Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page


Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 81:



"(b) such equipment as he thinks necessary."

The noble Lord said: This amendment is needed to make it expressly clear that inspectors will be allowed to take on to the premises any equipment that they

25 Jul 2002 : Column 662

need to carry out their tasks. One could say that it may be presumed that an inspector would carry the relevant equipment. However, in theory, there is potential for dispute about that. This amendment is therefore necessary to clarify the position. I beg to move.

The Countess of Mar: Will the Minister tell us what kind of equipment he anticipates will be necessary? Is it handcuffs, shovels and spades, halters for animals or whips?

Lord Whitty: The noble Countess is letting her imagination run riot. What we have in mind is equipment necessary to carry out the tasks: blood; tubes; needles; syringes; possibly vaccines; identification kits; and, in the case of slaughter, guns and apparatus with which to dispose of the animal. It would be equipment relevant to the task in hand.

Lord Greaves: If it is relevant to the task, why does not the amendment say so?

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Duke of Montrose moved Amendment No. 82:


    Page 19, leave out lines 3 to 5.

The noble Lord said: In speaking to this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 84.

Amendment No. 82 deals with the requirement to give assistance. It is somewhat unfortunate that I have to move Amendment No. 82 before the next amendment, tabled by the Minister, which refers to any person who falls within subsection (3A). My lack of expertise in the drafting of amendments means that I spent a little time hunting around for Section (3A). I looked through the 1981 Act, which is what we are amending, and I could not find it in there. It is probably to be found in new Section 36H of the current amendments, which concerns people who are refused entry. It would be slightly odd to force someone to assist who had been refused entry.

The amendment offers two ways of getting around the fact that one cannot always legislate for the health and ability of human beings. It is possible that some of those on the farm premises may be sick or infirm, may have a broken leg or may be visitors who have an allergy to sheep and therefore would not want to become involved. In view of the fact that they could be charged with refusing to give assistance, something needs to be said about evaluating their abilities before they are asked to give assistance.

Another question that has exercised my mind is: who will be liable for injuries or losses on the premises when the inspector requires various works to be done? Injuries are certainly liable to happen with cattle. We are not dealing with cattle here, but I can think of some black-faced rams that could cause a very nasty injury. The other question relates to whether there are sufficiently good handling facilities, so that people are not left to chase animals around endlessly.

I feel that it should be possible for the inspector to assess the abilities of personnel on the premises and their willingness to participate. He also has the power

25 Jul 2002 : Column 663

to add as many other persons as he thinks fit. Therefore, the present wording of the Bill does not quite fit with what would be practical.

It is also interesting to ask whether the authorities should be paying those who give assistance. The inspector will have to pay those who he brings with him. Here we are talking not about testing and evaluating but about the enforcement of warrants. I beg to move.

The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux): I have to advise the Committee that if Amendment No. 82 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 83 to 85 inclusive.

Lord Whitty: It might be for the convenience of the Committee if, in responding to the noble Duke's amendment, I speak to my Amendments Nos. 83 and 86. They relate to some of the problems referred to by the noble Duke and they address concerns expressed in another place in line with what he has said.

My honourable friend Elliot Morley said that we would look at the matter. We are sympathetic to the suggestion of whether, for the sake of clarity, the powers of requiring assistance should be limited to the owner or the keeper of the animals, or persons under their control. Therefore, other members of the family, bystanders and visitors would not be covered by any requirement to assist the inspector. Likewise, the requirement in the original draft that the inspector would deem what was necessary for his needs should be replaced. Our Amendment No. 85 deals with what is reasonably required instead of what the inspector decides he reasonably needs. That goes a long way towards meeting the anxieties.

The Countess of Mar: I am a little concerned about subsection (3A)(c) of Amendment No. 86. The words "under the direction or control" are used. Why not say "in the employ of" or "assisting the person mentioned with his stock"? Who controls people these days? It is strange terminology and I would ask the Minister to look at it again.

Lord Whitty: I will look further at it.

Lord Greaves: We on these Benches welcome the change of wording from the Government. The idea that the vicar turning up for Sunday tea or a rambler walking across a footpath could be roped into assist in the activities is of concern. The provision is welcome as it is much more sensible.

However, I want to press the Minister on the words,


    "under the direction or control of a person mentioned ... ".

He said that it would not include the person's family, but children are clearly under the control of their parents. Can he give a clear assurance that the wording would not include, for instance, 13, 14 and 15 year-old children who ought not to be involved in the slaughter of livestock.

Lord Whitty: If the noble Lord thinks that 13, 14 and 15 year-old children are under control, his is a different

25 Jul 2002 : Column 664

experience from mine. Nevertheless, in response to the noble Countess, I have undertaken to consider whether the wording is right.

The Duke of Montrose: I thank the Minister for his response to the amendment. I believe that 13, 14 and 15 year-old children are the very ones you would want to chase the animals to get hold of them. The younger ones might be more difficult.

A person's ability should be included in the provisions. A person should not be liable merely because he is present. I can think of many occasions in my part of the world when some old boy of about 85 takes great delight in checking the sheep every day and reporting back. If he thought that the sheep were being taken in and inspected for some purpose, he might want to watch. He would then be asked to assist and if he did not he would be infringing this part of the Bill. The tractorman might have broken a leg the day before, so there needs to be a little flexibility in the measure.

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 83:


    Page 19, line 3, after "premises" insert "who falls within subsection (3A)"

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 84 not moved.]

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 85:


    Page 19, line 4, leave out "reasonably needs" and insert "may reasonably require"

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 86:


    Page 19, line 5, at end insert—


"(3A) The following persons fall within this subsection—
(a) the occupier of the premises;
(b) a person appearing to the inspector to have charge of animals on the premises;
(c) a person appearing to the inspector to be under the direction or control of a person mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b)."

The noble Lord said: I beg to move.

Baroness Byford: I do not propose to speak to Amendments Nos. 87, 88 and 90. The hour is late. I think that it was the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House who said yesterday that debates beyond 10 o'clock are really not worth while. I shall want to debate the matter more fully.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 87 to 90 not moved.]

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 91:


    Page 19, line 26, leave out "Minister" and insert "Secretary of State"

On Question, amendment agreed to.

25 Jul 2002 : Column 665

[Amendments Nos. 92 and 93 not moved.]

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 94:


    Page 19, line 30, after "make" insert "an order or"

The noble Lord said: New Section 36L of the Bill provides for any regulations to be exercisable by statutory instrument and subject to parliamentary scrutiny under the negative procedure. The amendment extends that power so that it applies also to orders made for the same purpose. I think that that objective will be welcomed by the Committee. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 95:


    Page 19, line 35, at end insert—


""assessor" means a person holding a veterinary qualification and farm animal experience but who is neither a civil servant nor a government employee;"

The noble Baroness said: The Minister indicated that he will return to the issue of assessors. I do not need to add more. I am happy to accept his word that he will consider the matter.

Perhaps I may speak to Amendment No. 95A. It is important. I hope that the Minister will consider the matter. As the noble Lord will have gathered from the debates today there is great concern about achieving a balance between the eradication of scrapie and allowing a natural period of time. I shall refer to the matter more fully on Report. Perhaps the Minister will indicate that he is also willing to consider this issue. I beg to move Amendment No. 95.


Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page