| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.35 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.33 to 8.35 p.m.]
Animal Health Bill
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Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.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—
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Plumb moved Amendment No. 263:
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
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:
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 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.
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 farmer 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
"(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)."
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—
(a) serve a copy of the warrant on the occupier of the premises, or (if the occupier is not on the premises),
(b) leave a copy of the warrant in a conspicuous place on the premises."
Page 5, line 17, leave out "(proof of which shall lie on him)"
Page 5, leave out lines 22 to 24.
"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.
8.45 p.m.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page