---

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I give an undertaking to write to noble Lords who have shown an interest in the issue.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 200:

Page 2, line 38, leave out "Minister" and insert "Secretary of State"

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 201 and 202 not moved.]

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 203:

Page 2, line 40, leave out "Minister" and insert "Secretary of State"

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 204 and 205 not moved.]

Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.

Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 206:

After Clause 4, insert the following new clause—

"NATIONAL CONTINGENCY PLAN

8 Oct 2002 : Column 161

In the 1981 Act the following section is inserted after section 36—
"36A NATIONAL CONTINGENCY PLAN
The Government shall prepare and regularly maintain, in consultation with interested public and private bodies, a national contingency plan for foot-and-mouth disease and other specified diseases, which shall be laid before Parliament.""

The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 206 is our proposal for a national contingency plan. As Members of the Committee who were in the Chamber yesterday know, the Government have indicated that they will propose their own national contingency plan. I hope that that position has not changed overnight.

We are asking the Government to,

"prepare and regularly maintain, in consultation with the interested public and private bodies, a national contingency plan for foot-and-mouth disease and other specified diseases, which shall be laid before Parliament."

We are asking that such a plan be prepared, regularly updated and maintained in consultation with other bodies. Yesterday, the Minister said that the Government are giving such a commitment. We are pleased that they have accepted the weight of our arguments.

Anderson devoted a whole chapter to contingency planning and made six associated recommendations. One of his major criticisms of the 2001 foot and mouth outbreak, made on page 34, was that although the then animal health contingency plan had been checked in 2000, implementation of the Drummond report recommendations was proceeding slowly. I hope that the Minister will be able today to update us on subsequent developments. The obvious inference is that the department must be answerable frequently and openly to a higher authority.

According to the National Audit Office report, on page 29, the national contingency plan had been approved in July 1993. The work in 2000 consisted mainly of updating contact names, telephone numbers and minor facts. Work had in fact been done on local plans, but four of the 19 plans had not been updated in years. I am sure that Members of the Committee will be disappointed and concerned by that fact.

The National Audit Office report says that the contingency plans coped in areas where the outbreaks were small but not in the worst-hit areas where many more farms were affected. I beg to move.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: I support Amendment No. 206 and its proposal for a national contingency plan. In the interest of brevity, I should point out that many of these points were debated yesterday in relation to our Amendment No. 99 and Amendment No. 103A. In those debates Ministers told us that a national contingency plan was an integral part of their plans and would be outlined in due course. I support the amendment and trust that the Government will keep their word in relation to yesterday's assurances.

The Countess of Mar: I, too, support the amendment. However, I ask the Minister whether it is not a European Union requirement for the British Government to have a contingency plan for foot and

8 Oct 2002 : Column 162

mouth disease that must be periodically revised and approved by the European Union? Was that not done with the July 2000 version? I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, whether the contingency plan applies to all animal diseases or only to foot and mouth disease, as does the current contingency plan?

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): I should first apologise for not being present for the beginning of the debate. As I indicated yesterday, the Government intend to table an amendment that is not dissimilar to Amendment No. 206. Although I should like to finalise this with my legal advisers, the intent of our amendment will be in line with the requirements of Amendment No. 206.

An interim foot and mouth contingency plan is currently available and will shortly be not so much finalised as continually updated. In answer to the noble Countess, Lady Mar, the foot and mouth contingency plan will serve as a template for the control of other diseases. In addition, however, specific contingency elements will be developed to deal with other diseases. That point would presumably be covered by Amendment No. 206, and it will certainly be covered by the amendment that we shall table.

In principle, therefore, I am at one with the noble Baroness, Lady Byford. With the leave of the House, I shall table an appropriate amendment on Report.

Baroness Byford: I thank the Minister for that clarification. The noble Countess, Lady Mar, was right to raise a point which I have specifically dealt with in my amendment. Under "National contingency plan", the amendment states that,

"In the 1981 Act the following section is inserted after section 36."

Designated as Section 36A, it states that,

"The Government shall prepare and regularly maintain, in consultation with interested public and private bodies, a national contingency plan for foot-and-mouth disease and other specified diseases, which shall be laid before Parliament."

I am satisfied with the Minister's reply and look forward to his tabling of the government amendment. I am also extremely grateful. Ministers have appreciated the weight of our argument and are moving forward on this occasion. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

4.30 p.m.

Lord Greaves moved Amendment No. 207:

After Clause 4, insert the following new clause—

"E"PIRY
Part 1 of this Act shall cease to have effect on 31st December 2004."

The noble Lord said: The purpose of Amendment No. 207 is to probe the intentions of the Government as to the status of the legislation that is proposed in the medium term. When the Bill was first put forward there was a very clear impression given that it was interim legislation and that it would at some stage be

8 Oct 2002 : Column 163

replaced, supplanted or added to by further legislation following the reports of the Anderson committee, the Follett report and so on. Indeed, we are now promised a report from the committee of the European Parliament which many of us are looking forward to reading.

A long time ago—it seems a long time ago—back in January when we had the Second Reading of the Bill, there was considerable discussion and debate as to whether the Bill should proceed. My noble friend Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer is recovering from a serious operation. I am sure that the whole Committee joins me in wishing her a good recovery so that she can once again take her place in the Chamber. At Second Reading she moved an amendment which would have had the effect of delaying consideration of the Bill. Subsequently the noble Lord, Lord Moran, invoked a procedure which I believe had not been used within living memory—not even that of Members of this Chamber—and, as a result, the Committee stage was postponed for several months.

At Second Reading the Minister made some comments which I wish to quote as they are pertinent to the question we are discussing. He said,

"We look forward to learning the longer-term lessons that those investigations will yield ... in relation to those lessons about which we are already aware, we should take steps to rectify the situation now. That is what the Bill is about".—[Official Report, 14/1/02; col. 838.]

He added, at col. 842, that,

"the Bill reflects the lessons already learnt from foot and mouth disease; the need for us in the coming months to have a full armoury of weapons, should the disease recur".

We have heard that constant refrain from the noble Lord and the Government. I believe that that view is broadly shared in the Chamber. The noble Lord referred, also at col. 842, to,

"the time when we can take into account the full outcome of the inquiries which we have set up to look into the disease and the lessons learnt on a longer-term, more strategic basis. At that point—

this is the part I emphasise—

"I have no doubt that the Government will need to come forward with both legislative and operational proposals in more comprehensive detail".

Yesterday the Minister said in his statement that,

"I should make clear that our comprehensive response to the Lessons to be Learned and the Royal Society inquiries were intended to be published in late October or early November and I cannot pre-empt the publication of that response ... However, we have given priority consideration to those aspects of the inquiries that could impact on the Bill".—[Official Report, 7/10/02; col. 22.]

The Minister also referred to various government amendments that would be brought forward.

There is an interesting question concerning the status of the legislation now as regards the Government's intentions. Is this still regarded—as I believe many regarded it six months ago—as interim legislation which will be replaced, or is it permanent, long-term legislation? Will any further legislation that results from the Government's consideration of the Anderson, Follett and, no doubt, other inquiries that will emerge later this year—very soon later this year,

8 Oct 2002 : Column 164

one hopes—be additional legislation building on the Bill or will it be replacement legislation in some kind of omnibus Bill that takes over from this Bill? In other words, is this Bill a short or medium-term answer to the immediate problems to allow the Government to deal with a new outbreak or outbreaks of other diseases should they occur—heaven forbid—in the interim, or is it intended that this legislation will still be on the statute book in 10 or 20 years' time? The purpose of tabling the amendment I am discussing is to probe the Government's intentions. It is important that we know the position. I am not sure that we have yet received a clear statement from the Minister on the matter. I beg to move.

---