---

The Countess of Mar: Speaking personally, I should be much happier making cups of tea for the inspectors than having to round up my animals and watch them being slaughtered. I speak from personal experience. You build a bond with your animals. That applies particularly to people with small herds. That is where the Minister's department found difficulties during the recent foot and mouth outbreak. Much of the conflict occurred with owners of small herds or flocks. That is where particular tact is needed. With a small herd, for heaven's sake, it is quite easy for someone else to come in and round up the animals and leave the owner to make cups of tea for the officials. That would be much better.

Baroness Byford: Before the Minister replies, perhaps I may raise a couple of points in addition to those raised by the noble Countess, Lady Mar. She touched on the fact that she is a keeper of goats and would find it very difficult were she asked to help with their slaughter. She referred to small herds. There is also the question of those who have rare breeds.

Rare breeds are very specific. In our earlier discussions the Government recognised their importance. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, who is presently not in her place, spoke about those who keep stock for breeding purposes. It is traumatic enough to lose your own animals, but there is a slight difference between an animal for commercial purposes which you have for only a short amount of time and one with which you work in establishing a high-quality breeding herd. It is important for the Government to bear that point in mind.

On this point, what does the Minister think will be covered by subsection (2) of the proposed new Section 66A that will not be covered in subsection (1)?

Lord Whitty: The proposed new subsection (1) deals with impeding entry to the premises. Subsection (2) deals with the issue that we are discussing; namely, rendering assistance.

Baroness Byford: My reading of the subsection may not be right. As I understand it, in subsection (1):

8 Oct 2002 : Column 228

"A person commits an offence if without lawful authority",

he does any of the three things listed in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). Secondly, he commits an offence if,

"he is required to give assistance under section 62C(3), and ... he fails to give it".

I should have thought that his actions would already have fallen within the provisions of paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) in subsection (1). The noble Lord shakes his head.

Lord Whitty: He may accede to admission, but then refuse to give assistance. The first provision deals with an attempt to prevent an inspector entering the premises in the first instance; the second provision deals with a refusal of reasonable assistance to an inspector who has entered the premises.

The Countess of Mar: In response to the noble Baroness, I should be prepared to let someone into my premises, but I should not be prepared personally to take part in rounding the animals up and seeing them shot.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: Examining the responses to this series of amendments, one sees that the situation is extremely difficult. For example, Amendment No. 264 is three-dimensional. The amendment seeks to leave out lines 22 to 24. Those lines contain a reference to new Section 62C(3), which contains a reference to new Section 62A. When you get to new Section 62A, you see that,

"An inspector may at any time enter any premises for the purpose of ... ascertaining whether a power conferred by or under this Act to cause an animal to be slaughtered should be exercised, or ... doing anything in pursuance of the exercise of that power".

The noble Countess and the noble Baroness rightly mentioned specific circumstances where this is effectively a humanitarian issue—it relates to whether you can stomach rounding up your animals to be slaughtered. We all know of cases where members of the family—young children, for example—have pet lambs which have to be rounded up and slaughtered. That is a terrible thing. Children understandably become devoted to an animal that they have reared. Indeed, the Young Farmers Movement began by rearing calves. I recollect that it started in 1938 to 1940 with "calf clubs", with youngsters rearing young animals.

There are very sensitive issues under discussion here. To allow this provision to remain in the Bill is abhorrent—I use the word advisedly. Unless you have seen the circumstances and have had to do this, it is difficult to understand what you are asking people to do. It is a humanitarian issue and I ask the Minister to consider that point. Clearly we cannot press the amendment to a vote now, but I hope that when the Bill returns for its Report stage the feelings that have been expressed will have been taken into account. I hope that in some way these powers can be less malign than they are at present. I have no alternative in the circumstances but to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

8 Oct 2002 : Column 229

[Amendments Nos. 265 to 267 not moved.]

Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.

[Amendment No. 268 not moved.]

Clause 8 [Tests and samples: power of entry]:

[Amendments Nos. 269 to 271 not moved.]

Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 272 to 275:

Page 5, line 36, leave out "during that period"

Page 5, line 37, at end insert—

"(c) whether any causative agent of disease is present on the premises."
Page 5, line 39, leave out "Minister" and insert "Secretary of State"

Page 6, line 3, at end insert—

"(3A) Causative agent includes any virus, bacterium and any other organism or infectious substance which may cause or transmit disease."

On Question, amendments agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 276 to 279 not moved.]

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 279A:

Page 6, leave out lines 14 to 23 and insert—

"(3) The second condition is that each of the following applies to the occupier of the premises—
(a) he has been informed of the decision to seek entry to the premises and of the reasons for that decision;
(b) he has failed to allow entry to the premises on being requested to do so by an inspector;
(c) he has been informed of the decision to apply for the warrant.
(4) The third condition is that—
(a) the premises are unoccupied or the occupier is absent and (in either case) notice of intention to apply for the warrant has been left in a conspicuous place on the premises, or
(b) an application for admission to the premises or the giving of notice of intention to apply for the warrant would defeat the object of entering the premises."

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 280 to 283 not moved.]

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 283A:

Page 6, line 25, at end insert—

"(6) A warrant issued under this section must be executed only at a reasonable hour unless the inspector thinks that the case is one of urgency.
(7) In relation to any premises to which entry is obtained by virtue of a warrant under this section the Secretary of State must retain for a period of not less than 12 months beginning with the day after entry—
(a) a copy of the warrant;
(b) a copy of any record of the steps taken to effect entry to the premises and the actions taken on the premises by the inspector and any other person entering the premises with him."

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 284 not moved.]

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 285:

Page 6, line 30, at end insert—

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

8 Oct 2002 : Column 230

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 286:

Page 6, line 32, leave out "on the premises" and insert "biologically susceptible to the disease"

The noble Baroness said: Yesterday, we debated Amendment No. 211, a very similar amendment in which we asked the Government to consider the position of those animals that were not susceptible to infection with foot and mouth disease. We are anxious that nobody should decide to use slaughter backed up by draconian powers of the Bill to eliminate animals or birds that may or may not have been in contact with infected animals. Scientific theories seem to multiply faster than rabbits, and the speed at which they are taken up and often dropped is both bewildering and frightening. The thought of what might happen, particularly if some of the more exotic diseases made it over here, should ensure that everyone in this Chamber supports the amendment. I hope that the Government will consider the matter and assure me that it applies only to animals that are susceptible to the disease. I beg to move.

9 p.m.

The Countess of Mar: Once again, we have this business of how the Bill appears. This is another clause that has earned the legislation the name the Animal Death Bill as opposed to the Animal Health Bill. I ask the Committee to look seriously at the noble Baroness's amendments. It is the appearance that matters.

---