| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, the Minister will recall that I inquired about a specific point; namely, whether or not the DTI had been consulted about the notification status of the regulations. That is the fundamental point I am trying to get at.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I indicated that I sought advice. I have no doubt that the guidance from the DTI has taken account of that advice. As to whether anyone has talked to the DTI in the past 24 hours, I cannot say. I do not believe that it would be normal for us to reveal to the House the exact intensity of interdepartmental discussions on these matters. The advice clearly indicates that it would be not necessary in the transposition part of this to register it.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, is the Minister going to answer the question put by my noble friend the Duke of Montrose about the position in Scotland? I believe that there are also plans relating to Wales. On page 205 and 206 of the regulations, 14 orders are revoked. Only the last two specifically refer to England. Are these all being revoked now for Scotland and Wales, in which case the people in Scotland and Wales will be totally unprotected because the measure applies only to England? Or are they being revoked only in relation to England? I do not see a reference to that. Please will the Minister reply to that point?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the orders have been revoked in relation to England. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, had already answered that point on my behalf. To repeat the point, they are revoked in relation to England. The measure before the House therefore relates to England. I understand that in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, equivalent legislation will be introduced later this month, as the noble Lord indicated. I hope that that answers the noble Baroness's question.
This has been a wide-ranging, and at times difficult debate. I do not think it appropriate to speak for much longer, except to underline the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth; namely, that the regulations are primarily about public health. Noble Lords may have doubts about the science, and they may have concerns
about the way in which the regulations may be implemented. But I hope that the whole House will recognise the necessity of having in place a proper regime to deal with TSEs, and to deal with the potential damage to public health as well as to animal health from BSE, and that it would be deeply irresponsible of this House to reject the existence of such a regime.
Lord Monson: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, he has not answered the important point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and others as to why the maximum compensation for slaughtered sheep is limited to £400, whereas there is no such limit in the case of cattle.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I thought that I answered the point in general terms.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I can answer the point in general terms, begging the noble Baroness's pardon. This is the enactment of existing legislation. There is a real problem for the House. On the one hand, noble Lords are saying: do not gold-plate and do not alter the EU regulations. On the other hand, they are asking us to do precisely that. The present regulations have that limit and have done for some time. We may need to look at that at some point, but they do not introduce any new cap on the value of sheep. I wish to put my amendment to the House.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, before the Minister sits down—
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I think that I am in order. I checked with the Clerks before. I do not think that I am out of order—I hope not.
The Minister has not addressed my question about what is happening in Scotland and Wales.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord if he has done so. I should like to take the point a step further. If we support the annulment proposed by the noble Countess, Lady Mar, will the existing legislation re-enact itself? What will happen? I should like the Minister to clarify that, because it makes a difference. It has been suggested that I do not care about what happens to human health or what happens on the BSE side. As a responsible person who has in the past bred stock, I am acutely aware of our responsibilities. We need to be very clear about the consequences if we go down a certain line. That is why I am asking the Minister to be kind enough to clarify the situation for all of us.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I thought that I had made this clear at the beginning and in correspondence. The position is that, because the instruments have been laid with effect from 19th April, the previous regime is
revoked. If we annul the provision tonight, there will be no regime in place from that point. The noble Baroness is correct to say that we could get together and find some other regime, but that takes time. For a period there would be no regime in place. That is why I say that we would risk not only public health but also confidence in our livestock industry if we went down the road suggested by the noble Countess this evening.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: My Lords—
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Tordoff): The Question is—
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: My Lords, will the Minister and the House forgive me? I have never intervened in debates on agriculture, so I feel very hesitant, but this is not a question to do with agriculture. Having listened as an outsider, I feel that the amendments have moved us forward. However, I do not think that the Minister's comments about the constitutional issues have answered one point that still bothers me. My noble friend Lady Mar said that we can amend the instrument, but the Government do not have to pay any attention to such amendments. I do not think that the Minister has answered that. Will he make the position clear for an idiot non-agricultural lay person?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as the noble Countess pointed out, the passage of the amendments would leave the regulations in place, allowing them to proceed. The amendments would not alter the regulations, but they call on the Government to take action to fulfil the objectives enunciated at the beginning of the debate by the noble Lord, Lord Livsey. We have said that we have sympathy with that view and will act on it. The issue is whether we have the regulations—and therefore a regime—in place or not.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I am sorry, but I must get this point over. The Minister is under no statutory obligation to accept any of the amendments. If he were to leave office tomorrow, the next Minister would come along and say, "It wasn't me".
10.54 p.m.
On Question, Whether Lord Whitty's manuscript amendment to Lord Livsey of Talgarth's amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 95; Not-Contents, 16.
Alli, L.
Alton of Liverpool, L.
Andrews, B.
Archer of Sandwell, L.
Bach, L.
Bassam of Brighton, L.
Bernstein of Craigweil, L.
Billingham, B.
Blackstone, B.
Bragg, L.
Brennan, L.
Brookman, L.
Campbell-Savours, L.
Carter, L. [Teller]
Chandos, V.
Clark of Windermere, L.
Clarke of Hampstead, L.
Clinton-Davis, L.
Colville of Culross, V.
Corbett of Castle Vale, L.
Crawley, B.
Currie of Marylebone, L.
Darcy de Knayth, B.
Davies of Oldham, L.
Desai, L.
Dixon, L.
Dormand of Easington, L.
Dubs, L.
Evans of Parkside, L.
Evans of Temple Guiting, L.
Evans of Watford, L.
Farrington of Ribbleton, B.
Filkin, L.
Gale, B.
Goldsmith, L.
Gordon of Strathblane, L.
Grabiner, L.
Graham of Edmonton, L.
Grenfell, L.
Grocott, L.
Hardy of Wath, L.
Harris of Haringey, L.
Hayman, B.
Hilton of Eggardon, B.
Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.
Hollis of Heigham, B.
Howarth of Breckland, B.
Howie of Troon, L.
Hoyle, L.
Hughes of Woodside, L.
Hunt of Chesterton, L.
Hunt of Kings Heath, L.
Jones, L.
Judd, L.
Kirkhill, L.
Lea of Crondall, L.
Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.
Macdonald of Tradeston, L.
McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]
MacKenzie of Culkein, L.
Mackie of Benshie, L.
Masham of Ilton, B.
Massey of Darwen, B.
Milner of Leeds, L.
Mitchell, L.
Morris of Aberavon, L.
Nicol, B.
Northfield, L.
Orme, L.
Pendry, L.
Pitkeathley, B.
Prys-Davies, L.
Puttnam, L.
Ramsay of Cartvale, B.
Rea, L.
Rendell of Babergh, B.
Richard, L.
Rogers of Riverside, L.
Sainsbury of Turville, L.
Sawyer, L.
Scotland of Asthal, B.
Simon, V.
Strabolgi, L.
Thornton, B.
Turnberg, L.
Turner of Camden, B.
Uddin, B.
Varley, L.
Warwick of Undercliffe, B.
Wedderburn of Charlton, L.
Whitty, L.
Wilkins, B.
Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seal)
Williamson of Horton, L.
Woolmer of Leeds, L.
Boardman, L.
Craigavon, V.
Ferrers, E.
Geddes, L.
Greenway, L.
Maginnis of Drumglass, L.
Mar, C. [Teller]
Monson, L.
Montrose, D.
Moran, L.
O'Cathain, B.
Park of Monmouth, B.
Pearson of Rannoch, L.
Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly. [Teller]
Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Willoughby de Broke, L.
Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
On Question, Lord Livsey of Talgarth's amendment, as amended, agreed to.
On Question, original Motion, as amended, agreed to.
House adjourned at five minutes past eleven o'clock.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page