up a track and into a farmyard. There is no one about so he gets out of the car and walks across to a barn but there is no one there either. Therefore, he gets back into his car and drives away. I do not need to spell that out as it is the kind of situation that can arise. However, under the terms of the Bill, if foot and mouth disease is found on the farm and estate in question, it could be traced to that person's movements. He could be prosecuted and found guilty of the deliberate infection of livestock. He could be banned from keeping any animals of his own and expelled from the board of the charity on which he serves.

Members of the Committee may consider that that example is rather far-fetched. However, one has to consider those kinds of examples to prove the point that if milk tanker drivers and possibly DEFRA officials can enter a farm in such a way, why should not a well-intentioned fellow from a city act in the same way? As regards any Bill, our job is to try to ensure that such scenarios are never punished by the full weight of the law. There has to be a balanced approach to punishment. I hope to hear the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, assure us that such a naive offence would not incur anything like the maximum penalty. I believe that I have covered the matter. I beg to move.

The Countess of Mar

This is one group of amendments with which I have little sympathy. Subsection (1) of new Section 28A states: A person commits an offence if without lawful authority or excuse…he knowingly does anything". "Knowingly" is the operational word. It is up to the prosecution to prove that the person knowingly did something. In my opinion anyone who knowingly infects animals commits an unforgivable sin. Therefore, I have no sympathy whatsoever with the amendments.

Lord Carter

I shall say a few words along the same lines. A thread has run right through our discussions on the Bill in Committee. For understandable reasons Members of this House have always been extremely concerned about issues of freedom and civil liberty. I have considered all those matters from the point of view of the farmer who might be caught by the rules. If the rules err a little on the side of severity—I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, with his previous incarnation as president of the NFU will understand what I am saying—we should remember the tens of thousands of farmers not on the farm in question whose livelihoods could be affected if the disease spreads. We can strain too hard at extreme examples where a farmer might be inadvertently caught by the rules. Understandably we are concerned about such cases but we should never forget that the rules are intended to safeguard the livelihoods of tens of thousands of farmers rather than that of an individual farmer who may be inadvertently caught by the terms of the Bill.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth

I have some sympathy with the points which the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, has put forward. However, I also understand the points which the noble Lord, Lord Carter, has just made. I also noted the point made by the noble Countess, Lady Mar, with regard to the word "knowingly". I suspect that some of the examples mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, indicate that sometimes infection is spread not knowingly. If a prosecution is brought in those circumstances, the definition of the word "knowingly" needs to be examined very carefully indeed to ascertain whether the action was committed knowingly. I thank the noble Countess for bringing that point forward; it is extremely important.

Lord Whitty

I, too, am glad to concur with the noble Countess on this point. The word "knowingly" does not cover "inadvertent". It means knowingly doing something which could infect animals and is pretty close to deliberate infection. That is a very serious misdemeanour and, as my noble friend Lord Carter said, potentially it endangers the livelihood of thousands of farmers. It is a very serious offence.

The other concerns as regards Amendment No. 302 are also not valid. There is the reference to "any animals", for example, which the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, was extending to include dogs and cats. The provision relates to animals as defined in the 1981 Act, which are cattle, sheep, goats, swine and other ruminants. It probably includes elephants. Therefore, it does not include dogs, cats and goldfish. It could include farm animals which are kept as pets, but that is a different issue which is dealt with by some of the other amendments with the exception of household pets. Since normal household pets are largely excluded, we are really talking about sheep and calves which are kept as pets. They are susceptible to the disease and they are largely handled by people who also handle other animals. I believe that the exclusion of pets could be a dangerous loophole in the disease control mechanisms. Therefore, I am not prepared to accept the restrictions which are required by a number of the amendments.

The noble Lord, Lord Plumb, referred to the sentence. Clause 11 refers in the first instance to a sentence not exceeding six months, which is the maximum, and disqualification as regards very serious offences which spread the disease. I believe that disqualification is appropriate and it is also appropriate not to review it within one year. If I understood the noble Lord correctly, he was referring to driving licences. Normally, they are suspended for one year and the suspension is not reviewed in that period. In some ways it is an even more disastrous offence to spread disease. Disqualification for one year is appropriate and I do not see any reason to reduce it.

I believe that the noble Lord went as far as Amendment No. 308. My remarks relate to those amendments.

Lord Plumb

I thank the Minister for that response. In particular, I thank the noble Countess, Lady Mar, for her remarks. If she or anyone thought for one second that I was defending the indefensible—namely, people who may misbehave by disobeying the law and introduce this horrible disease into their own premises—perhaps I may disabuse them because there is nothing further from my mind.

The reason for tabling these amendments is to try to determine the dividing line between the odd characters who may commit these crimes and the reality for those who unknowingly get into this situation. That is the intention of the amendments rather than trying to protect those who deserve to be brought before the courts. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, for his comments in that direction which relate very much to that issue. In the light of the comments which have been made and the Minister's response, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 303 to 309 not moved.]

9.30 p.m.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth moved Amendment No. 310:

Page 9, line 17, at end insert— ( ) The Minister shall make orders for the eradication and prevention of the above diseases—

1. (a) subject to a named institution; and
2. (b) subject to no order being made unless laid in draft before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament."

The noble Lord said: I have a specific reason for moving this amendment. It refers to Schedule 2A, which contains a long list of specified diseases ranging from foot and mouth disease and swine vesicular disease through to diseases like Newcastle disease and highly pathogenic avian influenza.

The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the Minister concerned should, make orders for the eradication and prevention of the…diseases", set out in the schedule,

1. "(a) subject to a named institution; and
2. (b) subject to no order being made unless laid in draft before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament".

A similar amendment was discussed last night when mention was made of a named institution. I have a few important points to make in this regard.

Members of the Committee may remember that we had quite a long and rather esoteric debate last night regarding foot and mouth disease, different strains of the disease, how it might be spread, and the types of buildings involved. I am extremely concerned about the position of a centre of great excellence in this respect in Pirbright; indeed, I believe it still to be an excellent outfit. However, it has been underfunded over many years and has declined in its status as a world reference centre for the study of diseases.

Many unanswered questions remain, for example, about the strains of foot and mouth disease and about the way that they behave. In my view, insufficient research has been carried out; and, indeed, during the 1980s, we had a culture of near-market research. Therefore, if we are talking about eradication and prevention of the disease, it is important for sufficient funding to be made available to enable us to establish another centre of excellence, like Pirbright, which could deal on a world-wide basis with these diseases to ensure that they do not enter this country. Indeed, if some of those diseases listed in Schedule 2A were to arise in this country, it would be the end for our livestock industry in many cases.

We know that some of the strains of foot and mouth exist in certain countries. It would be the function of that named institution, which already carries out such work, to study those strains. If we know that the current strain within certain regions of the world is likely to enter the United Kingdom, its characteristics would be known. Indeed, measures could be taken to ensure that, if it came into this country, the research institution could have in place specified ways to tackle such diseases. That would assist the Government in ensuring that the right measures are put in place. Before the particular strain of foot and mouth disease arose in this country, we did not know that it affected sheep more than any other livestock. Many questions were raised last night as to why pigs were not infected. Some noble Lords pontificated as to why that was the case.

In countries where these strains are rampant there is much knowledge that could be utilised to ensure that, should such strains arrive in this country, we would be ready to deal with them. I am really making a plea for such a named institution, especially the one in Pirbright, to be given the necessary assistance and the additional staffing to enable it to carry out a very important function.

The overall cost of the recent foot and mouth outbreak was, I believe, in the order of just over £5 billion. It would be a good investment to have a real centre of excellence that could anticipate what may happen in this country. That would save everyone—farmers and taxpayers—not only much heartache but also much money, which could be far better used. This is a question of a relatively small investment for a named institution of excellence, which would assist us greatly in relation to animal health in the United Kingdom.

Baroness Byford

I suspect—

Lord Livsey of Talgarth

I beg to move.

Baroness Byford

I do apologise to the Committee. Such was my keenness to support the noble Lord's amendment!

I suspect that the Minister may not agree to the noble Lord's amendment but I hope that he shares our concern that enough money should be given to research and development and that there should be places of excellence. Members of the Committee will remember that yesterday I discussed the position regarding the facility at Edinburgh University, which has been under threat. We had a meeting about that in the House earlier this summer.

I should have thought that the Government would want to take on board anything that could help to prevent infectious diseases and produce better ways in which to control them or help us to come up with better vaccinations.

Another concern—this involves the future, not simply today's problems—is that if global warming is going to happen, more exotic diseases may come into this country. That reinforces the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Livsey. If that happens, I suspect that it would mean that we should see on these shores diseases that had not previously been here. I make this short contribution to underline the sensible approach of the noble Lord, although I suspect that unfortunately the Minister may not respond as favourably as I have done. I wish the noble Lord well.

The Countess of Mar

I, too, wish to support the spirit of the amendment although, like the noble Baroness, I fear that the wording will not be acceptable. There has been a terrible cutback in veterinary training. The Centre for Tropical Veterinary Medicine has been threatened with closure. That would be a disastrous loss to the United Kingdom.

I shall never forget, during the aftermath of the Gulf War, that when I asked questions about dead animals in the desert, that school came to my rescue by showing that some of the animals had been licking batteries but not those that were in the desert and that those dead animals were not infected with anything.

A senior member of Pirbright, Professor Kitching, has gone to Canada because the facilities at Pirbright no longer provided him with the outlet that he needed. He was an expert on foot and mouth disease. That is another disaster and a great loss to the British veterinary services. If the Minister did another cost-benefit analysis, it would show the huge costs not only in monetary terms but also in souls that the foot and mouth outbreak has caused. It would pay Her Majesty's Government to resurrect our wonderful veterinary history.

Lord Whitty

I have some sympathy with the comments of the noble Countess, the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, and the noble Baroness. They said that we need centres of excellence for veterinary medicines, research, diagnostics and testing facilities. That certainly is the case. I am not entirely sure how the amendment would achieve that. The need for centres of excellence and research is spelt out clearly in the Royal Society report, which the Government will have to consider.

Some of the centres of excellence which deal with particular diseases—not only those discussed here but others as well—will probably have to be tackled on a European level rather than by setting up institutes for each one in this country. The unique designation of one disease to one institute may not be the appropriate pattern.

However, the amendment is linked to the list of diseases which relate primarily to deliberate infection. It is not necessarily the appropriate list of diseases for priority research work. I presume that the noble Lord is not suggesting that we devolve other functions from government as a whole to those institutions but simply the research and testing facilities. Therefore, while I have sympathy with what has been said, I do not believe that the amendment will achieve that. In our response to the Royal Society report, we shall clearly have to indicate what we are doing in relation to veterinary research.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth

I thank the Minister very much for his reply. Obviously the amendment provided an opportunity to make the point about the importance of fundamental research in our quest for the eradication and prevention of diseases.

I simply say to the Minister that, certainly in the past, Pirbright has held a pre-eminent position in tackling animal diseases on a world-wide basis. I believe that there is also a recognition of its reputation in Europe. I do not believe that recent governments have contributed to the decline at Pirbright. However, it still does excellent work, as it did during the outbreak of foot and mouth disease when testing was carried out under very great strain. I know that the staff work their hearts out there. However, had they had more resources, they could perhaps have anticipated matters a little more for the Government and perhaps could have tackled even more effectively the crisis of the recent outbreak.

I accept what the Minister says, but I am sure that he will not forget, particularly in relation to the Royal Society report, the importance of our small debate on this issue. In that spirit, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.

Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 311: After Clause 11, insert the following new clause—

"OFFICIALS: BIOSECURITY In the 1981 Act the following section is inserted after section 16—

"16A OFFICIALS: BIOSECURITY

1. (1) The Minister, or any persons acting on his behalf, shall take all reasonable precautions to ensure that he does nothing likely to cause an animal to be infected with a disease specified in Schedule 2A.
2. (2) Any person who fails to take such reasonable precautions is guilty of an offence, and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum.""

The noble Baroness said: This amendment concerns the officials, the system and the whole question of biosecurity. The Minister will know that, as the foot and mouth crisis ranged at its worst in 2001, we understood and appreciated the tremendous amount of work carried out by members of his department and by colleagues locally who had to face the problem at the sharp end.

Nevertheless, the Bill is aimed only at pointing the finger at the farmers. Nowhere in the Bill—the noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong—is there any check or balance on officials or on their responsibilities for biosecurity measures. The amendment seeks to attempt to raise the issue at this point in the Bill.

As I have already pointed out, the Bill assumes that farmers, occupiers, landowners and those who deal with animals are necessarily in the wrong and that they deserve severe punishment. However, in practice during the last foot and mouth outbreak, in some areas government officials—never mind many others who entered farms—stood charged of disobeying rules and, on some occasions, of lacking some of the niceties of social behaviour. As Members of the Committee will know, I referred earlier to cases where one or two farmers felt coerced and a little badgered into allowing access to be given or into allowing their animals to be culled.

I am glad that neither the Royal Society nor the Anderson reports blamed people directly for that behaviour or otherwise proved any or all of the allegations made at the time. But I believe the Minister will recognise that a strong feeling existed among farmers, even though, as the noble Lord may say, that may be unjustified. However, in some cases I believe that it was justified. I am quite convinced that there were faults and not just among the farming fraternity.

As the Bill stands there is no means of enforcing behaviour standards on government officials at either national or local levels. Indeed, there is no suggestion that there should be set behaviour standards. Doubtless that is because the Government do not consider that their staff need to be monitored. I hope that is not so. I am delighted to see the noble Lord shake his head. It is strange that in this important Bill, which will protect the health and welfare of animals, there is no guidance or direction to officials and those dealing with an outbreak. I beg to move.

9.45 p.m.

Lord Greaves

I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, on raising this important issue. It is right that it should be discussed at Committee stage. I also congratulate her on the rational and restrained manner in which she spoke to the amendment. In many parts of the countryside there is still a great deal of anger at the way in which officials of MAFF and then DEFRA and people working on their behalf were seen to behave during the foot and mouth outbreak. I shall not go through that again as it has been well rehearsed in your Lordships' House and elsewhere. However, the bitterness and the anger—the legacy of the outbreak—remain. That is allied to what is widely seen as a lack of balance in the Bill which the Government still need to address.

Many people and farmers in the countryside do not object at all to the Government seeking ways of tackling any future outbreak of foot and mouth or any other similar disease in a more effective way than before. No one with any brains could dispute that the outbreak should be tackled in a better way than before, particularly in the early stages and in the extremely difficult circumstances at the height of the outbreak in places like Cumbria, where foot and mouth appeared to rage rampant and no one appeared to understand how to tackle it.

One reason why no one understood how to tackle the outbreak—different approaches were tried as time went on—is that no one knew how it was being spread. Even now that remains the case. There is a table in the Anderson report setting out how the virus was spread and 79 per cent of cases are still put down to unspecified local contacts. Rather optimistically in some cases it says that more than one agent was suspected. Another 9 per cent of cases are still under investigation. So for 88 per cent of cases people still do not know how the infection was spread. That is extraordinary and as a result everyone still has their own theories. However, it is quite clear that in the early stages of the disease, but also in later stages when it took hold in the Craven district in the Pennines and at one stage was advancing down the Ribble valley at a horrifying rate and came to within five miles of where I live, people did not know how it was being spread.

Not all the stories that one heard from farms about officials from the department and people working for them galumphing around the countryside in a way that did not accord with any sensible description of biosecurity can be wrong. Some of those stories of people going from one farm to the next and then on to further farms have to be believed. It is quite clear that a great many of those unspecified local contacts—79 per cent or perhaps more of the total—must have been a result of people and vehicles going from one farm to another.

It is quite likely that at least some of those were people working for the Government. Some of the things that I witnessed and stories from quite reliable witnesses about the way in which people went about their work—whether it was testing, killing or removing the carcasses—indicate that biosecurity is not the top word that one would use to describe what happened in some cases. So there is anger and belief that the Government are now blaming the farmers when at least some of the problems resulted from the way in which their own agents undertook the work.

Therefore, I congratulate the noble Baroness on raising this issue. I am not sure how it ought to be dealt with. I am not sure that this amendment is the right way to deal with it, but certainly Clause 2 seems to refer to any person. We have talked recently in this Committee about the need to penalise people who are reckless in terms of activity that can spread the disease. However, the amendment extends it too far to accidental spread, whether from the men from the Ministry or other people going about their business or doing whatever, so I am not sure that this amendment is the right way. But it highlights the problem the Government still have with many people. There is a fundamental belief that they are not being balanced; that farmers, some of whom no doubt were to blame for what happened, generally were not to blame but are being blamed. It is believed that the Government are not prepared to apply the same standards to their own operations and staff that they apply to everyone else.

I hope that in dealing with future outbreaks that will not be the case. When we see the promised contingency plans and the plans for dealing with further outbreaks, I am sure that we shall have an opportunity to question the Government on this issue. They will tell us that it will not be the same next time, or that best practice from this latest outbreak—there was some very good practice in some places—will be applied everywhere. That is fine. But one still must convince the people out there on the farms that that is the case.

The Countess of Mar

I too have much sympathy with the amendment of the noble Baroness. I wonder whether the matter is not covered in Clause 11, where it states that, A person commits an offence if without lawful authority or excuse…he knowingly does anything". If people are trained in biosecurity by the department, are told they must apply it, then go on to a farm with foot and mouth disease and do not take precautions when they go on to the next farm, I should have thought that they are knowingly spreading the disease. Therefore, I wonder whether they are not caught in that clause.

Lord Whitty

I do not quite know how to respond to this matter. On the one hand, it is clearly part of the folklore of this disease that staff of MAFF/DEFRA and its contractors were responsible for some spreading of the disease. There is actually no proven case where that happened. The idea that a large proportion of 79 per cent of local spread was down to officials or contractors is nonsense.

Lord Greaves

I am sorry. I was not saying that a large proportion of it was. I am saying that there is enough anecdotal evidence and evidence from people I trust to indicate that perhaps a small part of it was. That is all I am saying.

Lord Whitty

I thank the noble Lord for clarifying that matter. It is important to recognise that mistakes were made, some corners were undoubtedly cut and some inappropriate people were deployed who probably would not have been had we had a full contingency plan in operation of the kind that we now have. It is also important to recognise that all the staff and contractors of MAFF/DEFRA were under the code of conduct of biosecurity precautions. No doubt there were lapses, but it is not the case that the Government took no responsibility for their staff or other people employed by the organisation.

Nor is it the case that the Bill points the finger to say that it was entirely the farmers' fault. As the noble Countess, Lady Mar, pointed out, where an offence is created under the Act, it affects not a farmer but a person. That may be a person employed directly or indirectly by the department. As she also says, "knowingly" is an important factor, because one might suppose that officials of the department and its agencies would be more knowing than another private person. They could be held under that offence, just as all other animal health offences are not primarily directed at the farmer alone. They may relate to people moving on and off farms, to drivers, dealers and traders, to the markets and so forth. So it is wrong to characterise the Bill or the drafting of animal health legislation generally as blaming farmers.

Government officials and those who work for them are subject to a tight code of conduct and the criminal law, in the same way as anyone else. So singling them out as would the amendment would balance the scales in the opposite direction in an unhelpful way. On behalf of the departmental staff and others employed by us, I accept our responsibility, as much as that of farmers and others, to observe biosecurity provisions and to act within the law as laid down in the Bill and elsewhere. But we do not need a separate provision in the Bill to that effect.

Baroness Byford

I thank all Members of the Committee, including the Minister, for the short debate that we have had on my amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, is right: there is still great bitterness; the Minister would acknowledge that all is not fully healed from last year.

I had not read into the Bill what the noble Countess, Lady Mar, reads: that it will apply equally to anyone. That was perhaps my oversight, but on the whole the Bill gives the Government—and therefore people within the department—powers to bring someone up for an offence. It had not struck me that they might be bringing one of their own personnel up for an offence, although I know that certain people who worked for the department have been found guilty of committing crime during the outbreak of foot and mouth disease. But that is another matter.

I should like to reconsider the matter. I still think that it would be helpful to have some sort of code of conduct, as it were. The wording of my amendment may not be quite right. Perhaps it should be headed "Code of conduct" rather than "Officials: biosecurity"; perhaps that would be less abrasive. However, it was intended to be helpful by suggesting that in future we could tighten up and improve performance by both those engaged in farming and those who come to their aid in times of need.

The other distinction that I would make is that, on the whole, once an outbreak occurred, farmers did not move onto other people's farms, whereas officials had to. That is their job; they had to go there. Although the Minister did not agree with the analysis of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves—I did not take it that the noble Lord was suggesting that the 70 per cent spread was caused by officials—by the nature of the work with which those officials are involved, they must go into such places; they have no option. That was my reasoning.

The Countess of Mar

Perhaps the noble Baroness would like to know that in my locality, where veterinary surgeons were working for the ministry, if they entered an infected farm they were grounded for seven days. They did not go anywhere else.

Baroness Byford

I indeed understand what the noble Countess says and appreciate that there were clean vets and dirty vets and that they were not allowed to mix. One of the crucial things to come out of our short debate and out of some of our earlier discussions is the need to reach a conclusion on how the spread occurred in so many cases about which there is still uncertainty. I suppose that science will not help us with that. In some cases, we will never know how the spread occurred.

10 p.m.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth

There is one point that has not been raised about the amendment. It says: The Minister, or any persons acting on his behalf". Some of the contractors who were operating were fairly dodgy. It was not necessarily officials working directly for the Minister but people contracted by the Minister who caused the problems. There are instances of contractors throwing gloves into the hedge, where they were found by other people. The controls on contractors leave a lot to be desired.

The Countess of Mar

At a later stage, we could impose a duty on the Minister to ensure that all his contractors understand the need for biosecurity. That would ensure that everybody knew what they were supposed to do. If they deliberately infringed those requirements, they could be punished.

Baroness Byford

I thank everybody who has contributed. I may return with an improved amendment. The Minister and all who help and support him might consider producing an even better amendment. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 12 agreed to.

Clause 13 [Prosecutions: time limit]:

Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 312:

Page 9, line 31, leave out "an" and insert "any"

The noble Baroness said: This amendment deals with just a typo error. I think that line 31 should say "any", but I may be wrong. I shall allow the Minister to respond. I beg to move.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

Legal proceedings are started in court by laying an information—a document. Changing the phrase would mean that we would lose the specific legal meaning. There has been a misunderstanding behind the laying of the amendment.

Baroness Byford

In that case, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 313 and 314 not moved.]

Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 315:

Page 10, line 7, leave out "conclusive" and insert "reasonable"

The noble Baroness said: The Government have been delighted with the amount of reasonableness in the Chamber in the past two days. I understand that the word "conclusive" in this clause means "cannot be challenged".

It is conceivable that a reasonable challenge could be made, especially if the prosecutor is a corporate entity—for example, the Crown Prosecution Service. It is unreasonable that someone accused of an offence should have to cope with delays that are not of his or her making. That could apply to the gathering of sufficient evidence for a prosecution if the prosecutor has given an outline of the case but it takes several weeks or months for the file to be assembled.

How do the Government envisage that prosecutions will be handled? Will the local or regional inspector produce a summary of events, as he or his staff recall them, and hand the matter over to the local police? Will they call in the CPS? Will the department initiate events, call for local evidence and use its own legal staff in local courts? Will it use the CPS? If the CPS is to be involved, has the Minister received adequate evidence that CPS record-keeping is of a sufficient standard to comply with the clause on all occasions and with total accuracy? Is he prepared to share that evidence with the Committee? I beg to move.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

Certification by a magistrate of the date on which evidence was brought to his attention is a well-precedented procedure. If the court were uneasy with the certification of the prosecutor and believed it had been made in bad faith, it would be able to consider the evidence behind it even though it had the status of conclusive proof. Therefore we need to resist the amendment. In moving the amendment the noble Baroness asked many technical legal questions on which I should prefer to write to her.

Baroness Byford

I am grateful to the Minister for that response. I am content that she writes to me when she has had a look at the detailed questions I asked. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 13 agreed to.

Clause 15 [Commencement]:

[Amendments Nos. 316 to 318 not moved.]

Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 319:

Page 10, line 29, at end insert— ( ) This Act shall not come into force until parallel powers have been taken to cover all parts of the United Kingdom.

The noble Baroness said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Jopling who could not be with us, I move Amendment No. 319. It is extremely important. When speaking of disease outbreaks we have spoken of what happens on borders; between Scotland and England and England and Wales. I should like to hear the Government's response. I beg to move.

The Countess of Mar

I support the noble Baroness. Foot and mouth disease does not respect boundaries drawn by humans. Nor, for that matter, do animals. It is a particularly valid point with regard to the boundary between England and Scotland. I am not so sure about Northern Ireland; there is a slight difference because of the sea boundary. But where animals can roam across moors, as they do between England and Scotland, we have a problem.

Lord Greaves

I agree with the noble Countess that there are problems with boundaries where devolved administrations have powers that may lead them to different solutions from those that this Parliament decides should apply in England. But—and it is a big "but"—if we have a devolved administration in Scotland which has power over farming matters that in England are the responsibility of DEFRA, we have to accept the consequences. There will be different policies in Scotland from those that apply in England; that is a fact of life in respect of devolution.

Some Members of the Committee may still be unhappy with devolution and feel it should be abolished. Some of us are happy with it and envious of some of the things happening in Scotland as a result, but that is a different matter. The contrast between the way foot and mouth disease was dealt with in south-west Scotland and north Cumbria, which on the face of it began in a similar way, is fairly stark. It can be argued that the devolved administration in Scotland did a better job than the non-devolved administration in London with regard to Cumbria. Some of us would be happy to make that case.

However, whatever we think about the Bill—whether or not it is the right approach to controlling future outbreaks; whether many of the powers in it are too draconian; whether the criticisms many of us are making of it are right or wrong—no one can argue that we do not need preparations and contingency plans for dealing with future outbreaks. To suggest that the contingency plans in England should be put on hold because Scotland will not be having identical or parallel plans—I am not sure what "parallel" means here but I take it to mean "very similar"—seems illogical. There may be problems at the Border, but if there is a problem in Scotland because it does not have plans, that is not a reason for not introducing plans in England. We may disagree about the nature of those plans, but that is a different argument altogether. This is one issue in the Bill on which I disagree with the noble Baroness, with whom I have been agreeing so much during the past two days.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth

Perhaps I may underline what my noble friend said. As one who has been involved with Wales for a very long time—I am a native of Wales—I should like to give notice that at Report stage I shall certainly urge that the National Assembly for Wales should have more powers to deal with outbreaks. The powers it receives may be parallel to those powers in England but I should like to draw a contrast. As the noble Countess said, the fact that the disease knows no boundaries is important, but nevertheless strategies ought to be available in devolved administrations for tackling the particular circumstances which may arise in their jurisdictions. Wales, for example, has far more sheep than there are in the whole of Scotland.

Those powers should be devolved within an overall umbrella and a strategy should be worked out to overcome some of the problems. Certainly the way the hefting of sheep on the hills in Wales was tackled during the recent foot and mouth outbreak gives a lot of food for thought. I know that there were some disagreements between the administration in Cardiff and DEFRA—or MAFF, as it was at the time. These difficulties can be overcome. We can live with devolved administrations having appropriate powers, particularly in relation to strategies on how they will tackle these problems within their own boundaries.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

It will not surprise the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, that at this time, in this position, at this stage in the Bill—and given that we are all aware that discussions take place on the potential transfer of functions, not least in the field of agriculture—I am not being drawn into doing anything other than noting his views on the issue of future powers which may or may not be devolved to the National Assembly.

I agree with most of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. Animal health is a devolved subject in Scotland and Northern Ireland and it is only proper that they should be able to bring forward further legislation that they consider appropriate under the timetables and procedures of the relative legislatures. Scottish Ministers have stated that they support the principle of new legislation on disease control.

However, were there to be a new outbreak of foot and mouth disease or another serious animal disease, I would expect—and I am sure noble Lords, including the noble Countess, Lady Mar, would expect—Scottish Ministers to review the situation urgently and consider bringing forward any appropriate emergency legislation they felt was in order.

For the reasons outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, I resist the amendment. I hope that the Committee will accept that, under the devolution settlement, this is a matter for the devolved administrations.

10.15 p.m.

Baroness Byford

I thank the Minister for her response. I do not know Whether she was aware of it, but towards the end of her reply she quoted from a Written Answer which was sent to my noble friend Lord Peel on 28th January 2002. She quoted almost exactly the last paragraph of the letter of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty.

My noble friend Lord Peel wrote to ask Her Majesty's Government what action they were taking to persuade the Scottish Executive to introduce, in the near future, legislation with regard to controlling foot and mouth disease in order to safeguard the position in England. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, replied—I am sure that he remembers this off the top of his head, but let me help him at this time of night—that animal health is a devolved matter in Scotland. We do not argue with that. The letter continued: Scottish Ministers have stated that they support the principle of new legislation on disease control, and propose to take this forward under the timetable and procedures of the Scottish Parliament". The part of the letter that the noble Baroness did not refer to is, I understand that Scottish Ministers hope to issue a consultation on proposed legislative changes shortly". My noble friend's concern is that that letter was dated 28th January. Here we are, nearly eight months later, and my understanding is that no consultation has been put in hand at all. That is a matter for concern.

I realise and appreciate the Government's position—it is a devolved matter—but I hope that before we meet again on the Bill the Government south of the Border will draw the time lag to the attention of their colleagues north of the Border. Animal disease knows no boundary and it seems slightly irresponsible to make no moves on the issue.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

Speaking as I do for the Government on matters affecting Wales, I should hesitate to be drawn down the road referred to by the noble Baroness. I am sure that responsible Ministers and Members of devolved administrations are quite capable of taking on board and working out the points that she raises.

It would be singularly inappropriate for me, speaking on behalf of the Government with regard to a devolved matter, to seek to imply that I knew better than Ministers within a devolved administration. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, who watches me like a hawk or a peregrine falcon on these issues, approves of my remarks so I shall not say anything else.

Baroness Byford

I do not think that I encouraged the noble Baroness to do exactly what she said she would not do. That was not my intention. However, I am concerned. This is a serious point. We have to consider animal disease control; yet some parts of the United Kingdom may be considering it in a different way, or not at all. The matter is worth raising. Sending a copy of Hansard to the relevant Members of the Scottish Parliament might go some way in nudging this important issue along. But at this stage, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Jopling, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 15 agreed to.

Baroness Byford had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 320: After Clause 15, insert the following new clause—

"INDEPENDENT PUBLIC INQUIRY

1. (1) No provisions of this Act shall come into force prior to the publication of the findings of an independent public inquiry into the foot-and-mouth outbreak.
2. (2) Nothing in this section shall prevent the Minister from taking emergency powers necessary in the event of an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, or any other specified disease, before the coming into force of this Act."

The noble Baroness said: Perhaps at this stage I may recall our consistent concern that no independent inquiry has been held. However, as events have now overtaken the Bill, I shall not move the amendment.

[Amendment No. 320 not moved.]

Clauses 16 to 18 agreed to.

House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

House adjourned at twenty-one minutes past ten o'clock.