Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the statutory instrument. I join other noble Lords in expressing disquiet that we are being asked to discuss this regulation, when it seems to me, and the Committee on the Merits of Statutory Instruments, to be the third in a series of three. The Minister is shaking his head, but the reason it is difficult to discuss this one first is that it does not bring in vaccination issues, to which the noble Countess referred, and it would have been much easier to discuss these regulations in the light of vaccination.

Nevertheless, I appreciate the need for clarity. If there are any lessons to be learned from the foot and mouth outbreak, from which we all suffered, it is that clarity and speed are of the essence. My main worry concerns the designation of separate production units, because in the report of the 6th Standing Committee in another place from 8 December, the Minister said that infected premises were those premises that were confirmed by the Chief Veterinary Office as having the disease present. He says:

"It would not be possible to designate separate production units. That designation has to depend on the circumstances at the time, what animals are kept and where, the biosecurity of the premises and the nature of the outbreak of the disease".—[Official Report, Commons, Sixth Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, 8/12/05; col. 9.]

I appreciate that the nature of the outbreak might be variable, but surely more forward planning on what constitutes a separate production unit and what farmers might expect in an outbreak would be helpful. The best recent example of that has been the lack of
 
12 Dec 2005 : Column 1044
 
planning apparent from the fact that, until last month, there was no register of poultry keepers. That is incredible, considering that avian flu has been around for the past two or three years. The Government should make an effort to do more work on what the separate production units might consist of so that if we are faced with another outbreak, speed and clarity can be achieved.

Finally, the Minister said that the other two measures would be introduced by negative procedure. Why was this one introduced by affirmative procedure? The instrument on vaccination, which I would have thought merited an equal amount of debate, will be introduced under the negative procedure.

7.45 pm

Lord Bach: The answer to that last question is that this amends primary legislation, whereas the others do not. I am surprised to be criticised for the Government having chosen to introduce a particular statutory instrument by affirmative rather than negative resolution. One of the other two does not have to come before Parliament at all.

I shall do my best to answer all the questions. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. There are three statutory instruments because they represent incompatible powers and parliamentary procedures. We want to use domestic powers, where possible, so that most of the directive is implemented by order under the Animal Health Act. Those powers are not sufficient for vaccination under the directive, so there is a second statutory instrument. We have used the affirmative procedure because it amends primary legislation. For that reason we need a third statutory instrument.

The noble Duke asked why we had laid the instrument now. The amendment will not apply anyway until the other statutory instruments are in place, and we have laid this early to allow for a quicker transposition with a longer lead-in time for debate.

There will be no change to the existing definition of "infected premises".

The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, the Minister said that he wishes to have a longer time for debate. Is that the debate about the forthcoming instruments?

Lord Bach: No, my Lords, it is this instrument. Infected premises are those that are confirmed by the Chief Veterinary Officer as having disease present under the veterinary definition set out in the FMD directive. That confirmation must be arrived at by a veterinary inquiry involving sampling, unless the CVO believes that the premises is epidemiologically linked with another premises that has already been declared to be infected by sampling. In that case alone, disease can be confirmed on clinical grounds by examining the animals. That ensures that action can be taken quickly to stop the spread of disease when the original case has been confirmed by sampling. In short, that is the
 
12 Dec 2005 : Column 1045
 
definition of infected premises. They do not change as a consequence of the statutory instrument that is to come.

I was asked about the directive's policy on the contiguous cull. The directive anticipates that such a policy may be pursued and specifically provides for a preventative eradication programme. There is no need to change UK legislation, as the powers necessary to slaughter susceptible animals that are contiguous to confirmed infection already exist in the Animal Health Act 1981. Our policy is, first and foremost, the slaughter of susceptible animals on infected premises and their dangerous contacts. In addition, emergency vaccination would also be considered as part of the control strategy from the start of any outbreak. That does not rule out the possibility of a contiguous cull if circumstances and our modelling showed it to be necessary.

I shall write to the noble Duke on isolation as an exception to the 2001 contiguous cull, which was another point that he raised.

On movement bans, we already have the power to put in place a national movement ban at the time of the confirmation of the first case. The noble Countess, Lady Mar, asked about the exceptions to the slaughter duty. Those set out in the regulations are precisely those laid out in the directive. Making further exceptions would under-implement the directive. She asked about PCR testing. The FMD directive requires that diagnostic tests and standards must be at least as stringent as those in the OIE manual. The directive also allows the Commission to adopt more stringent tests and standards than those in that manual. That has not been done, but if it were, the Commission tests would become the new benchmark and replace the standards.

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, it is coming up to five years since the foot and mouth disease outbreak. If that has not been done, can the Minister say why not? I remember the late Fred Brown coming over from America and telling us that they were using the tests in America. Why has that not been done in this country in the past five years?

Lord Bach: My Lords, perhaps the noble Countess would be good enough to let me finish the answer that I was giving to her query. Tests not in the OIE manual or adopted Community standards are explicitly allowed, but only if they are shown to match or exceed the sensitivity and specificity standards in the manual or Community standards, whichever of the two are the most stringent. Defra is working with its veterinary advisers to study the efficacy of PCR testing. Should it be concluded that it meets those standards, we could use it under the new legislation. However, the directive permits us also to confirm disease by a link to an existing outbreak on clinical grounds alone to control disease fully in a fast moving situation. I understand that the legislation allows PCR testing, if approved. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, asked about separate production units. We need to take account of the situation at the time. Farmers can change their facilities and how they farm from them.
 
12 Dec 2005 : Column 1046
 

Returning to the PCR matter about which the noble Countess asked, tests have to be validated by the OIE. We are waiting on that. I shall write with a fuller answer to her query.

I have done my best in a very short time to answer the questions put in the debate.

The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving me the opportunity to come back on this matter. There is a very good list of the criteria that are used in building up a picture of infected premises which includes taking samples and sending them off for testing. One of the problems that we had in the last foot and mouth disease outbreak was that there was a delay between the samples being sent off and the results coming back. We would like to know that that delay is minimised under the current arrangements. There may be a question about whether the early results from a test would trigger stock movement or whether one has to wait until one has the full results of all the tests.

Lord Bach: My Lords, the answer is the former of those two. It can be minimised in the way that the noble Duke would prefer. I hope that I have answered the queries that have arisen out of the debate.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Civil Partnership Act 2004 (International Immunities and Privileges, Companies and Adoption) Order 2005

7.55 pm

Lord Triesman rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 30 November be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].