Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
The Countess of Mar: It must be getting late. I did not even rise to speak to the amendment.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: If my memory serves me correctly, the noble Countess referred to this issue when speaking to an earlier amendment.
Baroness Byford: I thought that my night had been made by my becoming a countess.
I understand the response made by the Minister but I am sure not sure that I agree with her in all respects, in particular as regards whether meeting the costs will be discretionary. If it is discretionary, the award of costs might fall in favour of one person and not of anotherI see the noble Countess shakes her head at that remark.
The hour is late. I shall read carefully the Minister's response. I had thought that my Amendment No. 60 would achieve exactly what has been set out by the Minister in her remarks; that is, costs on re-sampling in the first instance would be borne by the department. If the result proved the same as that found in the first test, then the owner would agree to accept the costs. I had thought that that was the thrust of my amendment. Have I misunderstood the Minister because she has said that that is already the position and I have missed it? If that is the case, I shall look at it again.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: For clarification, the amendment is unnecessary as the appellant would not incur costs if the re-sample was negative; that is, different from the original test.
Baroness Byford: I think that we both agree the point. Perhaps I am getting a little tired.
Lord Jopling: Before my noble friend withdraws her amendment, the Minister said specifically that the costs would be met if the result was "different" from the previous test.
Having some experience of science, test results invariably are different. Rarely will the results of two tests be exactly the same. Given that and bearing in
mind what the Minister has just said, even if one test result was positiveunhelpful to the farmerif the next test result was slightly different but still negative so far as the farmer was concerned, surely there would be no costs.If two negative test results differ by however littleperhaps I am making the Government's case for themcompared with one negative test followed by a positive test, that is totally different from having two negative but different results. I hope that the noble Baroness understands the thrust of my argument. I believe that she did say that if the test results are different, then no costs would be incurred. Is she referring to "different" as in a positive or negative result, or whether the second test is different in its result from that of the first test? This is rather an important distinction.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I am sorry, I am afraid that I became slightly lost in the number of negatives with which we are dealing. Perhaps I may explain it to the Committee in a different way. The effect of the amendment is that the supplementary regulations may provide for an appellant not to be liable for costs associated with re-testing, in accordance with new Section 36D(5)(c), where those test results contradict the original sample result.
Although the costs of the test relating to re-sampling and testing as part of the appeals process are allowed for, we only envisage invoking thisif at allwhere the re-sampling and testing confirm the result of the original sampling test. Therefore, the department will be responsible for the cost of re-sampling as part of the appeals process in the first instance. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, is concerned that farmers would be required to pay up front for re-testing. However, I can offer him an assurance that that is not the case.
Baroness Byford: I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 58 to 60 not moved.]
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendments Nos. 61 and 62:
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Duke of Montrose moved Amendment No. 63:
The noble Duke said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 68 to 71. Amendment No. 63 is another proposal designed to tighten up the operating system backing up this Bill. As we heard earlier today, in real life the Minister concerned does not "consider". In the first instance he is advised by someone else who considers and makes
recommendations to him. In a situation like this, where no one knows the size of the problem, the Minister may be advised by a large number of people, each of whom should be working to a common standard. Our hope is that this amendment will spur on the development of that standard.Amendment No. 69, together with Amendment No. 70, would cover the eventualities that are contained in the Bill and cut out the long wording; for example, in subsection (2) one could say that an offence is committed if the shepherd or farmer,
There is also the possibility of frozen semen, or eggs, becoming mislabelled or mixed up in a laboratory. I am sure that the Minister will be aware of cases where that has taken place. The most recent case, about which we all read in newspaper reports, occurred in a human IVF clinic.
I turn to Amendment No. 71. This provision is surely far too loosely drafted. One can understand it being an offence for someone to obstruct an inspector, but we really need some definition of who else is carrying out the Minister's function. If someone walking up the road decided that it would be fun to give the inspector a hand, that would not be very satisfactory. Would there not need to be some identifiable method of appointment for those whom the inspector believes to be appropriate to help? In fact, to return to what we discussed earlier, should they be required to show the evidence of their authority? I beg to move.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: We strongly support the noble Duke in his Amendment No. 63, which proposes to insert the words "are necessary" into subsection (3). We believe that that would make the provision much more precise and understandable. As regards the other amendments in this group, it is quite clear that they would make the wording of the Bill much more concise and to the point; and, indeed, improve the legislation no end. I was wondering when the issue of stray rams would come into our debates. Those of us involved in sheep farming know what can happen in certain circumstances, which are very often beyond our controlat least beyond our ability to hedge properly, or whatever. We strongly support these amendments.
The Countess of Mar: I have one small quibble. It is about Amendment No. 69, which would insert "knowingly" after "he". A little tautology is involved if the person "knowingly" uses,
Lord Whitty: Amendment No. 63 seeks to employ a totally objective standard but it does not specify who decides what is necessary. In effect, it attempts to remove all discretion from the Minister, although issues of judgment are often involved, without saying who would take responsibility. That is not therefore appropriate.
Amendment No. 68 largely deals with the question of delivery, on which I have already commented. I could not agree to that.
Amendments Nos. 69 and 70 appear to weaken the ability to enforce the scrapie provisions in relation to semen, eggs and embryos. It would place the onus on prosecuting authorities to show that the other person knew that the semen, egg or embryo came from a sheep that was the subject of a restriction notice. That is quite a tall order. An offence is involved but it might be difficult to establish what the person knew. We would therefore wish to ensure that people who would reasonably have known that the sheep was subject to a notice could be deemed to have committed an offence. Clearly, in a situation in which someone else has made a mistake, that is a reasonable defence. In the case in which someone should reasonably have known, the offence should apply.
The Countess of Mar: Subsection (2) states:
Lord Whitty: On Amendment No. 69, it is the noble Duke who seeks to insert the word "knowingly". That limits the number of circumstances in which the offence could be deemed to have been committed.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page