Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 8:
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we all hope that the Government will never have to have recourse to the preventive slaughter power, but should we have to do so we must be open about the reason for using it. That is the reason for the amendment. It will enshrine in the Bill a requirement for the Secretary of State to publish the reasons for using the new slaughter power in any given set of circumstances before the power is exercised. We fully intend for any use of the new slaughter power to be as open and as transparent as possible.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I speak briefly to Amendment No. 8A, which is grouped with this amendment. We have already made clear that vaccination will be considered as a disease control option in any future outbreak. It follows that if we decide that the new slaughter power should be used, in publishing the reasons for using it we must explain why the alternative options are not appropriate. However, we understand the concern that mention of the reasons for not using vaccination should be explicit on the face of the Bill. We therefore accept the principle of Amendment No. 8A and give a commitment to make the necessary amendment to the Bill at Third Reading. I beg to move.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, I am provisionally grateful to the Government. I shall be eternally grateful if I am happy with their wording. I am sure that my wording is brilliant and far better than anything the Government can come up with. But I do not expect them to agree to that and I await with interest the Government's amendment at Third Reading.
Lord Plumb: My Lords, I welcome the requirement for an explanation of preventive slaughter in Amendment No. 8. This is related to everything that we have discussed today. An explanation of that policy is important because it makes it more transparent for those concerned with the problem.
Subsection (2) obliges the Secretary of State first to publish his reasons for the exercise of his or her power to carry out a preventive slaughter. In principle, this is extremely important because we are likely to be dealing with animals in a firebreak hole, which may well be some distance from the outbreak of the infection. At the very least, the owners of such, almost certainly healthy, animals deserve a satisfactory explanation of why the Secretary of State proposes to slaughter them. As I am sure we all accept, the decision has to be based on sound, published veterinary and scientific advice, and not on wider factors such as social and economic considerations.
Subsection (3) of the proposed new Section 32D states that if the Secretary of State does not comply with the requirement to publish a statement of reasons before proceeding to slaughter, then his or her action must be taken to have been done without lawful authority. I merely ask: what does that mean? The animal will have been slaughtered; is it intended that the owners will be able to sue the Secretary of State for damages because he or she had failed to comply with the procedure set down in statute? I pose the question. We should welcome clarification on this point.
I believe that we have to find a description of "circumstances", to include details of the area affected. That could mean that if the epidemic spread, the Minister would have to make separate statements for each areafor Devon, for Warwickshire, for Cheshire, for Cumbria, or wherever it may be. Therefore we need to proceed and push for the detail of where the Secretary of State will publish and for what reasons. Will he or she use various regional offices, NFU offices and so on, to do that? It is a matter that must be taken further.
My only other point relates to subsection (2) of the preventive slaughter clause in Amendment No. 8. I should like an explanation of the explanation. Subsection (2) states:
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Plumb. The Plain English Campaign would love this for its gobbledegook prize.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I should hate to fall foul of the Plain English Campaign. Noble Lords have probably read the text too often. The first time I read it, the text seemed absolutely clear. If one continues to read it, it may become less so. I shall consider whether there is a simpler way to express its meaning. I believe that it means that the Secretary of State may not do what he or she is not legally entitled to do. But that is my precis, and I shall check. It does not sound to me like lawyers' language.
In answer to the first question of the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, the subsection does not of itself create a right to damages. It means that the Government need to take it into account. They could obviously be subject to court proceedings should that be appropriate in individual circumstances. It is almost impossible to answer a hypothetical question in this context. What would happen if a Secretary of State acted without his or her power is an impossible question to answer because it would depend on the circumstances. We are defining in the legislation the powers that the Secretary of State will have. If the noble Lord is not happy with that explanation, I shall write to him and send copies of the letter to other noble Lords.
Whether it should be an area-by-area publication because of regional and local variations will of course depend entirely on the circumstances. Whether it was an outbreak such as that in the 1960s, where it was contained geographically, or whether it affected a wider area or dispersed areas, would govern the way publication was made. But publication would have to be reasonably available for those who needed the information.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 8A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 8, not moved.]
Clause 3 [Slaughter of vaccinated animals]:
Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 10:
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 13.
I said earlier that, in adopting a vaccination strategy, the Government's presumption would be that a vaccinate-to-live strategy would be appropriate, but that there could be circumstances in which a vaccinate-and-kill policy might still be necessary. In those circumstancesthe circumstances pursued in the Netherlands during the last epidemicthe question arises of compensation for animals which are vaccinated and are then compulsorily slaughtered.
There are strong grounds for clarifying that position. There is, in particular, a need to ensure maximum compliance with the vaccination process in the first place: if animals subsequently had to be slaughtered, farmers would receive the same compensation as they would for non-vaccinated animals. That is what the amendment prescribes. I commend it to the House.
Amendment No. 13 would simply add a reference to the order-making power for diseases other than foot and mouth; namely, the proposed new subsection (4B) in Amendment No. 10. As we discussed in Committee, the position regarding compensation for other diseases is not consistent with the 100 per cent compensation in FMD cases; so different considerations would apply. The amendment simply makes the cross-reference. So far as concerns foot and mouth, Amendment No. 10 would make it clear that 100 per cent compensation would be available in that case. I beg to move.
"EXPLANATION OF PREVENTIVE SLAUGHTER
In the 1981 Act the following section is inserted after section 32C (as inserted by section (Disease control (slaughter) protocol) above)
"32D EXPLANATION OF PREVENTIVE SLAUGHTER
(1) This section applies to a power exercisable by the Secretary of State under
(a) paragraph 3(1)(c) of Schedule 3;
(b) any other provision of that Schedule as amended by an order under section 32A(1)(a).
(2) The Secretary of State must not exercise a power to which this section applies unless before he first exercises the power in relation to any description of circumstances he publishes his reasons for the exercise of the power in relation to the circumstances of that description.
(3) If the Secretary of State does not comply with subsection (2) in relation to any description of circumstances anything done in connection with the exercise of the power in such circumstances must be taken to have been done without lawful authority.""
"The Secretary of State must not exercise a power to which this section applies unless before he first exercises the power in relation to any description of circumstances he publishes his reasons for the exercise of the power in relation to the circumstances of that description".
What on earth does that mean? I have read it several timesand I read into itbut I am concerned for those who may be affected by the Bill who are reading it for the first time. They may think that a bit of gobbledegook has been written into the Bill that is
totally unnecessary and uncalled for. In accepting the amendmentI am delighted that Amendment No. 8A, which completes the clause and which we fully support, is to be acceptedI would merely ask the Minister to consider rewording subsection (2) and putting it into English.
Page 2, line 40, leave out from "compensation" to end of line 41 and insert "in accordance with subsections (4A) and (4B).
(4A) In the case of an animal treated with vaccine for the purpose of preventing the spread of foot-and-mouth disease
(a) if the animal was infected with foot-and-mouth disease the compensation is the value of the animal immediately before it became so infected;
(b) in any other case the compensation is the value of the animal immediately before it was slaughtered.
(4B) In the case of an animal treated with vaccine for the purpose of preventing the spread of a disease specified by order under subsection (1) the compensation is of such an amount as may be prescribed by order of the Secretary of State.
(4C) In arriving at a value under subsection (4A) above no account is to be taken of the fact that the animal had been treated with vaccine as mentioned in that subsection."
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page