asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, the aviation industry is vital for prosperity, but can affect the environment too. Our policy is to promote improved standards for noise and emissions at source; to encourage noise control at airports through local consultation; and where appropriate to regulate directly. The aviation industry should meet the external costs it imposes. The air transport White Paper, later this year, will establish a framework for the long-term sustainable development of aviation in the United Kingdom.

My Lords, that is a very satisfactory Question, as far as it goes, and I thank the Minister for it.

Oh!

My Lords, is the Minister aware that, although aviation is one of the fastest growing sources of greenhouse gas emissions, it pays no tax on the petrol that it uses? Should not something be done about that too?

My Lords, I hope the noble Lord meant that it was a satisfactory Answer as far as it went rather than a satisfactory Question.

Both!

My Lords, I agree entirely. The point about greenhouse gas is an important one. We need to identify what steps can be taken to reduce it. That involves working with the international civil aviation organisations, which Britain is doing. This country is taking a lead in trying to reduce emissions as much as possible.

My Lords, is the Minister aware of a recent report by the Countryside Alliance indicating that, entirely due to distortions in fuel tax, a farmer moving a load of apples to his local market pays more in fuel tax than a supermarket does if it flies in a load of apples from South Africa? Is not that an absurd situation?

My Lords, that is a most interesting question. I was totally unaware of such a report. I am unable to know whether it is right or wrong and what the comparison is. The noble Earl's question goes rather wide of that on the Order Paper, which relates to the aviation industry—noble Lords shake their heads, but it was about fuel in relation to the rural economy. I do not know about the comparison referred to, which is somewhat wide of the Question.

My Lords, does my noble and learned friend recognise—I speak as the president of BALPA—that the airline industry and the trade unions do their best to mitigate the problem of noise? Sometimes they may make mistakes, but on the whole I wish—as I hope my noble and learned friend does—that other industries would copy their example.

My Lords, I entirely recognise the efforts made by pilots to reduce noise, as far as it is possible for them to do so—for example, in the way that landing and take-off occur. It is a problem from which other industries could learn.

My Lords, perhaps I may press the Minister to add to the answer that he gave to the supplementary question of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont. Bearing in mind the parlous state of the airline industry and the need not to disadvantage our own airlines, is it possible for the Government to take the lead internationally not only in attempting to reduce emissions, but also in attempting to impose tax on aviation fuel? The Minister did not make that commitment. Is it the Government's intention to do so?

My Lords, I did not make any commitment one way or the other because I am obviously not in a position to do so. It is not my intention to make a commitment one way or the other. Emissions from aircraft are an important issue. The right reverend Prelate is right to draw attention to the fact that the airline industry is under pressure, for reasons known to all of us. This matter should he addressed primarily on an international basis.

My Lords, in answer to a Question in another place on regional flight surcharges, the Minister replied that it was simply a matter of customers shopping around. In view of the comprehensive Answer given earlier by the noble and learned Lord, does he stand by the assertion that associated issues such as ground congestion and noise are really just a matter for market forces?

My Lords, I made it clear in my Answer that noise, for example, should be dealt with, if possible, by local agreement; namely,

with the people affected by the noise. Where local agreement is not possible, as has proved to be the case, the Government have to use their powers under the 1982 Act—which they have done from time to time. So I do not think that a reference to market forces is the right way to approach the issue of noise, nor has anyone suggested that it is.

My Lords, perhaps I may press the Minister further. He said that the Government are taking a lead internationally. What plans are in hand, what consultations are taking place and how quickly will we have some response to them so that we can debate the issue further in this House?

My Lords, for example, Article 2.2 of the Kyoto Protocol requires states to work through the International Civil Aviation Organisation. The United Kingdom has been at the forefront of work to promote stringent, technically feasible and economically reasonable standards in that respect.

My Lords, did the Minister know that if one was to buy a light aircraft in Germany with a silencer attached to it that had been certified under the same JAR regulations as apply to planes in this country, the authorities in this country would require that silencer to be removed and put through a whole new certification programme? If we are leading the world and doing so with the world, should we not start setting a lead in reducing noise by not having to have silencers recertified?

My Lords, I do not have the noble Lord's experience in buying light aircraft, so I do not know the differing regimes on silencers. I shall write to him about that.

My Lords, may I press the Minister further on his response to my question? He did not answer it. I hope that he is able to do so. If not, will he please write to me?

My Lords, I thought that I had answered that question. It is not appropriate for me to go through the specific heads of each technical proposal. I am saying that we are taking the lead in relation to the work in the ICAO.

My Lords, irrespective of whether the noble and learned Lord believes that the question asked by my noble friend Lord Peel was outside the terms of the main Question, will he write to my noble friend and deal with the issue that he raised?

My Lords, I think that the noble Earl's question was about an issue that is completely separate from the main Question.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

When they intend to publish the rules for their proposed emissions trading scheme.

My Lords, the UK emissions trading scheme was launched by my department last August. We are on course for the scheme to go live in April. As part of that, the department published draft legal rules for consultation on 18th December 2001. We anticipate releasing the final rules for the scheme later this month.

My Lords, if firms are going to be expected to trade from April, are not the Government leaving it extremely late to provide them with the necessary rules so that, for instance, they can make their bids in the allocation of the £215 million incentive money that the Government have made available? That may well be all right for firms that are currently in the market, as it were. But what about the rules for new projects? Is it true that they are not likely to see the light of day until well into the summer? Arc the Government aware that there may be a number of new projects showing substantial potential reductions in emissions? They will simply stand still until the new rules are available and people know where they stand.

My Lords, there are a number of different ways of participating in the scheme, as the noble Lord will be aware. Those who commit themselves to absolute reductions will have clear rules in time to start in April. There are those who are already involved in sector agreements and others who may be further down the line. The mainstream rules will be produced by April. There will be project rules slightly later. As has been agreed with all the representatives of industry with whom we have consulted, it is important to get the system up and running as rapidly as possible. It will give UK business and the City the chance to be the front runners in the area across the world. There has been substantial business involvement in the design of the scheme. We can meet the tight but achievable target of starting the main part of the scheme from April.

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, made an important point about projects. Is the Minister aware of the difficulty that could be caused with CHP schemes or others that will clearly save energy being delayed until they know where they stand on the emissions trading arrangements?

My Lords, we very much hope that good CHP schemes will come into the system. Some of them will be part of an individual company's ability to set itself targets and some will be under the project

arrangements. It is only a matter of months before the full rules are available. It is important that we move as rapidly as possible on all parts of the scheme. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, that CHP projects will contribute to meeting our targets in that area.

My Lords, can my noble friend tell the House of any government schemes in place to encourage companies that are reluctant to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions?

My Lords, the UK emissions trading scheme is exactly such a scheme. It will reduce greenhouse gases and involve market mechanisms in the delivery of that aim. As the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, said, the Government are also providing £215 million over five years for firms that voluntarily take on emissions reduction targets. Those who are outside the scheme will miss out compared with those inside. The scheme will also provide significant gains from what might be called "learning by doing". Firms will be able to engage in that market at a later stage. The system is designed as an incentive, one way or another, to firms to come into the scheme and not to resist the pressure for reductions in emissions. We hope that the bulk of British industry will eventually participate in this or other means of meeting our Kyoto targets.

My Lords, further to the Minister's answer to my noble friend Lord Jenkin, representations have been made to us about the delay in the rules and the effect that that will have on investment. This is the time of year when companies are often looking forward to their forward time investment. Is the Minister concerned that investment may be lost and that new projects may fail to claim money that they would otherwise be able to obtain?

My Lords, the discussions on the scheme have continued for some time. Consequently, the hulk of industry is aware of the scheme's broad attributes, and I should have thought that companies would have already begun to take into account both the availability of the market mechanism and of the government money available under the scheme. I should therefore think that it would not have a serious effect on investment decisions in the corning few months.

My Lords, the Government give the impression that they are not aware that there is a substantial trade in emissions permits on the Internet, or that the only country currently unable to participate in that trade is the United Kingdom—because the UK Government have not yet made the rules and firms do not know where they stand. Will the Government now get ahead and deal with it?

My Lords, I dispute that that is the case. In many ways, this is the cutting edge scheme across Europe. The European Union has proposed some slightly different rules, but there is no way in which those would come into play except at the back end of the timetable of this scheme. Although voluntary trading is occurring in North America and around the world, this scheme would be the first and the most effective and comprehensive emissions trading system. In that, as I said, we are ahead of the world and not behind. I think that the noble Lord is being slightly misleading on that point.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

What are the main priorities of the United Kingdom's Space-Science and Technology programmes, following the European Space Agency ministerial meeting in Edinburgh in November.

My Lords, at the European Space Agency Ministerial Council in Edinburgh, the Government pursued their main priorities in space by investing in programmes to develop future commercial space markets, underpin future environmental policy and support outstanding scientific achievements. The main UK commitments were: almost £90 million in new communication satellite systems over six years; £147 million spread over 10 years towards the European Space Agency's Living Planet research programme; more than £15 million towards developing operational environmental satellite systems; and more than £130 million for astronomy and planetary science projects over four years.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. Does he agree with the new director of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, in the United States, that the international space station is too expensive, and with many European scientists and engineers that earth-observing, space-science and communications satellites should be the main focus of Europe's space efforts? Will he also assure the House that UK government funding will be sufficient to enable the maximum participation by the UK space industry in those programmes? I declare my interest as a professor in space and climate physics.

My Lords, I certainly agree that the international space station, which I think is now costed at 40 billion dollars, is not clearly—in most people's terms—value for money, and that space investment is much better focused on the three matters that I mentioned: outstanding science, commercial opportunities, and the key environmental observation policies such as Envisat, the InfoTerra/TerraSar project, GMES and the Living Planet science programme.

My Lords, does the Minister accept that Edinburgh provided a missed opportunity for Her

Majesty's Government in relation to the Galileo project—which noble Lords will remember is intended to achieve an independent, satellite-based navigation system? Does he accept that Galileo provides a significant opportunity for the British space industry and British industry generally? Does he also accept that, in space-speak, if the Government are not prepared to provide funding in addition to their European commitments—and in line with funding provided by Germany, Spain, Italy and France—although the project may well be a small step for the European Union countries, the Government will have taken no giant leap in Edinburgh?

My Lords, the UK Government are very supportive of Galileo, and our position is entirely consistent with the decisions on Galileo reached at Laeken, where the various Prime Ministers asked the Transport Council to come to a decision on funding for Galileo, in March, having taken account of the PricewaterhouseCoopers report on it. If a decision is taken to go ahead, we shall contribute to it.

My Lords, will the Minister say whether any of the committed funds will improve the observation of potentially hazardous near-earth objects? Is he aware that, earlier in the month, there was one potentially hazardous near-earth object that was very close in planetary terms and about which we had only 25 days' warning? Will any of the funds improve the vigilance that I, and many others, believe is necessary in this area?

My Lords, I think that a part of ESA's potential science programme would cover near-earth objects. However, in view of the sums that were allocated to the programme, it is rather unlikely that that will be one of its first priorities. I remind the House that we have just recently updated the actions that the Government are taking on the matter, including not only making the National Space Science Centre the information centre for the UK on near-earth objects, but a programme to use our telescopes at La Palma for tracking near-earth objects. There will be a trial use of those telescopes in February.

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that a small group of us on the Science and Technology Select Committee recently visited the space science research centre at Leicester? The work that it is doing is not only—forgive me—blue skies research, looking at other planets and galaxies, but has some very practical uses in observing the earth's atmosphere and surface from a great height, which has very considerable and quite immediate economic benefits. Will he assure us that the funding which he mentioned for space research in this country will enable that centre and others like it to have stable funding in the next five to 10 years?

My Lords, I do not think that I can guarantee that there will be stable funding for any such individual space laboratory, although I think that Leicester is a very good laboratory and likely to receive more than its fair share of funds. I assure the noble Lord that we are putting very substantial sums into projects that have great relevance to monitoring projects to do with earth observation. I think that such projects are very important. I also hope that it is clear from my comments that we are putting very large sums into the Envisat and InfoTerra/TerraSar project—which is very relevant to geo-information products and services, and will answer some of the key questions. The Living Planet science programme will, for example, investigate whether ice sheets are melting and what impact that might have on the gulf stream. Those are very relevant and important issues.

My Lords, when the United States has a highly successful global positioning satellite system giving world coverage, why is it necessary for Europe, at vast expense, to produce its own global positioning satellite system?

My Lords, there are a number of very good reasons. The first is that, if the Americans have a total monopoly of global positioning systems, which will have enormous economic applications in the next 20 years, they will do what we and any other country would do: ensure that their industry has first use of it. That is the key issue. The second reason, which I do not think is widely understood, is that we require GPS and Galileo to work together and be inter-operable to ensure the necessary robustness for some of the more sophisticated projects on, for example, aircraft control. One simply cannot conduct such projects with GPS alone. Therefore, Galileo—and its inter-operability with GPS, on which discussions are in progress—is clearly the route forward.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether they will in future require all departmental and other governmental reports to carry indexes and full contents pages and to be printed more economically.

My Lords, the inclusion of indexes and contents pages is a matter of good practice, but speed of production often prevents their inclusion. HMSO provides guidance to departments on publication of Command Papers and advises that colour printing or anything that significantly adds to costs should be used only when the improvement in presentation can be justified.

My Lords, the Minister was frugal in his response. He is, I think, aware of the fact that the vast majority of reports carry no index.

Does he appreciate that the recently published Auld report, A Review of the Criminal Courts, is published as a public consultation document? Is he further aware that it is 783 pages long, that it has no index and that it costs £42.50? Is that not a completely self-defeating state of affairs if one really wants to consult the public? Is it beyond the wit of government to issue with every such report a summary leaflet such as accompanies the Budget report?

My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord and I have done our extensive researches in the Printed Paper Office. I have also looked at the Auld report; it is, if I may correct the noble Lord, 686 pages long. It is a weighty tome but it is on a website. Some 4,500 copies of A Review of the Criminal Courts have been printed. The uptake of the report is high. I am told that it is likely to be reprinted as it is so popular, although, I hasten to add, it is not popular in all quarters. A summary of the document is widely available. We take the point that is made.

I draw the noble Lord's attention to another important publication to which I have referred, How to Publish a Command Paper, produced by the Cabinet Office which has a "top 10 tips" in note form and a helpful index at the back. I have requested that the reprint of the document we are discussing should draw attention to the necessary good practice of including indexes, where appropriate, in all government publications.

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that rather than worrying about the cost of government documents we should spend a little more on parliamentary documents which look—although this is not always the case—as if they are unreadable?

My Lords, I cannot possibly agree that all parliamentary documents are unreadable. However, I understand the point that the noble Lord makes. It is for the Government at all times to pay close attention to making sure that documents are produced and printed in an accessible form. That is exactly what the Government have done and that is why the good practice guide exists. If those guidelines are followed carefully, the quality of publications will continue to improve over time.

My Lords, although I support the views of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, why is it that many government White Papers are no longer white, but, like the Auld report, are red, or some other near-red colour?

My Lords, I read many White Papers—perhaps that makes me a rather sad character—and what has impressed me, and perhaps other Members of your Lordships' House, over the past few years is the fact that they are produced in an attractive, readable and accessible form. That is what we in government should try to achieve. They may not all be coloured white, but they are certainly published in clear print.

My Lords, is my noble friend aware—I am sure that he is not—that when I am in the United States I spend a lot of time reading newspapers on the Internet? Following his reply to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, is he also aware that the idea of trying to read a 686-page document—I think I have that right—on the Internet without an index is a daunting task?

My Lords, I confess that I have never tried to read a 686-page document on the Internet. I suspect that I should be rather boggle-eyed if I managed to achieve that objective. The noble Lord makes a perfectly reasonable point.

My Lords, is the document the noble Lord mentioned published on the Internet in word format which is searchable and where therefore it is not so necessary to have an index, or, like so many documents which the Government put on the web these days, is it in PDF format which makes it impossible for the user to search?

My Lords, I have searched through my extensive briefing but I am afraid that that precise point eludes me. However, as I and other Ministers often say, I shall write to the noble Lord.

My Lords, does the Minister recall that his noble and learned friend Lord Falconer explained the merit of the Government's annual report to the people when he said that it was a means of focusing on what the Government had achieved during the year? What was the reason, therefore, for cancelling publication of the report for last year?

My Lords, I presume that the Government quite rightly decided that it was best to provide the information in other formats. No doubt, much of the information can be found on the Internet.

My Lords, is it too late to add the index about which everyone has talked?

My Lords, I must confess that I asked advisers that question when I was being briefed on the Question as I thought that it might be asked. That is not an unreasonable request. However, given that we are discussing a consultation document and there are tight timetables for consultation, I suspect that that is probably unlikely to occur. However, I am happy to forward that sensible suggestion to the Lord Chancellor's Department.

My Lords, to return to the matter of the annual report, does not the Minister agree that the publication of the annual report by the Government was a flagrant abuse of public funds for party political

reasons? Will he assure us that its disappearance is now permanent and that such abuses will not occur in the future?

My Lords, I cannot possibly commit the Government to decisions on such matters as annual reports for future years. I cannot possibly agree that it was a flagrant abuse for party political purposes. I believe that it was a useful exercise designed to inform the public of the progress of government policy. Many people read the document and it was widely circulated. I believe that the record speaks for itself.

My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement being made in another place on the rail strategic plan. It is likely that the Statement will be repeated after the speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford and before the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Jopling.

I am sure that I speak for the whole House when I say how pleased I am to see present the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, after her recent illness.

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.

The Bill has two main purposes. It will strengthen our ability to respond effectively to future outbreaks of potentially devastating animal diseases, most notably foot and mouth disease. It also makes provision to accelerate the eradication of scrapie from the national sheep flock by introducing new powers which would allow us at some future date to place controls on the breeding of animals that are particularly susceptible to this disease and, by extension, similar diseases.

In view of the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, I need to say something about the timing of the introduction of the Bill. Today, after months of devastation from the biggest epidemic of foot and mouth in any country since records began, I can make a good news announcement: that the last county in England and the UK, Northumberland, will be declared foot and mouth free at midnight tonight. That is, free in the sense that there has been no outbreak for over three months and the serological tests on sheep flocks in the county have yielded negative results. That is a major step forward but it is not the end of the story or the end of the risk of the disease. It will be some time, probably months, before our international partners restore our trading status in the EU and beyond as a fully foot and mouth free state as defined by the 0IE.

We also have to be eternally vigilant at home. Not only do we have the possibility of recrudescence of the disease as restocking and lambing take place—in 1967 the last few cases were at that stage of the disease—but also there is clearly in today's globalised world an increased risk of foot and mouth re-entering the country and, indeed, increased risk of other exotic animal diseases reaching our shores.

The first part of the Bill gives government as rapidly as possible powers which they currently lack—and the lack of which at crucial points in the epidemic threatened to accelerate its spread—to tackle any recrudescence, or new occurrence, of foot and mouth and other diseases over the next few months.

This is probably the only piece of legislation that I shall introduce in this House that is to a large extent down to my own experience and judgment. Noble Lords will know that over the past few years I have, from various departments, introduced many Bills in this House, and I have always tried to bring both logic and passion to my advocacy of such Bills. That is easier with some Bills than with others!

The Bill reflects what I found in dealing with the foot and mouth disease over the past few months. Noble Lords will know that since the June election, I have chaired the Government's COBRA committee and successor committees, which are co-ordinating interdepartmental and interagency efforts to control and eradicate the disease. By the time that I took over, and thanks to a large extent to the heroic efforts of my predecessor Ministers—not least my noble friend Lady Hayman—the peak of the disease had passed. However, we were still faced with what in historic terms was a series of very dangerous individual outbreaks, the spread of which would have been catastrophic.

Until July, it had been the judgment of MAFF Ministers and the incoming DEFRA team that we did not need additional legislative powers to overcome the disease. It was the outbreak of the disease in the Thirsk area, in North Yorkshire, that convinced me and my colleagues that those powers were inadequate. I should like to give noble Lords a flavour of the situation at that point.

Noble Lords may recall that the Thirsk outbreak was a new outbreak in cattle and sheep. To contain it, we adopted a new form of regime—the blue-box regime—with heavier controls on movement and biosecurity in the area. Even so, the disease was spreading rapidly and moving in a south-easterly direction. It was within 15 miles of large concentrations of pig farms, from where it could have spread into the key areas of large pig units in the East Riding and beyond into Lincolnshire and the East Midlands.

Noble Lords may know that one of the few pieces of good fortune that we have had during this epidemic is that the mass populations of pigs have largely escaped the disease. However, the airborne production of the virus among pigs is several thousand times greater than the rate in cattle and sheep. If the virus had got into those pig populations it would have meant

complete devastation. We had at that point to contemplate contingency plans for destroying—or rather for vaccinating to kill—virtually the whole of the pig populations in East Riding and Lincolnshire. If the disease had moved from the Thirsk area another 10 miles south-east. I should have had to take that decision. That was a particularly acute stage in the history of the disease.

But why was the disease spreading so rapidly in the Thirsk district? When I went to the Northallerton Control Centre, the vets there made it clear to me that the main reason for its rapid spread was the delay in the contiguous cull. By that stage, local veterinary experience on the ground and epidemiological analysis by scientists made it clear that the closer we got to meeting our targets for slaughter within 24 or 48 hours, the more rapidly we contained the disease.

As noble Lords will know, there were many reasons for failing to meet that target at various points: poor organisation, complex logistics, difficult topography and bad weather. However, few of those reasons applied to the new blue-box area in North Yorkshire in July. The main reason why there were delays was resistance to the contiguous cull. At one point, as many as one in three farmers was opposing the cull in one way or another and many were threatening to take legal action. There were teams of lawyers in the district trying, very irresponsibly, to provoke them to do so. Many of those who were delaying that action were eventually affected by the disease, as, of course, were their neighbours, who were perfectly prepared to go along with the strategy.

We were therefore a hair's breadth from disaster. Luckily, the disease did not spread any further south east, although in other directions the spread did not stop. That was due to luck, although good organisation and the support of the bulk of the farming community also played a major role. In the end, given the delay in the contiguous cull, it was probably luck that stopped the disease from spreading further.

Powers to enforce the contiguous cull are provided for in the Bill. If, during the summer months, the disease recurred in this country, or if a new strain or a different disease broke out, we could face a similar situation. That time, however, we may not be so lucky.

That is one of the lessons from the epidemic that is already clear. Some people say, "Let us not act until we have learnt all the lessons and until we have completed all the inquiries". It is often those who advocate delay who also want longer and more legalistic inquiries. If the Government already knew of a major defect in the powers that are available to them and did not introduce legislation to correct that, we should be acting extremely irresponsibly.

To those who say that the Bill will involve the slaughter of yet more animals, I say that recent experience shows me that we need such powers to avoid the slaughter of potentially millions more animals. If throughout this epidemic we could have accomplished a quicker cull of fewer animals, many hundreds of thousands of animals would have been saved. To delay bringing in those powers would therefore be doubly irresponsible.

There are many other lessons to be learnt from the epidemic. Noble Lords will discuss some of them and we have already learnt some of them, including control of movement as quickly as possible and control of imports. However, those approaches do not require primary legislation to be put into effect. Some lessons require deeper analysis and probably more radical redirection. That is why the Government have instigated two independent expert inquiries into the handling and the science of the foot and mouth epidemic. We look forward to learning the longer-term lessons that those investigations will yield. I wish therefore to refute any suggestion that, by bringing forward the Bill at this time, we are taking the perverse step of pre-judging the findings of those inquiries. However, 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.

The House is of course right to scrutinise in detail the Bill and the Government's motivation for it. However, if, at the end of the day, noble Lords conclude that the powers are necessary it would be irresponsible of the House to delay their implementation until the completion of those inquiries. I will listen carefully to the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, but on the face of it that is the implication of her amendment.

Noble Lords will know that the Phillips inquiry into BSE taught us that.

"legislation should clearly empower Ministers to take precautionary measures in a situation where the existence of a hazard is uncertain".

In the case of foot and mouth, that risk remains. We remain of an open mind as to what our longer-term strategy for controlling foot and mouth and other animal diseases should be, and we will be guided by the independent inquiries. However, it would be foolhardy to ignore what experience has already taught us.

The powers in the Bill do not relate only to slaughter; they also relate to alternative and complementary strategies for combating the virus. For vaccination to be effective—many noble Lords are concerned about this—it requires just the powers of entry and the speed of execution that the Bill will provide. Vaccination, even more than culling, will fail if there are loopholes in the system. Powers are also needed for surveillance through the administration of blood testing. There were examples of resistance to blood testing, which threatened to delay the lifting of restrictions on several neighbouring farms. Other powers in the Bill relate to the improvement of biosecurity.

The Bill seeks to sharpen those options in the light of our experience in the field. It places at our disposal a more effective combination of recognised options, in case they should be required in the coming months. We have learnt in particular that where slaughter is required it must take place as quickly as possible in order to prevent further virus production. Delays in slaughter can lead to the presence of more infective material in the environment, with a consequent increase in the risk of a spread in the disease.

In addition to the North Yorkshire example, to which I have already referred, the situation in the Brecon Beacons, where there was a dangerous and rapid spread in the hills, is also instructive. There, the additional policy of contiguous heft culling proved to be essential to stop further spread of the disease. The concerns expressed in that area were most vocal and needed to be resolved because the initial strategy required serological testing to be carried out before we engaged in contiguous culling. It was only with that approach, rather than the one based on serological testing of exposure, with its associated delays, that the outbreak in Brecon was resolved.

In no sense does that mean that we blame the farmers of Brecon, North Yorkshire or anywhere else for the delays or for exercising their legitimate right. Indeed, the Bill goes on to strengthen the right of farmers to challenge action which they consider unreasonable. However, I want to underline the devastation that would have resulted had we not taken the contiguous cull steps in that area. I also want to underline what was put at risk by the inadequacy of the existing powers.

The Bill also provides for the powers to be extendable to other animal diseases. We are seeing increasing signs of the risks presented by dangerous pathogens which, in the past, were often endemic to far-flung regions of the world. Some of those diseases can also affect humans. The precautions provided for by the Bill embrace the most serious animal diseases, including some of which we have little knowledge.

A number of commentators have suggested that some provisions in the Bill represent an infringement of the basic rights of farmers and others. I anticipate that a number of your Lordships will wish to engage in debate about those issues, and I should welcome that. However, perhaps it would be helpful if I were to spell out the main reasons why we believe that the measures in the Bill strike an appropriate balance in protecting the overall public interest.

We are determined to ensure that farmers and livestock owners can have confidence in the basis on which the powers are exercised. I am aware that some have criticised the Bill for removing a so-called "right of appeal" against entry for vaccination, slaughter or other purposes. That is not the case. It appears to be based on the fact that the Bill replaces the current procedure for securing entry to premises on the authority of a High Court injunction with the far swifter procedure based on a magistrate's warrant. In fact, under the Animal Health Act 1981 there is no legal right of appeal against the existing entry powers. This Bill does not change that situation. Moreover, the existing procedure whereby a farmer may seek review by a senior vet of a decision to cull and to make representations to him will continue to be available.

Indeed, in future we propose to make that a more formal process, and we are now consulting publicly on how that will be done.

The provision for entry by a magistrate's warrant is not exactly an unknown procedure in legislation. Indeed, I have set out in a letter to the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe—a copy of which I shall place in the Library—a number of the related enforcement precedents which have existed in many Acts of Parliament over the years. To meet the requirements of the human rights legislation, we must of course show that the use of those powers is both in the public interest and proportionate. Their use must rest upon inspectors presenting sworn evidence that satisfies the test of reasonableness, together with other conditions prescribed in the Bill. I believe that those safeguards are proportionate and they also reflect our need for speedy action.

An epidemiological analysis in Nature last October emphasised that,

"continued vigilance is … essential, both in rapid clinical diagnosis and enhanced serological surveillance".

A separate study in Science found that,

"disease control requires good disease surveillance, rapid diagnosis … and quick intervention".

With the new powers in the Bill, we can address those needs more effectively.

I am also aware that some unease has been expressed about the allegedly open-ended slaughter powers in the Bill. I understand some of those concerns but I believe them to be misplaced. The Bill alters the circumstance in which an animal can be culled from one in which exposure is the issue to one in which prevention is the key. That will by no means lead automatically to the culling of more animals; in fact, the opposite will be the case. Considerable scientific evidence supports the view that, by culling quickly, we might prevent the further spread of disease.

Moreover, we are required to exercise our legal powers in a proportionate and reasonable manner. and we shall do so. As I have explained, the slaughter powers are geared to prevention. Therefore, they must be sufficiently flexible to enable us to respond to all relevant situations. Ultimately, it is a veterinary judgment, and the factors that will help to determine where slaughter is justified must be considered in relation to local circumstances. As we learnt in North Yorkshire during the epidemic, such a risk arose when we faced the prospect of FMD spreading to the pig-rearing areas of east Yorkshire.

In order to clarify how the wider slaughter powers would be exercised in practice, and to reassure the public that they will be exercised reasonably, last week we launched a public consultation on the key criteria that will govern their use. The consultation document is available to your Lordships. It includes undertakings to consult in advance on our assessment of the risks and to publish in good time our decisions and the reasons for them. It also sets out the technical factors that will need to be taken into account in deciding whether preventive slaughter is justified. In each case, we shall seek to consult relevant interest groups at local and regional levels as well as national organisations.

I have spoken at some length about the slaughter provisions. Your Lordships will also be aware of the new approach to compensation in respect of infected premises, which is related to the enforcement of biosecurity measures. Poor biosecurity has proved to be a major factor in the spread of foot and mouth disease. Our information on biosecurity breaches in North Yorkshire and Cumbria as a result of the enhanced blue-box restricted zone regime shows that more than 1,000 investigations were carried out into suspected biosecurity offences. Most of those exposed some degree of biosecurity problem and were dealt with locally. However, there were serious breaches in over 70 cases, where formal or informal cautions were issued and court action taken.

I do not dispute that the vast majority of farmers ensure that their animals have the proper high standard of care. But those figures indicate the number of lapses and problems which arose. We are determined to create new incentives to encourage the minority, whose practices can place others' livestock at risk, to raise their standards. I must emphasise that the provisions apply only to infected premises. As in the past, the majority of farmers will continue to qualify for 100 per cent compensation. To encourage the remainder to match that, 25 per cent of that amount will serve as a positive inducement over and above the rate of 75 per cent compensation for which infected premises will automatically qualify.

I do not accept the argument that I have heard that such an approach treats farmers as "guilty until proved innocent". Indeed, the level of compensation varies according to the many different regimes and different animal diseases. In the case of classical swine fever last year, we paid only 50 per cent of the value for affected animals and 100 per cent for healthy animals in an affected herd. What we propose in this Bill is driven by a similar principle. It is also the case that in the Netherlands a figure of approximately 50 per cent was paid automatically with the other 50 per cent being dependent on biosecurity performance. This issue will also be helped by the so-called "disease risk assessment", which will help to determine levels of compensation awarded on infected premises. That is also covered by the consultation document to which I have referred.

I do not apologise for dealing mainly with the first part of the Bill. However, in many ways the second part is just as important and deals with the eradication of scrapie from our national flock. In recent times the sheep sector has suffered particularly badly. It must be desirable to seek to eradicate from our sheep flock the risk of the entire family of such diseases, known as transmissible spongiform encephalopathies—TSEs. I shall use the term "TSEs" from now on. It includes both scrapie and BSE.

Last July we announced the establishment of the national scrapie plan, which is designed to enable us, through a long-term programme, to breed TSE resistance into the national flock. The plan has received much support from the sheep sector. but it is a voluntary scheme. At the present rate, it could take far too long to have the desired effect. The Food Standards Agency has recently called on the Government specifically to seek to speed up scrapie eradication in this country. Scrapie eradication will, of course, also deal with the potential, but as yet theoretical, possibility of BSE being present in the sheep flock.

Therefore, the Bill will enable us, if necessary, to accelerate the process of eradication by compulsory means. Ministers could specify the types of sheep which, by virtue of their genetic susceptibility, stand the risk of developing scrapie. The Bill would then allow not only for the identification of those animals but for their exclusion or the exclusion of their semen, eggs and embryos from breeding programmes.

To ensure that we have the means to carry out that work effectively, the Bill contains limited new powers of entry and enforcement consistent with similar provisions relating to the control of foot and mouth. I must emphasise that none of those powers is intended to raise the prospect of mass slaughter. They are designed to facilitate the redevelopment of the national flock in a managed way. Indeed, Ministers will be required to consider whether there are exceptional circumstances, for example on specialised breeds, that justify the continued use of some susceptible sheep for breeding purposes. Farmers whose animals are subject to breeding restrictions will have the right of appeal to an independent adjudicator.

Throughout the development of the scrapie plan we have been in close consultation with the sheep industry. However, we believe that these powers are necessary further down the line to ensure that the outcome is a scrapie, BSE and other TSE-free flock in this country. That will give us a great advantage, not only in terms of the health of our animals but also in terms of international trade.

Therefore, 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 or a new disease enter the country, pending 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 I have no doubt that the Government will need to come forward with both legislative and operational proposals in more comprehensive detail.

Finally, I emphasise that the Bill will deal with what has been one of the great gaps in our armoury over the past months and will ensure that that will not arise again should we be faced with another catastrophe in the coming months. More positively, it will also put the national sheep flock in a position where the diseases which have afflicted it for many years, and those which might potentially be there. will be eliminated. I beg to move.

Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Whitty.)

My Lords, I believe that I should now rise to move the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, I am disappointed that the noble Baroness has taken this action. She knows that there has been a misunderstanding. The three Chief Whips heard about it just before half-past two. Once again, she has not consulted the Whips or the usual channels. I understand that there was some agreement between the noble Baronesses, Lady Byford and Lady Miller, regarding the timing of the amendment. However, none of the three Chief Whips was informed and we are in some difficulty. We were then asked to produce a revised speakers' list, which I have done.

I hope that the noble Baroness does not want to press the point. I am sure that we all understand that she will want to refer to the amendment when she makes her speech in her place on the list. She will then be able to move the amendment, and debate will take place on it. My noble friend Lord Whitty will respond to it at the end, and to other speakers, and will take it into account. There has been a misunderstanding. I do not think that the usual channels are at fault. I hope that we can stick to the revised speakers' list.

My Lords, perhaps I may say to the Government Chief Whip that the Public Bill Office sent me a procedural brief today, which stated that I was to speak after the Minister. However, I do not wish to press the point if the Government have made a mistake. I look forward to hearing the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Byford. However, she cannot speak to my amendment as I have not yet moved it. I shall revert to the order on the speakers' list, as I believe that that is in the best interests of the House.

My Lords, we are here today to give a Second Reading to the Animal Health Bill. It is a comparatively small Bill but one which gives huge powers to the Minister to enter an individual's premises for the purpose of inspecting and slaughtering animals. In my view, the Bill should not be entitled the Animal Health Bill but instead the "Animal Death Bill". At this stage I remind your Lordships of our family farming interests.

I have grave concerns about the Bill. I had originally considered voting against it at Second Reading. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, has tabled an amendment—I look forward to hearing about it shortly—which regrets that the Government are pushing ahead with the Bill before the various foot and mouth inquiries have reported. Why this sudden haste to rush the Bill through? Why not wait until the Government's own inquiries have been completed? The Government say that they will respond to the recommendations from those inquiries but that alterations will no doubt have to be made to the Bill. I repeat: why is there undue haste when alterations may be inevitable?

The Minister, Mr Elliot Morley, recently called for a complete review of all legislation relating to animal welfare; some 11 Acts. I support such a step. Consultation on this matter will end by the end of April. That is another reason to wait. Conservatives are willing to support the introduction of sensible, practical, proportionate measures to deal with future outbreaks of foot and mouth and other diseases, but those assumptions and legislative requirements must be based on good science and not brought forward as a knee-jerk response to last year's outbreak. My honourable friend Ann Winterton referred to the lack of support for the Bill from all sides of the House and to the considerable reservations expressed at Second Reading.

When the Bill was considered in another place, Members from all sides of the House expressed their concerns, particularly about the draconian powers being sought. Mr Morley indicated that he would give consideration to those concerns, yet the Bill was passed without a single amendment being accepted. The Government have failed to understand the depth of feeling, and, indeed, the amount of mail that many of us have received. Consequently, we have all been overwhelmed by representations from organisations and members of the public.

It is against that background that we begin our debate today. The Minister should not underestimate the effects of last year's foot and mouth disaster on the farming community and on the thousands of rural businesses and tourism enterprises, which were financially crippled too. The Government's handling of the epidemic has come in for much criticism. We raised our concerns in this House and called for a full public inquiry so that lessons could be learnt to ensure that such an outbreak would be prevented in future. The Minister, and other Ministers, acknowledged that mistakes were made, but refused to consider a public inquiry.

Recently, Professor Mark Woolhouse told the Select Committee on agriculture that if the Government had imposed a ban on livestock movement 72 hours before they did, it would have halved the spread of the disease and saved some three million animals from slaughter and £1 billion from being paid out. The same Government now ask this House to give them sweeping powers to enter premises and kill animals on suspicion that the disease might be present.

The Bill does nothing to stop diseases being brought into the UK in the first place. The Minister will recall the number of times that we on these Benches have raised the issue of illegally imported meats. We have called for a tightening up of import controls. Clive Lawrence, director of Ciel Logistics, which is responsible for animal product shipments, warned Nick Brown that meat from Africa was being smuggled through Heathrow and that it carried an extremely high risk of foot and mouth.

The Bill is strong on measures for suppressing farmers but lacks any reference to the Government's role or duty in controlling or preventing the disease in the first place. The Bill is considered by many as one which takes all rights of appeal away from the farmer. The Government will be able to seek authorisation from a magistrate to enter premises and kill animals on suspicion. At that stage, the farmer will have no access to the magistrate and therefore will be unable to appeal against such authorisation. The Government maintain that the Bill does not contravene human rights. However, we have been informed differently. In Committee, that aspect of the Bill will he debated rigorously.

Further, although the Government maintain that the Bill does not contravene human rights, we suggest that it arguably offends against the European Convention on Human Rights. It denies the right to "a fair hearing". Therefore, the Secretary of State's certificate under Section 19(1)(a) must be clarified. Again, in Committee, an answer will be sought.

If the Government are serious about animal welfare and animal health, they should extend the legislation to all those who import, process and retail food and food products in the UK. They should bring in a Bill making it illegal for anyone to buy, sell or consume pork from countries without a tether ban, chicken from countries which employ battery cages smaller than the EU standard, and beef from countries in which foot and mouth or any diseases on list "A" are present. The Minister referred to the likelihood of more diseases coming into this country. Perhaps it is time for him to take action on that observation.

The Bill raises problems for the president of the Royal Society of Veterinary Surgeons. He has warned that the legislation could become unworkable for vets and create epidemics much more widespread and damaging than the foot and mouth crisis. He describes the Bill as containing,

"many unsupported scientific judgements",

and raising,

"an ethical issue which is critical to the regulatory role of the

RCVS".

The recent January edition of the Veterinary Record refers to that matter.

The Minister will be aware of some of the court cases that have been heard. He will know of the case brought by MAFF against Mrs Upton which was heard by Mr Justice Harrison. He will recall that Mr Justice Harrison found in favour of Mrs Upton. In his summing-up, the judge said:

"So far as the pig is concerned, Mr Smith submits that there is no evidence that there has been any physical contact between pig and anyone or anything that has been carrying the virus and that, therefore, if the pig were to be infected, it could only have been through air-borne transmission and that, on the scientific evidence, it is simply not feasible for that to have happened, as such a large amount of the virus has to be transmitted in order to infect the pig".

Mrs Upton's animals were saved from destruction. But under this Bill they would have been destroyed. Where are her human rights under the Bill, and those of many others who challenged MAFF's decisions?

Under the Bill the appeal system would not save animals from death. The farmer would be able to make the appeal only after the killing had taken place. In addition, he would have to pay a fee for the honour of so doing. We are concerned about the complexity and the timescale of the proposed appeals system. In our view, it is totally inadequate.

To add insult to injury, the Government propose that compensation—the Minister referred to this—should be limited to 75 per cent of the value of the animal, with the additional 25 per cent being made available should the Government decide that biosecurity measures in place are adequate. This proposal contravenes the normal British stance that everyone is innocent until proved guilty. Any compensation deduction or penalty must he made on the basis that farmers and everyone have been given clear advice on what is meant by biosecurity measures and what measures they are supposed to be carrying out.

The Bill before us has two main purposes; first, to provide additional powers to tackle foot and mouth disease and for those powers to extend to other animal diseases by order, and, secondly, to provide additional powers to deal with TSE in sheep. I have questioned the Government on the draconian powers in respect of foot and mouth; I have equal concerns about the assumptions they make on TSE. The department's research into whether BSE is in the sheep population has been, at best, a disaster. Noble Lords will remember the whole episode of cows' and riot sheep's brains being tested which resulted in September in the announcement by Elliot Morley that it was possible that the whole of the sheep flock might have to he killed.

I cannot state firmly enough that this not only set panic among farmers but among members of the public. It is monstrously unfair to farmers and to consumers for the Government to scaremonger, threatening millions of people with the possibility of contracting CJD from eating lamb. Thankfully, the Food Standards Agency stepped into the breach and affirmed on 10th January that lamb posed no risk to human health. But the fears had already been set running. I am not against the eradication of scrapie from our flock but the voluntary route was working, albeit slowly. If changes are needed to speed up such eradication, they must be based on good science.

The Minister referred to the lobby by the Rare Breeds Survival Trust. At a meeting for foot and mouth stakeholders held on 9th November 2001. it reported that a representative of the Chief Scientist's office admitted that it was still not known how many varieties of scrapie there are. If one does not know what one is looking for, how can one legislate for its eradication? I urge caution on the Government in this area before proceeding with a compulsory slaughter policy.

As noble Lords will by now have gathered, I have grave reservations about the Bill. For example, it gives Ministers the power to slaughter both vaccinated and unvaccinated animals. Will that be acceptable to our European colleagues? At the international meeting held in Brussels on 12th and 13th December 2001, Mr Alun Michael was reported as stating that he welcomed the consensus about eradication of FMD and noted that vaccination could be a tool. He was sympathetic to the points made about the mass slaughter of animals. But the implementation of those recommendations needed better testing, purer vaccines and better trade rules.

Are we not rushing ahead with a Bill when there are still so many questions? This morning, Farmers' Weekly presented a petition to Tony Blair at No. 10 Downing Street. It called for an independent public inquiry. Some 146,000 people had signed that petition. Perhaps their voice and those of the many others expressed over the past months will be recognised. The Government at last announced on Friday— so close to today's Second Reading—that they will be holding consultations with stakeholders. The Minister referred to that. The consultation is due to end by 15th March. Surely, if there are all these consultations, it behoves the Government to wait rather than to push ahead with the Bill. After Second Reading, the Bill should not be considered further until those consultations and inquiries are completed.

The Bill is a modification of an existing Act of Parliament. It is itself likely to be modified. This is a Bill which affects only England and Wales. It does not include Scotland and Northern Ireland. Especially in Scotland, it could pose problems for future regulations. The Bill is the panic reaction of a government who know that they acted late, ill-advisedly and almost illegally in controlling the foot and mouth outbreaks last year. They know that some of their proposals have no scientific foundation; that they lack the support of the veterinary profession; and that they deprive an important sector of our community of any effective rights of appeal. In short, it is a bad Bill.

rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the Bill be now read a second time, at end insert "but this House regrets that the Government have brought forward legislation to deal with the control of future outbreaks of animal diseases without waiting for the recommendations of the Royal Society inquiry which they commissioned to report by the summer".

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I should like noble Lords to be certain that we Liberal Democrats accept that there is a need to amend and supplement the Animal Health Act 1981. We need to ensure that our animals—our livestock—are healthy. We believe that ensuring the health of our nation's livestock is essential for a number of reasons: because, in choosing to keep animals, we become responsible for their welfare; because an outbreak such as that of foot and mouth disease last year costs the nation billions of pounds; because some diseases can threaten public health; and crucially, because in parts of Britain, the whole future of farming, rural communities and the landscape is dependent on a vibrant, healthy national livestock herd.

We need to restore national and international confidence in the health of British livestock, and we agree that there is a need to work towards a scrapie-free national sheep flock. We accept those needs, but I am moving the amendment because we are unhappy that a Bill addressing those needs came through the other place and comes to your Lordships' House in advance of the report of the scientific review, in particular, and of the other inquiry reports that should have shaped it. Indeed, it passed through the other place with no amendment whatsoever. That was not because the Standing Committee was happy with it, but because the Government used their majority.

The main change from the 1981 Act, which the Bill will amend, is that it gives the Minister powers to slaughter for the purpose of controlling foot and mouth disease and, by order, other diseases not because animals are, or are suspected of being, infected, but because they are—and I quote from the Bill

"any animals the Minister thinks should be slaughtered".

That means animals that have not been exposed to disease—not been in contact with any infected animals—could still be slaughtered. That empowers the Minister to deal with animals that need to be culled as a "firebreak" or perhaps as a total species eradication, in the case of other diseases.

That is a major change from the 1981 Act, and any judgement of its necessity must be based on sound scientific consensus and proper consultation, neither of which we have at present. It is a major change for veterinarians to order slaughter based solely on ministerial wish, with no evidence of infection or contact with infection. The Bill presumes that no test will become available to do quick, pen-side tests for infectivity.

Nor does the Bill contain any definition of the geographical area over which the ministerial power might apply. Might it be two miles from an outbreak? Might it be 50 miles downwind of an outbreak? If the Government are after the right to exercise a contiguous cull, they should certainly define what "contiguous" means.

The Bill also changes the right to compensation for slaughtered stock. Animals will be slaughtered and the farmer will be entitled to receive only 75 per cent compensation. The other 25 per cent will be payable if he has been helpful in the slaughter of his animals and if his bio-security arrangements have been adequate.

The public inquiry that ought to have been held may well have concluded that a contiguous culling power was essential. But it would have done so in the context of hearing how to build a firm consensus between officials and farmers and would have spelt out in full the duties and responsibilities of each. However, the Government chose to commission three separate inquiries into the future of food and farming. the lessons learnt from the 2001 outbreak and a third—to which my amendment refers—from the Royal Society into the transmission, control and prevention of animal diseases. The report of that inquiry, at least, ought to have been the basis of the Bill.

We should have had the latest science behind conclusions as to how to prevent the spread of such diseases. After all, science has moved on considerably since 1981 and any amendment of the 1981 Act should take that into account.

The extent of last year's outbreak of foot and mouth disease represented a number of failures: in knowledge. understanding and certainly in contingency planning. Successive governments failed to ensure that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food learnt the lessons set out in the Northumberland report.

There has also been a long-term failure to invest in the State Veterinary Service and in research into disease prevention and eradication. Contingency planning was clearly low on MAFF's list of priorities. Yet only the year before the outbreak, the Government had been warned of the threat of animal disease by the UN organisation responsible for that area. The Minister responded in Answer to my Written Question about whether the Government then believed the State Veterinary Service was adequate to deal with disease prevention. I do not believe that I received an adequate answer to my Question.

This is a bad Bill, and it will not put those matters right. A more comprehensive overhaul is needed. The Bill starts from the premise that farmers do not want to control and eradicate foot and mouth disease. In fact, the evidence is to the contrary. Affected members of the farming community co-operated with the Government to a huge extent in incredibly difficult and distressing circumstances. While there may have been a few examples of obstructive behaviour, they were certainly not the norm. Officials, too, were usually conscientious, over-stretched and trying to do their best in a stressful situation.

The Bill will not help those people's relationship. It will damage it, because it is only about what to do about "bad" farmers, careless farmers, or obstructive farmers. It says nothing about bad officials, careless officials or—crucially—about Ministers' responsibilities and duties. It aims to give officials the right to deal with animals as they think fit and to criminalise the farmer if they interpret behaviour as obstructive or even simply impeding. Would putting up one's arm to slow down a discussion, for example, be considered an impediment by an official in a hurry? The Bill provides all that with no right of appeal by the farmer.

The Bill then goes on to give the Minister or his officials the right to withhold 25 per cent of the compensation due to the farmer for his slaughtered stock if the person appointed by that same Minister thinks that the extent of co-operation with inspectors or other persons was inadequate. So a farmer who is stressed, distressed, exhausted or angry—not in a state to help but not actually obstructive—who fails to help as much as the inspector thinks fit could have his compensation reduced by 25 per cent.

Compensation can also be withheld if the inspector believes that the farmer or persons under his control acted in such a way as to create a significant risk of the spread of foot and mouth. On the face of it, that is entirely reasonable. Yet the way in which the disease is transmitted is still unclear. Until the Royal Society reports, we know no more than during the outbreak. At that time, no one—officials, farmers or Ministers—really knew how much of a risk were vehicle movements or people movements, whether the pyres spread the disease or how many "dirty" officials—by which I mean officials who had visited infected premises—were working on other uninfected premises too soon. We need the Royal Society report to answer those questions. If the Government intend the Bill to enable them to withhold compensation due for creation of a significant risk, they should be able to issue precise guidelines as to how that risk is to be avoided.

The Bill allows the Minister's official to he judge, prosecutor, defence and jury. First, he will decide whether the premises contain animals that pose a risk—on no evidence of disease, just his suspicion. Then he will decide if the farmer has maintained adequate bio-security for the past 21 days—no doubt sometimes debating that heatedly. His version of these events alone will then be presented to a magistrate. The officials would use a procedure analogous to that seeking an arrest or search warrant, but this is not about a temporary loss of liberty or the searching of premises. It is about the irreversible destruction of often valuable and much loved livestock against the owner's wishes.

If the magistrate agrees with that version, having heard no other, the Bill allows an inspector to require any person—not just the farmer or the stockman, but any aged aunt, visiting vicar or district nurse—to give such assistance as the inspector believes that he needs to slaughter the stock.

We should contrast all of that with the Act that the Bill would amend. The Animal Health Act 1981 makes it an offence to impede or obstruct an inspection and recognises that it might be a first or only offence. The Act simply requires the owner and person in charge of any sheep to,

"comply with all reasonable requirements of the inspector as to the collection and penning of the sheep and afford all other reasonable facilities for the examination of the sheep by the inspector".

That is reasonable, and it is a far step from being required to assist with the slaughter of stock. The Bill imposes a requirement to do anything that the inspector wants. There should be no such requirement.

The 1981 Act lays duties on the Minister, too. For example, if the Minister is to destroy wildlife to contain a disease, he shall,

"ensure that destruction is carried out on any such land in as safe a manner as is possible".

This Bill lays no onus on the Minister to justify decisions to slaughter. Are the powers in the Bill proportionate? Are they the right powers to control foot and mouth disease? As far as the 2001 outbreak is concerned, we simply do not know.

Mr Scudamore, the chief veterinary officer, told the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee in another place on 31st October, in response to Question 23, that he did not know what proportion of the original suspect cases in which culling took place proved to be negative. He said:

"We do not know because the problem we had at the height of the outbreak was that we were removing contiguous premises and not sampling them. We did not have the resources to do that".

That may be understandable, but we do not know yet whether contiguous culling, vaccination and slaughter, vaccination alone or the stopping of all traffic movement would have been among the most effective long-term solutions. Under this Bill, when an official goes to a magistrate for a warrant to enter and slaughter, the farmer—or his representative—has no right to put his side of the case. Is that reasonable? It is not.

The Government have not produced hard scientific evidence that it was the lack of legal powers that caused the infection to spread so far. I heard what the Minister said, but I think that many people would contest that point. There is hard evidence, however, that well founded appeals saved the nation a good deal of money.

There is nothing in the first part of the Bill about promoting animal health. The Bill is silent on the relationship between the long-distance transportation of live animals throughout the country and the stress and subsequent vulnerability to disease that it causes. Section 37 of the 1981 Act addresses the issue as it was then, relating mainly to food and water. One of the main lessons that we learnt from 2001 was that the transportation of sheep had become a long-distance web of almost continuous travel. It was among livestock dealers, not farmers, that the disease was spread so fast. Seventeen of the first 20 cases in last year's outbreak were among dealers. Urgent action is needed to secure a market for farmers that obviates the need for the middle man and strengthens farmers' ability to market their livestock themselves.

The Government are also silent on the original cause of the outbreak of foot and mouth disease. It was, almost certainly, illegally imported meat or improperly checked meat from a country from which we import meat, despite the Government's assurances that it had not come from a region affected by foot and mouth disease. Although there are now warnings at airports, it is still the case that individuals are entitled to bring animal products into this country. If the Government are to deal with cases of urgency, it should have used the Bill to close that loophole.

We need legislation and action that truly address the question of animal health, including imports, adequate geographical spread of abattoirs and regulations and incentives to encourage those who try to follow the highest animal welfare standards. We must be sure that those who put animal health at risk are identified and dealt with. The part of the Bill that deals with the eradication of scrapie should have regard to the fact that the science behind it is still evolving rapidly. It is far too extreme to criminalise people. More exact science and legislation should follow, and that, too, should proceed from the report of the scientific community.

On Friday, the Minister issued a protocol on the slaughtering procedure, much too late to be considered by the other place, when it discussed the Bill. In his winding-up speech, the Minister may claim that it has a more reasonable tone than the Bill, but the powers of the Minister are enshrined in the Bill, not the protocol. In any case, I hope that the consultation on the protocol will be completed so that the House can have the benefit of it before it has to discuss our conclusions in any more detail.

Many noble Lords have grave concerns about the Bill. I look forward to benefiting from the depth of knowledge and experience of those who are about to speak in the debate. I commend my amendment to the House.

Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the Bill be now read a second time, at end insert "but this House regrets that the Government have brought forward legislation to deal with the control of future outbreaks of animal diseases without waiting for the recommendations of the Royal Society inquiry which they commissioned to report by the summer".— (Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer.)

My Lords, I wish that it were possible to give even a qualified welcome to the Bill. Undoubtedly, it is well intentioned, in so far as it would equip the department to deal more effectively with any future outbreak of foot and mouth disease. However, as has already been made plain, it has been greeted with great dismay in the farming community, the livestock industry and the veterinary profession. We must take those expressions of dismay seriously.

The Bill is harsh, unjust and untimely. It is harsh and unjust because it is so one-sided, giving sweeping powers to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, with practically no right of appeal and no need for explanation or justification and no opportunity for the farmer to be represented when an application is made for a slaughter order. The Bill shows no confidence in the farming community and assumes fault in biosecurity and compensation. Above all, the Bill is untimely. We still await the reports of the inquiries into the science of foot and mouth disease and the lessons to be learnt from last year, and the stakeholder consultations are about to take place. That makes the Animal Health Bill appear absurd in its timing, unhelpful in many of its provisions and unpleasant in its tone.

The Bill attempts to achieve a desirable end by undesirable and unacceptable means, and it leaves undone those things which it ought to have done, above all the provision of tougher and more effective import controls at docks and airports, as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer said. Why, after all that we have been through, are we so slack and undisciplined about the matter, compared with, for example, the United States, Australia or New Zealand? It is unbelievable that we still do not have such import controls in place. An amendment along those lines is urgently needed, and I understand that the Minister in another place, Mr Elliot Morley, indicated that the Government might welcome such an addition to the Bill. I hope so.

Meanwhile, I wish to support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, which picks up on the untimely character of the Bill. The House has reason to be grateful to the noble Baroness. I hope that there will be careful consideration of and support for the amendment.

I intended to express sympathy with the Minister for having to introduce the Bill. I thought that he had, once again, found himself introducing government business in which his heart was not truly present. However, he passionately defended the Bill and said that that came from the heart. I know him to be a reasonable and fair-minded man, and I hope that he will listen to the debate and be as flexible and responsive in the Government's answer as he was, for example, over the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill. This House did an excellent job in improving the Bill during its passage through Parliament.

The farming community is still reeling from the effects of last year's traumatic experiences. 1 t is battered, in almost every case impoverished further, with a few rare exceptions demoralised and very unsure about the future. The track record of the Government during the foot and mouth outbreak was not good. There were many confusions and delays as the crucial targets of 24 hours to slaughter and 48 hours to the disposal of carcasses of infected animals were often riot met. There were grievous mistakes, with sometimes wildly inaccurate epidemiological modelling and misapplication of resources. The Minister acknowledged that there were faults. However, it is not reasonable to ask the farming community, in its present mood and in the light of that unhappy record of last year, to accept these even more draconian proposals.

We need clearer policies but we should first put in place import controls; then await the outcome of the two reports; and then bring forward a Bill which grants powers of entry and slaughter only after a public hearing in which both sides can take part. That need not involve any delay. We accept the rightness of an appeal to a magistrate, but ask for the simple courtesy of consultation and the justice of an equal right to make a case to the magistrate. There must be a commitment to introducing an immediate ban on all animal movements as soon as the disease is discovered. The delays in doing so last year were very serious.

There should be similar legislation to cover Scotland and Northern Ireland. It is deeply unsatisfactory and potentially dangerous if different provisions are made there from those in force in England and Wales, as the cross-border Cumbria/Dumfries example in the foot and mouth disease outbreak made clear, where similar policies were essential on both sides of the Border.

The compensation provisions in the Bill are the wrong way round, as has already been said. The assumptions should be the full 100 per cent compensation, with a proportion being withheld only if lax bio-security can be proved. The Minister admitted that only 7 per cent of those cases which were investigated were serious cases of lax biosecurity. Most farmers are very responsible and the burden of proof should be reversed.

The Bill needs to be more clearly drafted. The various usages in it—"veterinary surgeons", "veterinary inspectors" or just plain "inspectors"—do not encourage confidence and they leave room for uncertainty. While it is true that the current state of scientific knowledge, in particular the doubtful reliability of the test to distinguish between antibodies following vaccination and the presence of the virus itself, means that vaccination cannot yet be wholeheartedly recommended in place of slaughter, it would have been good if the Bill had provided for a different policy to be introduced as our scientific knowledge grows, as I hope it rapidly will.

I hesitate to touch on the highly technical sections of the Bill which deal with the elimination of scrapie. All responsible people must share the objective of eradicating this disease and all transmissible spongeform encephalopathies—a ha rd "c" of course because it comes from the Greek. The Minister in another place spoke of a protocol to ensure that the powers conferred in the Bill will not be used in a disproportionate, inconsistent or unfair way. It is fine for it to be in the protocol but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said, it needs to be on the face of the Bill, together with a formal commitment to local veterinary consultation.

I hope that this will be a helpful debate. I suspect that by the time it is finished the same points will have been made many times over. I am grateful for the privilege of having made one or two of them for the first time and having echoed the points made so admirably by the noble Baronesses, Lady Byford and Lady Miller, particularly the long list of desirable things which could well have been added to the Bill. I look forward to hearing what other noble Lords have to say, but only after that journey into the golden future of our railways on which we are about to embark.

My Lords, with permission, I shall repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend in another place. The Statement is as follows: "With permission, Mr Speaker, would like to make a Statement on the strategic plan for our railways which was published this morning by the Strategic Rail Authority.

"Its publication comes at a time when industrial action is being taken against a number of the train operating companies. It is not for the Government to intervene directly in disputes between private companies and their employees.

"However we do believe that in this day and age disputes of this nature should be settled by negotiation and not strike action which harms the travelling public and in the longer term has the potential to damage the railway industry itself.

"In these circumstances, the interests of rail passengers must come first and, as the Prime Minister said last Wednesday, arbitration and the end to strike action would be the best way forward.

"Mr Speaker, despite the efforts and commitment of many dedicated and motivated individuals who work in the industry, we do not have a railway system which is fit for the 21st century. This is due to two principal reasons. First, our railways have been subject to consistent under-investment for almost three decades. In the 1970s and 1980s, there was an environment of political disinterest as far as the railways were concerned. This led to limited funding and investment; a situation which continued during privatisation in the 1990s.

"The second reason for under-performance is the failed privatisation that was Railtrack. Five years after privatisation, Railtrack still does not have a register of its basic assets: track and signals.

"Costs of the West Coast Main Line escalated from £2 billion to perhaps some £7 billion and it is only now with a new management at the top that the total mismanagement and failure to deliver on this project is becoming clear.

"There has been a lack of investment in track maintenance, cruelly exposed at Hatfield, while at the same time £700 million was paid in dividends to Railtrack shareholders. Both of these—the lack of investment and the failed privatisation—have now been addressed by the Government. As the Director General of the CBI Digby Jones said this morning, nettles are at last being grasped.

"The total investment each year over the next 10 years will average £4.3 billion in today's money. This contrasts with £1.44 billion in the final five years of the last Tory government. The total subsidy from the Government to the industry will increase to an average of £2.94 billion a year at current prices, directly and indirectly supporting the increase in investment.

"We have said that we will provide £33.5 billion of public money to invest in our railways. The original provision in the 10-year plan for transport was £29 billion.

"The placing of Railtrack into administration on 7th October by the High Court means that we now have the opportunity of seeing a new licence operator for the network who will have one overriding priority: to put the interests of rail passengers first.

"So it is against this background that the strategic plan is being published. It is just a start but important because it is the first long-term plan for the expansion of the railway for nearly 50 years. It sets basic objectives, allocates funds, identifies priorities and sets a clear timetable for delivery. The plan forms part of this Government's agenda for modernisation of those essential services on which the public depend.

"Our approach is clear across all key public services, whether in health, education, the fight against crime or in transport. We invest in reform and insist on results.

"Between now and 2005, the priorities outlined in the plan reflect the need to tackle current problems of poor performance and lack of reliability; to develop a new structure for the industry; and to implement much needed improvements across the country.

"Specifically, 1,700 new coaches will be delivered by 2004 to replace 30 year-old slam-door rolling stock on the South Central, Connex South East and South West Trains routes.

"By the end of 2003, the train protection warning system will be completed preventing trains going through danger signals; £400 million will be provided for a rail performance fund to help secure short term improvements; and £430 million will be available for local schemes under the Rail Passenger Partnership programme.

"There will be major infrastructure and rolling stock investments in the West Coast Main Line and cross-country routes. This will lead to significant journey time reductions on the West Coast and frequencies on cross-country services will be doubled which will be of real benefit to major regional centres like Birmingham, Liverpool, Derby, Bristol and Plymouth.

"There will be improvements at 1,000 stations. A new approach to franchising will be adopted that reflects the priorities of passengers and achieves a balance between getting the basics right in the short term with the need to invest for the long term.

"The strategic plan contains a delivery commitment for each of the franchise areas showing in detail the improvements to be made and the time-scale for their implementation.

"In the medium term the plan shows how to achieve the three core targets for the industry of increasing passenger growth by 50 per cent, freight by 80 per cent and a reduction in London area overcrowding. It also sets out a broader range of objectives including improvements in safety, performance and quality.

"While the plan rightly focuses on the short and medium term, it is vital to plan for the long term. Major projects require detailed planning and analysis, robust contracting and strong and competent project management and delivery. The plan makes provision for development work now towards longer-term potential projects. These include major infrastructure improvements to the Great Western Main Line, new airport links, London CrossRail and a new north-south high speed line.

"Major investment must be directed to where it is most needed. Passenger demand is highly concentrated by market and route. Around 70 per cent of all passenger journeys made nationally use the network in the South East. This means that we must focus investment on the main routes, both inter-city and commuter, which serve London.

"With the scale of investment provided in the 10-year plan we can meet the needs of London and the South East without diverting funds from the regional network. In addition, the refranchising of regional franchises, almost all of which come to an end shortly, will provide the opportunity to improve services. The regional networks will also benefit significantly from the doubling of frequencies on cross-country services.

"A particularly key role in the forward planning of the railway is being played by the devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales and London.

"My colleagues in Scotland welcome this document and the vision it contains of a safer, better and bigger railway system for Scotland in the future. The SRA's plan is designed to meet the needs of Scottish passengers and freight customers and contributes to the delivery of the Scottish Executive's document Strategic Priorities Pr Scotland's Railways.

"Many of Scotland's priorities are addressed in partnership with the Scottish Executive and with Strathclyde Passenger Transport Executive. In particular, the plan includes reference to the development of Waverley station in Edinburgh to provide more capacity and better passenger facilities; and to work on rail capacity in the Central belt and on rail access to Glasgow and Edinburgh airports.

"The Welsh Assembly is making a significant contribution alongside that which is planned by the Strategic Rail Authority over the next five years in enhancing rail infrastructure especially on Valley lines and the Cambrian line.

"The Wales and Borders franchise is being taken forward as a priority in the strategic plan. This provides a real opportunity to increase the quality and frequency of services and I expect the new franchise to be operational early next year. A good start is being made with the reopening of the Vale of Glamorgan line from Barry to Bridgend.

"Wales will also benefit from the commitments made on strategic services into London including new rolling stock and track improvements. This is vitally important in improving communications for people in Wales as well as attracting business arid leisure travellers to Wales.

"The Mayor for London is about to issue directions and guidance to the Strategic Rail Authority which will place a priority on better integration of railways with Tube and bus services and with increased frequencies.

"We also need to do more to encourage freight onto the railways. I recognise that a key element of this is intra EU freight through the Channel Tunnel.

The House will be aware of attempts to enter our country illegally through the tunnel. We must ensure that this does not happen and we will continue to press the French authorities to provide the necessary security—both physical and through police presence—at the freight yards on the French side. We have made good progress on Eurostar and that needs to be matched on freight.

"Under the plan the freight facilities grant will be relaunched and there will also be a £300 million fund aimed at small scale freight schemes.

"Britain's railway is essential to the country's economic success, social development and environmental sustainability. Every day the network carries 2.5 million passengers and 400,000 tonnes of freight. Each day Liverpool Street station alone handles as many passengers as all the airlines carry through Heathrow.

"The railway industry is itself a key industrial sector employing 130,000 people. An efficient rail system would relieve road congestion and improve the competitive position of British industry. Travelling by rail is six times safer than travelling by car for each mile travelled. Rail is Britain's most extensive and co-ordinated national public transport system.

"For these reasons we need a railway that can deliver for our people and our country: no more vague aspirations or grand visions strong on rhetoric but weak on delivery. This plan is an agenda for action. It shows what will be achieved for the large-scale investment we intend to make over the next 10 years. The Strategic Plan for Railways draws a line in the sand and represents the point at which we say, 'Enough is enough'. Let us take the action necessary and get on with delivering a railway which is fit for the 21st century and for the country with the fourth largest economy in the world. This plan will make an important contribution towards achieving that objective, and I commend it to the House".

My Lords, first, I thank the Minister for bringing the Statement to the House today. It is good for all of us to know that the Secretary of State has returned, presumably well refreshed. from his sojourn in India in time to present it in another place.

The travelling public have not fared quite so well since in his absence many passengers have been standing waiting for non-existent trains on cold arid dismal platforms while the country's rail service is subjected once again to the sight of shop stewards bringing the rail service to a halt, with strike after impending strike. No doubt the Government will feel compelled soon to deliver the sandwiches and beer bromide at No. 10. The noble Lord rightly says that we need a transport service fit for the 21st century but whether or not we get it depends on more than the production of 10-year plans and strategic statements. It depends on the building of confidence both for the investment required and in the public's mind.

The Government's handling of the rail services over the months since October has been nothing short of shameful. As the Prime Minister rightly realised in his statement yesterday. the travelling public will be unforgiving about the rail service—a service which the Government now have, effectively, renationalised and for which they will be held accountable at the next election, as the Secretary of State said.

The strategic plan produced by the Strategic Rail Authority—only a summary of which we have been given so far—prepared presumably largely under the auspices of Sir Alastair Morton since the new chairman was appointed only as recently as October, indicates the growth in passenger numbers which has taken place since Railtrack was originally formed in 1995. There has been a systematic increase in numbers from 29 billion passenger miles travelled in 1995 to just under 40 billion in 2001. That is scarcely a disaster and has occurred largely under the much-derided arrangements put into place by the previous government which survived until the Secretary of State put Railtrack into administration and upset the entire apple cart.

The chairman set out a vision for Britain's railways of sufficient trains running with sufficient passenger capacity; trained and motivated staff; improvement of the whole journey experience; safe and welcoming stations; reliable and clean trains; and predictable and relaxing journeys. We would all sign up to that. But can the Minister explain what will bring about this vision? One of the main components of the piece, Railtrack, is currently in administration. Its successor was first expected to be in place within three to six months. That has now extended to about the end of 2003. Can the Minister give more information on the timescale expected before the successor company is in place?

Investment in the railways has been trumpeted at £34 billion, but it has been acknowledged by the Strategic Rail Authority that at least 80 per cent of that funding is money which is already tied up in current expenditure. Indeed, it is also apparent that the additional £4.5 billion of extra money which has been promised by the Government and to which the Minister referred is not new money, but incorporates spending commitments which the Government had previously promised to Railtrack; namely, freight upgradings and spending announcements made previously by the former Rail Regulator. Can the Minister give details of what extra money will be made available to support the rail system? It seems certain that there is no new cash in the system, but if there is, could he please point us to it?

Can the Minister tell the House how many of the initiatives which he has announced regarding new rolling stock and safety measures, as well as the other measures he mentioned, have already been announced? Can the Minister also give details of what is expected to be the make-up of the new company to run Railtrack? Does he believe that the actions of the Government so far, which have undermined confidence in the City, can be overcome sufficiently to ensure that private sector investment will be achieved? If not, what will be the future for the railways?

Does the Minister agree that the £34 billion which will be required from the private sector to achieve the 10-year plan is already in jeopardy as a result of the actions of the Secretary of State? Is not the situation that the short-term priority of the Strategic Rail Authority will depend on the new Railtrack company, and that the strategic vision will be worthless unless that is resolved? The Strategic Rail Authority itself has said that the plans can be implemented only if the new Railtrack is funded like the old. That statement is included in the summary.

The travelling public are seriously fed up with the railways. In London, travellers are as or even more fed up with the Tube, where no decision has yet been taken about the public/private partnership. Indeed, there seems to be some disagreement between the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State as to whether the PPP is even going to go ahead. One of the targets of the Strategic Rail Authority is to increase passenger numbers by a further 50 per cent in order to reduce the numbers travelling by car and thus relieve congestion, but if the capacity of trains coming into London is increased before the Tube is improved, what are people going to do? I do not believe that Ken Livingstone's dependence on increasing the number of buses is likely to provide a reasonable alternative solution.

The plan is long on expectation and short on reality. The chairman and the Minister have said the same thing; that it draws "a line in the sand". However, I think that many people, passengers in particular, believe that this will be shifting sand at best, a quagmire at worst.

In closing, I do not know whether the Minister has time for crossword puzzles, but if he has, he might like to ponder on an anagram of the words "Tony Blair"—"not by rail"—an epitaph which many of those who use the railways may savour.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place. Over the weekend, I read a book written by Sir Felix Pole, a former general manager of the Great Western Railway who was, I believe, the best general manager of any railway company. He commented that it was pride in doing a job properly that formed the most important element which had to permeate through an organisation. It is not about financial incentives for managers and it is not about payment, provided that it is adequate. It is about knowing ultimately that a good job has been done in serving the people one has set out to serve.

I shall return to that theme, but first I should like to say that I endorse the plan where it points out that a period of stability is needed. That is needed more than anything else. The railway industry is no place for cowboys and it is no place for people with short time-frames. That is because the returns which can be earned from railway investment are never available within one, two or three years. That point was underlined by Felix Pole in his book. One must invest for profits in 20 or 30 years' time, not for next week or the week after. For that reason, I take issue with the need to increase competition and contestability which is outlined on page 14 of the new strategic plan. That is not what we want; possibly at the outset we need to see competition between the serious contenders, but we do not require the kind of short-term competition that we saw as a result of privatisation, which delivered a large number of franchises to those more interested in getting rid of staff and implementing other short-term cost-cutting measures, inevitably leading both them and the railways into trouble.

I shall give an example of such a perverse incentive. Under privatisation, the cost of repairing or replacing a bridge has doubled because half of the costs must be given to the train operators while half the costs go to the bridge. As a result, the cost is doubled and the same amount of work costs twice as much money to complete under privatisation as it used to cost under the nationalised British Rail. There are many such perverse incentives with regard to the railways which need to be taken out of the system if we are to provide rail services that will work.

The plan mentions that the SRA and the Rail Regulator have begun the process of working together. While I certainly should like to endorse the need for them to work together. I ask the following question: can we not use the CAA model in the railways, where economic regulation and safety regulation are both contained under the same heading—that is, under the SRA—so that we do not have a diversity of regulators interfering in the industry? Rather we should have one chairman who will answer for the industry as a whole rather than for part of the industry, or whose wishes could be contradicted by another regulator who is responsible for only part of the system. The plan refers to the fact that next year the HSE is to publish a health and safety strategy for the railways. However, that kind of document should be published by railwaymen, not by a body outside the railway industry. That is because things slip by and it is not possible to substitute proper, forward-thinking regulation for "after-the-event" regulation.

We need to look hard at the performance regimes for the railway. To that end, I am pleased to see that, at last, the passenger service requirements—PSRs—attaching to train franchises are to be re-examined. If they are interpreted too rigidly, then all flexibility is taken out of the timetable, making it impossible to path extra trains into it. In fact, that is exactly what has happened on the West Coast Main Line and—referring to a comment made by Richard Bowker in a conversation between us with which I agree wholeheartedly—there is no problem of capacity on the railways that an operator and engineer could not solve. However, if such problems are given over to lawyers and accountants, who are proliferating in the industry, then they will certainly not be able to provide

solutions because they will impose all kinds of' rigid rules that cannot be bent and flexed so that the original problem can be dealt with.

The paper dismisses vertical integration too easily. I know that a number of people do not like the idea, but it is an essential component if we are to get the grain operators and engineers co-operating together in modernising the railway. I spent my life working on the railway and I know that that is a fact. It will get rid of the many interfaces which exist on the railway and, as long as there is a method of resolving disputes—in which I was involved four or five times in my career as a general manager and as an operating manager—it will work.

I hope that this is not taken as a plan for London alone. Specific reference has been made to Scotland, but I have shown my noble friend Lady Scott that Railtrack, or its executors, has abandoned four schemes in Scotland, one of which has been mentioned, owing to a shortage of signal engineers. I endorse the idea of recruiting into the industry and training operators and engineers. There are nowhere near enough people who know about railways. There are plenty of people who can tell you what not to do legally or what not to do accounting-wise, but there are too few people who can tell you what to do railway-wise.

I welcome the idea of a new north/south route. However, I am afraid that we will get into a planning morass unless something is done quickly to repeal the Transport and Works Act because at the moment it takes ages to get anything done. With all due deference to the profession of the Minister, it is a meal ticket for lawyers but it does not get things done.

I hope that in the future we will have "rolling" franchises—that is, franchises which are awarded on the basis that there will be no end to them provided that they are carried out satisfactorily—because it is very difficult when you come to the end of any franchise, not only a railway franchise, to hand it on to a new person.

I note the sections in regard to airports, South West Trains and connections to the west of London airport. We should look again at landing charges at airports as a means of funding these projects.

I am pleased that there is much mention of freight, but I want to see progress on Fréthun. As to vehicle acceptance, a lot of rolling stock is not being used and we need to upgrade the power supplies on Southern Region.

Many consumers have been very inconvenienced lately by strikes. Industrial relations legislation tends to assume that there are only two people involved in disputes—the employee and the employer. But there is someone in the middle—the consumer—who is often forgotten in everything we do. People should go to arbitration—and, if necessary, they should be compelled to go.

My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their responses. In particular, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, for his constructive response to the strategy. I was not sure whether the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, supports the strategic plan.

The noble Baroness asked what will deliver the strategic plan in the short term, the medium term and the long term. The answer is that, first, leadership—which Mr Bowker is more than happy to undertake—will deliver it. Secondly, there will be investment of the money announced in the 10-year plan, coupled with the £4.5 billion extra that has been announced since then and private sector investment. Thirdly, there will be an identification of strategic priorities.

As everyone recognises—including Mr Bowker and the Secretary of State—this is only a beginning. We need a beginning such as this, where there is leadership and commitment. As Mr Bowker points out, commitment was profoundly lacking in the 1970s, 1980s and the early 1990s in relation to an expanded rail network. That is what we have now. So, in answer to the question of what will deliver the strategic plan, it is leadership, investment, strategic planning, the setting of priorities and then delivering them.

The noble Baroness then asked about the spending position and whether any new money is identified in the plan. The answer is that no new money is identified in the plan. The position is as follows. The 10-year plan identified public sector investment of £29 billion in relation to rail. That increased by £2.3 billion in an announcement made in October 2000. It went up by a further £1.5 billion in an announcement made in April 2001. At the same time as that £1.5 billion announcement was made, a further £462 million was allocated to freight. In October 2001, an additional £154 million was allocated to CrossRail, and in November 2001 a further £290 million was allocated to the SRA. This has increased the public sector money allocated to rail in the 10-year plan from £29 billion to about £33.6 billion.

The noble Baroness asked about new initiatives in relation to the strategic plan—in particular, about new rolling stock and so on. The new cash has been announced already along the lines I have indicated. The rail performance fund is new and the rail passenger partnership has been expanded. She asked what will encourage the private sector to make an investment of something in excess of the £30 billion referred to in the plan. The view expressed by the Strategic Rail Authority, chaired by Mr Richard Bowker—who is a man with profound experience of the railway industry—is that it will invest. Long-term commitment by the Government, investment, strategic planning and leadership is the kind of landscape which will encourage private sector investment.

My Lords, the Minister has not quite answered my question. Investment by private companies has been put in jeopardy by the mess surrounding Railtrack at the moment. My question is whether, in the light of what has happened since

October, the Minister is still satisfied that private sector investment will be forthcoming. Indeed, is Mr Bowker able to vouch that the money will be there?

My Lords, Mr Bowker, who is much more expert than myself and, with respect, the noble Baroness, has said that he believes that it is there. This is a strategic plan produced three months after 7th October 2001. So the answer is, yes, we believe that the money can come from the private sector. The money will come where there is a landscape of leadership, investment, long-term commitment and the ability to identify priorities for the system.

The noble Baroness ended by making reference to the Tube. In relation to the Tube—just as in relation to the rail network—nettles have to be grasped. As Digby Jones, the director-general of the CBI said this morning in relation to the railways, nettles are finally being grasped after the 1970s and 1980s when, to quote Mr Bowker in his report, there was "disinterest" in the railways. So the answer is that just as we are grasping nettles in relation to the railways, so we are grasping nettles in relation to the Tube with our proposals in regard to the PPP.

The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, in his constructive contribution, made two points which very much echo what Mr Bowker has said in the strategic plan. First, he referred to the need for an ethos of accountable delivery and high-quality service delivery in the rail industry. That comes right up front in the strategic plan and we thoroughly endorse that view. He also referred to endorsing a period of stability. Again that is reflected in what Mr Bowker has said.

The noble Lord referred to the disadvantages of short-term gain, which, again, was mentioned by Mr Bowker. He referred to the importance of training operators and engineers, as well as increasing the standard of engineering—a point that was also thoroughly endorsed by the strategic plan. He welcomed the new North-South proposal, but, rightly, referred to various planning problems, whether parliamentary or otherwise, that can lead to huge delays in relation to infrastructure projects where, although there must be proper consultation, there must not be such long delays as would put this country, people in business, and leisure travellers at a disadvantage because of the time taken. We agree with that view.

The noble Lord raised a number of issues, such as landing charges at airports. However, these are matters that can be discussed in the future. I should point out that the critical aim on which the strategic plan focuses is delivering certain specific targets—for example, a 50 per cent increase in the number of passenger kilometres, and so on—that are vital to ensure a rail system fit for the 21st century.

My Lords, I very much welcome the Statement and the launch of this strategic plan, which I believe to be comprehensive, forward looking and good for freight. I declare an interest as chairman of the Rail Freight Group. When repeating the Statement. my noble and learned friend noted that the new network licensee—Railtrack's successor, which will replace the late-lamented "cash cow", as I call it—has one objective; namely, to put first the interests of rail passengers. I hope that my noble and learned friend has not forgotten the interest of rail freight customers. Perhaps he could clarify that point.

I also very much welcome the announcement on the cross-Channel situation. Do I detect that the Government are at last recognising that this is an international problem that needs an international solution by governments? I hope that the Government are putting increased pressure on the French Government to take the matter seriously. My final question relates to leadership, which was mentioned by my noble and learned friend. I was most impressed by the introduction to this plan from Richard Bowker, who says in the foreword to the summary of the strategic plan:

"I will make the case for rail and for the necessary investment. I will transform the SRA into the strong leadership team that was envisaged".

That is fantastic. Mr Bowker goes on to say that the industry needs to deliver—and he is absolutely right there. However, a third element is involved. In return for all this, can my noble and learned friend say whether the Government's support is there to encourage growth and value for money? That applies especially to Railtrack to enable it to get out of administration as quickly as possible and thereby ensure the necessary investment that I, too, am convinced is still there.

My Lords, the service provided by Railtrack, or its successor, should be for all rail users—that means not just passengers but also freight. The importance of freight is reflected in the 10-year plan and in the subsequent announcements. It is also reflected in the strategic plan published today. In relation to the Channel Tunnel issue, I confirm that it is an international problem and one that can be solved effectively only by international co-operation. That is the position that the Government have always adopted on the issue.

My noble friend asked whether it would be right for us to get Railtrack into its new phase as quickly as possible. Of course we should do so as quickly as possible. However, we must ensure that what emerges from this period is a firm, sustainable structure for the future of the rail industry.

My Lords, perhaps I may focus the Minister's attention on the crucial figures in the Statement and the additional figure that he has just given to the House. The Minister said that total investment over the next 10 years will amount to £43 billion. He also said:

"We will provide £33.5 billion of public money",

for investment, which I believe creates a gap of £9.5 billion. In answer to an earlier question, the noble and learned Lord stated that there will be £33 billion of private sector investment. First, can the Minister reconcile those figures?

Secondly, as regards the money that is to come from the private sector, can the Minister say how much of it will be from retained earnings from the operators and/or the new Railtrack, and how much will be new investment from the City, or wherever? Further, of the new investment, can the noble and learned Lord say how much the Government plan to be loan capital and how much will be equity capital? If it is loan capital, will it, or will it not, be underwritten by the Government? If the required capital is not available from the private sector, are the Government saying that they will provide sufficient capital to meet the full investment programme over the 10 years?

My Lords. as far as concerns the breakdown between public and private sector funding, the basic figures are around £33.5 billion of public sector funding and an estimated £30 billion to £35 billion of private sector funding over a period of 10 years. Obviously, that will involve an increase in the rate of private sector investment over and above the current level. Therefore, we expect the level of private sector investment to increase both proportionately in real terms and from the level it is now. I am not in a position to go through the basic breakdown of how much will be loan and how will be designated otherwise. However, I can tell the House that Mr Bowker, who, as I said earlier, has worked for a considerable time in the rail industry, and the Strategic Rail Authority believe that those assumptions are realistic. Part of the vital landscape of those assumptions is a planned level of commitment by the Government over the long-term that people who make decisions about investment in the private sector will find attractive.

My Lords, I have three specific questions for the Minister regarding certain matters that seem to be absent from the medium-term priorities set out on page 37 of the summary of the strategic plan. Incidentally, the noble and learned Lord may like to know that I enjoyed two impeccably punctual journeys today. One was my first journey on a Virgin Voyager and the other was by SouthWest trains to Waterloo. On the latter train, the conductor variously identified himself as Sean Connery, Roger Moore and then, as the train curved round into Waterloo station and I could see that we had been signalled into Platform 10, he said, "My name is Tony Blair and, appropriately, we are coming into Number 10". He was obviously enjoying his job.

However, as far as I can see, three matters seem to be missing from the Statement. The first is any reference to future electrification, which, on environmental grounds, is highly desirable. not least on the Great Western and Midland main lines. We are in danger of having a new generation of diesel trains, instead of a new generation of electric trains. There appears to be no mention of that development.

Secondly, in freight terms, there is no mention of the track bill that is needed to accommodate freight trains on the pinchpoints, especially through the West Midlands. Thirdly, there is a mention of gauge enhancement due for 2005 from Southampton to the West Midlands and from Felixstowe to Nuneaton, but there is no time offered at all for onward gauge enhancement to the North West, to Merseyside, to Manchester, or to Scotland. Is there no hope of any of these developments in the plan?

My Lords, the right reverend Prelate has asked three specific questions. Perhaps I may write to him on all three of them.

My Lords, I should like to refer to the issue of the single franchise into mainline stations in London. In doing so, perhaps I may declare an informal interest as a very regular user of Liverpool Street station. I should also declare a formal interest as a member of the Commission for Integrated Transport.

I very much agree with the sentiments expressed by my noble friend Lord Bradshaw; namely, that there are clear benefits to be enjoyed from single franchises into Liverpool Street station, in terms of rationalising services and dealing with some of the capacity problems involved. However, there has also been some benefit from the competition that has existed until now in terms of frequencies and keeping down the level of fares, as well as in station upgrades.

I should like an assurance from the Minister that future franchising arrangements will not throw out the baby with the bath water, and that we shall be able to hold on to some of the very real benefits that have accrued. East Anglian passengers will regard with concern lines such as London to Manchester where, since 1995, there has been an increase in fares of 80 per cent. They will also be looking at other lines where the availability of off-peak fares has been squeezed to very narrow and often almost unusable windows of opportunity; and, indeed, where plethoras of special offers have been developed very much at the expense of reasonable and affordable walk-on fares.

My Lords, I am not sure whether I detect a slight difference in the Liberal Democrat Front Bench in relation to the issue of competition and franchising. As is well known, the view that the number of franchisees should decrease is quite widely held through the industry. I do not detect that the noble Baroness is effectively disputing that fact. However, in so far as she is saying that there are benefits associated with the franchising system, I can say, yes; that is clear. In adopting the smaller number of franchises, one has to be clear that one is not losing the kinds of benefits referred to by the noble Baroness.

My Lords, perhaps I may return to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, as it is possible to reach a somewhat different inference. It is true that there is a difference between the degree of commitment which, by its nature, can be indicated in a document such as that put out today by the Government on the one hand and by the private sector—the City—on the other. But should we not draw the inference that some kind of forum is necessary to examine how a commitment of £35 billion or £40 billion will come forward from the private sector; and that we should not merely rely on project finance, case by case, to produce that sum? Is it not the case that in France, Holland, Belgium and many other European countries there are national infrastructure banks or financial intermediaries which can bring together a public/private relationship? Is it possible to keep the door open at this stage for further consideration to be given, if any studies come forward, on the new financial intermediaries that may be needed to square the circle?

My Lords, it is an interesting idea and one to which my noble friend has referred previously. There is, as it were, separately from the railways merit in looking at that. The fundamental question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, and others is: ultimately, will the providers of the finance be prepared to come forward and make it available? The view of Sir Richard Bowker and the Strategic Rail Authority is that they will.

My Lords, the Statement says that previous activities as regards the railways have been strong on rhetoric and weak on action. The noble and learned Lord has certainly been strong on rhetoric. I hope that his words do not come back to haunt him. The Statement does not refer to the most recent troubles of the railways; namely, with regard to the activities of the unions. This is remarkably familiar to those of us who were involved in the newspaper industry in the 1970s and 1980s. Then, the problem was solved—largely with the assistance of the union leader, now the noble Baroness, Lady Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde—by making the unions redundant so that they no longer had a place in the newspaper industry. There is nothing in the railway industry which makes the rail unions a vital part. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that there is no interference by the unions with the operation and activities of the railways? In asking that, perhaps I may say what an excellent service, in terms both of time and of dealing with the unions, is provided by Chiltern Railways.

My Lords, the third paragraph of the Statement referred to the issue of the unions. As my right honourable friend said in another place, we believe that, in this day and age, disputes of this nature should be settled by negotiation and not by strike action, which harms the travelling public and in the longer term has the potential to damage the railway industry itself. My right honourable friend reminded the other place that rail passengers must come first, as the Prime Minister had said on Wednesday. He urged that disputes should be sent to arbitration with an immediate end to the strike action. The issue of the present industrial relations problems was specifically addressed by my right honourable friend in his Statement and his remarks seem to offer the right way forward.

My Lords, if my noble and learned friend and Mr. Richard Bowker are right—namely, that there will be investment from the private sector— there is nothing wrong with that. But what happens if they are both wrong, or partly wrong? What happens if the private sector is not willing to "pay up", partly or wholly? My submission—I hope that my noble and learned friend will support it, although I doubt it—is that the Government ought to make it clear now that, in the case that it does not, the Government will have no hesitation in ensuring that the necessary investment will come from them, rather than have a hiatus where nothing happens at all.

My Lords, the Statement relates to the Strategic Rail Authority's plan for the future in relation to the railways. That plan posits an expanded rail service. It can be a bigger and better rail service the more money can be levered in from the private sector. Sir Richard Bowker and the other members of the authority have put forward in the plan what they believe to be the right priorities. based on reasonable assumptions. If their assumptions are wrong—and they are the people who have the expertise in this area—then it is a sensible plan. One of the vital elements that will make it work is government support. The Government have made it absolutely clear that they support the vision and the plan.

My Lords, the noble and learned Lord was quick to condemn Railtrack again, and in particular the rising costs of the West Coast Main Line. I am sure that I do not need to remind the noble and learned Lord that any government capital project has equal costs in over-runs. I could draw attention to the Scottish Parliament and, closer to home, the Dome as areas where government should not have got involved.

As regards private finance, will the noble and learned Lord confirm that in their figures the Government make no provision for a risk insurance premium, which might be charged by the private sector for its co-operation given the fact that Railtrack has been renationalised without compensation? Any future private sector involvement will have a risk premium attached to it. Even if that is as small as half a per cent, the Government will have to add in excess of £1 billion to their figures. Will the noble and learned Lord confirm that those costs are not presently included in the government figures? Will he also answer the specific question of my noble friend Lord Marlesford? If the private sector does not perform, will the Government fill the breach?

My Lords, as to a risk assurance premium, I am not sure whether the noble Earl is suggesting that the premium itself would be £1 billion. With the greatest respect, that seems totally over the top. As to the precise provision made, I shall have to reply in writing.

In regard to the question by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, we are talking about a plan which, if one manages to lever in private money, means that one will be able to have more funding for the railways. The plan sets out what the Strategic Rail Authority believes is the way to lever in the kinds of money to which I have referred and what should be done once that money is obtained, coupled with public sector financing. What one has, therefore, is a plan for the future, with government support. That is what the Strategic Rail Authority was charged with producing. It is not right to say, "What happens if this does not work? What will the new plan be?". This is the view of the Strategic Rail Authority about how the railways can be developed over the next 10 years, making reasonable assumptions about what the financing would be. It is a plan which has the support of the Government. The Strategic Rail Authority and the Government together believe that it will produce a better railway system.

My Lords. does my noble and learned friend accept that there are two aspects of the strategic plan which are particularly welcome to those of us who care about the future of the railways? The first is the recognition that transport now deserves a much higher priority on the national political stage and that the problems of the railways in particular will have a great deal of attention devoted to them over the coming three or four years. Secondly, this is the first attempt that has been made for many years to plan a railway for growth arid expansion. The motive underlying privatisation, and indeed many of the Treasury policies pursued by governments of both parties in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, was to plan for contraction and reducing the level of public subsidy. I particularly welcome the acceptance in the strategic plan and the Statement that the railways will have a larger part to play in the carriage of people and freight in the future.

In congratulating Richard Bowker on his impressive start, I hope that my noble and learned friend will endorse the comment in the foreword:

"I want to see fewer accountants, fewer lawyers and fewer consultants. Instead I want to see more engineers, more operators, more project managers and especially more young graduates, apprentices and school leavers joining an industry with a future".

Yes, my Lords, I thoroughly support the first part of that question. It shows the priority that is being attached to the importance of railways. I also support the second part of the question. It indicates a Strategic Rail Authority envisaging a railway system that will grow and expand. I am sure that we all want that. I also thoroughly endorse the statement that we need fewer accountants and lawyers and more young people involved in railways. We need more people committed to a big railway system. This is a plan for the future. As Mr Bowker says, it is only a beginning, but surely we respect him enough to give his plan a chance.

My Lords, we have heard three excellent speeches in this debate so far, following the Minister's introductory speech. I should like particularly to highlight the outstanding speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford, which I felt was enormously full of good sense, with a scholarly smattering of Greek in the middle. My reaction to that speech—I hope that this does not embarrass him too much—is "Hereford for Canterbury". I do not know whether that will happen.

I find this a most unfortunate Bill, but before I deal with it I must declare my interest as a livestock farmer in the region of Thirsk in North Yorkshire, which has been referred to. If it were not for the convention in your Lordships' House on voting against Commons Bills, I would have wished firmly to have helped to vote down the Bill.

I criticise the Bill for seven principal reasons, all of which I shall try to explain. They graphically reflect the Government's incompetence in the wider sense. First, this is a knee-jerk reaction to a serious problem. Secondly, it tackles only part of the problem. Thirdly, it is unco-ordinated. Fourthly, it is mean. Fifthly, it lacks scientific justification. Sixthly, it is arrogant and unfair. Seventhly, over the past year, the whole problem has been presided over by first a Minister and now a Secretary of State who do not command and have not commanded the respect of the farming community and they do not appear to have a grip of the facts.

My first point is that the Bill is a knee-jerk reaction. The NFU has told us—I find this hard to believe— that there was no consultation before its publication. What is called the "lessons learnt" inquiry is only just starting and we have been told at the weekend of a new, separate consultation arrangement. I cannot understand how the Government can bring in such legislation at this stage.

Last March, I was one of the first to demand in your Lordships' House a public inquiry into the whole foot and mouth problem while the outbreak was going on. I suggested at the time that my noble friend Lord Plumb, with all his prestige as a former President of the European Parliament and a former member of the Northumberland committee, would be the ideal person to head that inquiry.

The Government were all very ready to set up a great inquiry into BSE, but they have been strangely quiet and unprepared to set up a similar public inquiry into foot and mouth disease. This has been a massive cover-up of the gross incompetence and mismanagement, which all farmers recognise, of the handling of the tragic outbreak. In spite of all that, to bring forward such draconian powers long before the lessons have been learnt seems clearly to demonstrate a knee-jerk reaction to the problem.

Secondly, I said that the Bill tackles only part of the problem. While some measures may well be needed to amend the 1981 Act—I am in favour of that—some measures are not addressed at all in the Bill. It would allow government officials to enter farms and slaughter animals of any sort whenever they feel like it. However, it does not address the behaviour of government officials when they carry out such work on farms. I shall quote one example, which came to my attention some time ago. It is the case of Mrs Anderson from East Harlsey, near Northallerton in North Yorkshire. This is what she said about the slaughter of cattle on her farm:

"they started the process of trying to slaughter them at 3 p.m. on Tuesday, there followed 5 hours of chasing them round the field trying to get them into a pen that was way too small in a corner of the field where there are lorries, JCBs and up to ten cars, people and disinfection trucks waiting, with us failing to convince them that if it was done quietly and calmly without all these people around the cows may come near".

She goes on:

"Finally, 3 cows pushed through the fence onto the road followed in hot pursuit by a slaughterman with a rifle, pointing the gun across the road whilst oncoming traffic are coming down the road as there are not enough army personnel around to stop the traffic".

That shows that the Bill tackles only part of the problem. There have been many similar cases throughout the country over the past year. I heard of another case very close to the one that I have quoted in which some cattle escaped and got into a field of dairy cows. They, too, then had to be slaughtered because of the way in which the cattle were handled.

Surely the Bill should have a provision for a code of practice approved by Parliament by order, to avoid such rodeo-like tragedies when officials go on to farms to slaughter cattle.

My third reason for opposing the Bill is that it is unco-ordinated. The Bill applies only to England and Wales. What happens with regard to Scotland? Will there be parallel legislation? What would happen if we were to get another outbreak that straddled the area between Northumberland and Berwickshire? We saw what happened with the tragic outbreak in Cumbria and Dumfriesshire. There seems to he no co- between England and Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom.

Fourthly, I said that the Bill was mean. Only 75 per cent of the compensation is to be paid to farmers at the outset. The remaining 25 per cent will he payable only if the farmer complies with certain appropriate biosecurity measures. In my view, that is totally the wrong way round. The Bill's drafting does not appreciate that, for a farmer, losing a herd or flock is the most traumatic thing that can happen to him apart from the death of a family member. At a later stage of our consideration, we must re-examine and reverse the proposed arrangement. It is both unsympathetic and, as I said, mean to bully and browbeat farmers in that way.

Fifthly, I said that I feel that the Bill has no scientific basis. However, I shall not dwell on that point as it has been dealt with already in the two admirable speeches by the Front-Benchers.

Sixthly, I said that I believe that the Bill is arrogant and unfair. I say that because the clauses on enforcement allow government officials to apply to a magistrate for a warrant to obtain powers of entry for treatment, slaughter and other functions. Although the Bill provides for the Government to give notice of their intention to apply for a warrant to the occupier of the land or premises, I can find nothing in the Bill that allows a farmer or anyone else affected to be given the name of the magistrate or the time and place at which the sworn evidence will be presented. There is a major need to change the Bill in that respect also, and to include provisions—as I hope that we shall attempt to do—to provide those added details so that a proper appeal can he made.

I thought I heard the Minister say at the beginning of the debate that he felt the Bill strengthens farmers' right to appeal. All I can say to him is that he could have fooled me. I believe that the provisions are both arrogant and unfair.

The seventh and final reason why I oppose the Bill is the way in which Ministers have handled the situation. I opened the previous debate, I believe, in which your Lordships discussed this subject, and I shall not repeat the reasons why I believe that the Ministry has been totally incompetent in the relevant period. Nevertheless, I think that the Ministry was quite unprepared for this outbreak and ignored or forgot the recommendations of the Northumberland committee.

I am concerned about Ministers' behaviour and leadership in this outbreak. Mercifully, most of the Ministers who dealt with the early part of the outbreak seem to have slid out of sight for one reason or another. I exclude the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, from what I am about to say, as I have no evidence to doubt his competence.

The behaviour of Mrs. Beckett seems to demonstrate her total misunderstanding of the situation. In the other place, on Second Reading, when dealing with the situation in the Thirsk area—to which the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, also referred, by which I understood him to be referring to what is described as the "Thirsk blue box"—Mrs. Beckett said:

"I am someone who tries to use words with great accuracy, and of course such things are never susceptible to 100 per cent. proof. shall give the hon. Gentleman and the House an example.

In Thirsk this summer, 55 local appeals were lodged against the contiguous cull. Of the 29 upheld by the divisional veterinary manager, nine cases of infection were subsequently revealed—and that, in turn, triggered additional contiguous culling. In the cases where the appeal had been rejected by the DVM, two also became infected premises. Again, that, in turn, triggered culling on additional farms".—[Official Report, Commons, 12/11/01; col. 577.]

I am a farmer in the Thirsk area—although, mercifully, I was able to avoid infection on my farm—and I know that those remarks caused huge irritation and anger to local farmers. On 14th November, two days after the remarks were made, they were challenged by the local NFU secretary, who wrote to Mrs. Beckett as follows:

"The result was and continues to be a total loss in confidence in your department and its ability to control Foot and Mouth disease. It should never have even reached Thirsk".

The NFU secretary is still awaiting a reply to that letter.

Worse, on 4th December, I tabled a Question asking for details on the allegations of farmers' obstruction in the Thirsk area. I did not receive a reply to the Question until very recently. The Minister, on behalf of the Secretary of State, said:

"The 55 appeals that she"—

that is, Mrs. Beckett—

"quoted were in the whole of North Yorkshire, rather than in the Thirsk area. The number of appeals upheld by the divisional veterinary manager is 26 and not 29".—[Official Report, 20/12/01; col. WA85.]

That is why I say that I believe that the Secretary of State has not been in touch with the facts. So much, too, for the beginning of Mrs. Beckett's accusations, which I have quoted above, when she said that she is someone who tries to use words with great accuracy. The truth is that, of the appeals that she quoted, in the whole of North Yorkshire, only nine of the 37 parishes in which there were appeals were in the "Thirsk blue box".

I cannot express to your Lordships how infuriated farmers in the Thirsk area have been by this affair, which reflects the Government's sloppy, unco-ordinated, mean, arrogant and unfair approach to the whole business. It has been presided over by a Secretary of State who clearly finds her job far beyond her. I believe that she should resign or, at the very least, apologise for her and her predecessor's incompetence in these matters.

My Lords, I agree very much with that stirring speech by the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, both in its substance and in its ringing endorsement of the rousing speech by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford. I, too, must declare an interest, as someone who with his family farms livestock, and does so in an area where we had many cases of foot and mouth very close to us. I approach the Bill from the combined points of view of a lawyer and a farmer.

I wholeheartedly agree with previous speakers in finding the Bill's timing extraordinary. The Government are apparently putting in place what they think is needed to do better next time, but doing so without consultation with the farming bodies or awaiting the benefit of the inquiry that they have appointed. One of those inquiries is called "Learning the Lessons". In my day, one learned one's lessons before attempting to write the answers; the Government seemingly prefer the opposite approach.

The Minister's excuse for the rush is that we might have another emergency. In other words, this is yet another dose of knee-jerk legislation where the Government misuse the excuse of an emergency to give themselves a batch of new draconian powers unjustified by the real risk.

The appearance of the Bill at this stage has to be postulated on the risk of a new outbreak of foot and mouth to be fought with these new powers. But do the Government really believe that if tomorrow there was a new outbreak of foot and mouth, the public, the media, the farmers or, indeed, anyone would actually allow them to embark upon another policy of mass slaughter, more funeral pyres, more piles of carcasses, more ruined lives and heartbreak homes? If the Government really believe that, they are living in Cloud-cuckoo-land.

What is needed are not more powers but proper steps to prevent the import of the disease, as has already been said, and an efficient and effective organisation to deal with a crisis. As the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, has said, MAFF, and its clone, DEFRA, are regarded throughout the farming community as a bunch of disorganised incompetents whose incapacity to cope with a crisis generates a mixture of laughter, contempt and despair. If the Minister thinks that that is extravagant language, I suggest that he visits those at the grassroots to discover whether that is the case.

It is not the fault of DEFRA's staff. They are by training bureaucrats, not fire-fighters. Jeremy Bentham told us many years ago that civil servants are not the right people to deal with emergencies. They will always be more concerned with formalities and paper than with action. What is needed is a small national body solely devoted to crisis management which can step in and take charge of a crisis of any kind without being overcome by the necessity of ensuring that the paperwork is in order. Surely that was demonstrated by the transformation which occurred in Cumbria once a brigadier took over from a civil servant.

The Bill gives amazing powers which it is frightening to entrust to anyone but are wholly unacceptable to entrust to an organisation which has entirely lost the confidence of the rural community. Under subsection (2) of Clause 1 the Minister can order the slaughter of "any animals" if he thinks that that is the way to prevent the spread of foot and mouth. However, the easiest way to prevent the spread of foot and mouth is to slaughter all the animals in the country, then the disease cannot spread. The Government are taking powers which have not been exercised since the days of King Herod. The animals concerned can be wholly unaffected by and not in any way in contact with or exposed to disease. Has it ever occurred to the Government that the veterinary profession may have an ethical objection to slaughter of wholly healthy animals on that kind of scale?

Clause 7 enables an inspector, who, it appears, can be anyone, to require,

"any person on the premises",

not just a farmer. but also a visiting vet or contractor, to give him such assistance as he may reasonably require. A person who does not give that assistance commits an offence and can go to prison for six months. It is no excuse to say that it was a wholly distasteful thing for him to do. The inspector can say,

"I know that is your daughter's tame pet, but just hold it while I kill it, will you?" The provision applies no matter how busy a person is or how much else he has to do. He does not receive payment for giving that assistance, or even reimbursement of the cost of doing it. It seems to me that that is a novel requirement to import into the criminal law—to oblige a man to work actively on the instructions of an official and to make it an offence not to comply. Basically, the criminal law does not require one to act, merely to refrain from wrongful conduct—"one shall not kill but need not strive officiously to keep alive".

Therefore, I wrote to the Minister and asked his departmental staff to let me know what precedents there were for that kind of provision. This morning I received an impressive letter with a list of no fewer than nine examples which appeared to be convincing and to destroy my point. However, being of a somewhat non-trusting nature, I checked virtually all of the references. None of them is in any way similar to the provisions I am discussing. All they do is require one to give information or access to an inspector whose job it is to see that things are safe or that records are kept. None of them requires one to take action to do the job itself by rounding up animals, holding them or indeed doing the slaughtering oneself. The real answer is that these powers are unprecedented and, unfortunately for the Minister, his department has not got away with pretending that they are not.

Schedule 1 reduces the compensation for every farmer whose animals are slaughtered on premises which were subject to a foot and mouth notice unless and until that farmer proves that nothing had been done or omitted on his farm which might create a significant risk of the spread of foot and mouth. There is no question of whether there was good reason or excuse for his conduct and no question of whether the relevant conduct had anything to do with the actual outbreak. He loses 25 per cent of his compensation if he has not fully obeyed any one of the rules laid down. Is that in accordance with human rights legislation? It is one thing to reduce compensation if the Government can show that your conduct has contributed to your own loss but quite another to say that the Government can seize and kill your property and then refuse to give you proper compensation as you did not do everything they think you should have done, or were not as helpful as the inspector would have liked. The Minister had the gall to describe these provisions as "creating an incentive". Tell that to the farmers.

My Lords, I support the Bill and the principles behind it. I do not know why but I get the feeling that I may be one of the few to do so. But as a woman who came to your Lordships' House from the male dominated trade union movement, I am used to being in a minority. Overall, I believe the Bill worthy of support. I particularly welcome the section on deliberate infection of animals. I do, however, have a few reservations on the Bill and questions about it to which I shall come later.

I am sad that the Bill is necessary but I have no doubt that it is. Perhaps I should begin by putting it into context. The foot and mouth outbreak last year was the worst there has ever been in the UK and possibly in the world. The history of foot and mouth shows that it occurred regularly in the years up to the 1967 outbreak.

We have been lucky in that we have had 30 years of freedom from the disease, but that does not mean that it will not return quickly. If we do not act and foot and mouth disease returns, the country will be right to place the blame firmly and squarely on Parliament. That is why action is necessary now, not in six or 12 months' time, or even longer. We cannot have it both ways. In the previous outbreak precious time was lost while it was decided whether or not animals had been exposed to foot and mouth disease. Looking back, we can see that even short delays encouraged its spread, and we cannot afford that. People who I met over the Christmas holidays in Lincolnshire in particular but also in rural Essex were frank and forthright in their views about what the Government should do. I could not repeat in your Lordships' House some of the language that their comments were couched in. Their proposals were varied but they all agreed on one thing: that action was needed now, not in six or 12 months' time.

The Bill introduces measures for swifter culling where appropriate. The Government made it very clear that they do not propose to slaughter willy-nilly, as has been suggested by some noble Lords. When introducing the measures in the other place, the Secretary of State, Margaret Beckett, said:

"I will say quite frankly to … the House that I was not enthusiastic about seeking to take these powers. but I have become convinced that they are necessary … We are mindful of the fact that these are strong powers and should be used, if they are used, only with great caution".—[Official Report, Commons, 12/11/01; col. 576–9.]

The Bill will introduce measures that were, we now see with hindsight, previously lacking and whose absence hampered the response to the earlier outbreak. The measures are needed. The Bill does not commit the Government to just one way of tackling any resurgence of foot and mouth; it broadens the options that are available to them. It states that if culling is to take place, it should be quick and effective. By taking more effective and speedier action, fewer animals will be affected by foot and mouth and therefore fewer will be culled. It will not stop further legislation being taken, if necessary, once the independent inquiry and the consultation process have come to fruition.

The legislation will not be written in tablets of stone. Further, by acting swiftly and decisively, the Government hope to allay the public's natural concerns about foot and mouth—those concerns have not gone away—and bring back confidence to the British meat and dairy industry. That is a responsible attitude that any government should take and which has been called for time and again in this Chamber in our debates on foot and mouth.

It is a good job that herrings are not able to catch foot and mouth disease because there have already been plenty of red herrings swimming around the Bill. Some newspapers went so far as to suggest that following the Bill's implementation even pet goldfish would be under threat. Sometimes one wonders about the mental state of some journalists. Others have made wild claims about the culling of animals. They have talked about indiscriminate culling, including the culling of dogs, horses and pets. Anyone who has studied the disease knows that animals such as dogs and horses are not susceptible to foot and mouth, and the suggestion, obviously, is idiocy.

I remind noble Lords that in Section 87 of the Animal Health Act 1981, the animals that are covered are defined as,

"(a) cattle, sheep and goats, and

(b) all other ruminating animals and swine".

The Bill will alter neither that section nor the Government's policy on rare breeds, pets or sanctuary animals. The Government have stated that each future case would be treated on its merits and that pets, sanctuary animals and rare breeds are exempt from culling unless a vet stresses that a cull is necessary to prevent the spread of disease. As those animals are more likely to have been kept in biosecure conditions, they are more likely to be given an exemption. I am assured that everything possible will be done to avoid such a cull, as has previously been the case. As a member of the Rare Breeds Survival Trust, I certainly welcome that.

Further red herrings concern farmers who took legal action to save stock from slaughter during the outbreak. Some have inferred that the Government may attach some blame to those farmers for spreading foot and mouth. I have not heard the Government claim that the Bill will combat farmers who took legal action but I have heard them say, and repeat, that they recognise that the vast majority of farmers ensure high standards of animal care but that a small minority, through irresponsible actions or an irresponsible approach—either potentially or actually—contributed to the disease's spread. The Bill sends a clear message that irresponsibility must be countered. That is for the sake of the vast majority of caring and responsible farmers and of the country and the countryside. The Bill is not, as has been claimed, only about bad farming; it will protect and assist the good farmer.

It is not just farmers who are affected. The tourist industry, market towns, shopkeepers and many others suffered during the foot and mouth outbreak last year. As so often, the behaviour of a small minority had a detrimental effect on many.

I turn to safeguards and appeals. As always in legislation, there must be safeguards in relation to implementation. I carefully examined the safeguards and appeals procedure. The Bill contains safeguards relating to culling for diseases other than those that have already been identified. It does so, for example, before action can be taken, and affirmative resolution procedures have to be laid before both Houses, which I welcome. There is also a comprehensive appeal procedure relating to culling, which will be explained to stock owners. If the owner seeks a review of the decision to cull, an assessment will be made by the divisional veterinary manager, who will know the specific local practice and take it into account when determining animals' exposure to disease. That part of the appeal procedure will come into the process. If there is a further dispute, the local JP will be asked to issue a warrant. So far, so good. However, this is where my first reservation occurs. As the Bill is currently drafted, the divisional veterinary manager will be able to give the JP an account of the difficulties that have arisen, but the farmer or owner will not. That disturbs me. As always, justice must be seen to be done, and that approach does not appear to provide a level playing field. I ask my noble friend the Minister to look again at that part of the appeal procedure.

I turn to compensation. I have no problem with the logic that lies behind the proposed 75 per cent figure. If a farmer or his or her staff have created a significant risk of spreading foot and mouth, they should be penalised. Again, that is for the sake of all of those who have been scrupulous about their responsibilities. My query concerns those who will advise the Minister about whether or not the 25 per cent additional payment should be paid when the disease risk is being assessed. In Schedule 1, on page 12, the Bill refers to,

"a person appointed to be an inspector",

and, "inspectors and other persons". Will the Minister clarify to whom that actually refers?

As has already been mentioned, the appeals procedure currently appears to be unwieldy. Farmers may need to lodge three separate appeals relating to disease risk assessment, compensation and valuation. That would have to be done when they were facing the traumas of culling, which is an emotional and difficult time for the whole family. Again, that seems to need some form of rationalisation. In turn, enough time must be allowed for the appeals to be lodged.

Finally, like the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, I wish that the Bill referred to animal movement and—this is an interrelated issue—the need to reintroduce local abattoirs. In my view, the Conservative government's closing of abattoirs undoubtedly added to the spread of foot and mouth.

As I said, the Bill is worthy of support. I have no problems with its presentation—indeed, I welcome it—or with the overall thrust of its contents. I look forward to the Minister's response.

My Lords, I start by apologising to your Lordships and, indeed, to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for having failed to be present for the first part of the Minister's speech. I regret that I was unexpectedly and inadvertently delayed and unable to be here earlier. Secondly, I declare an interest in that I am engaged in agriculture and have a herd of rare-breed animals.

I was glad to listen to the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson of Market Rasen. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, must have been even more glad to hear her because so far he has not had many supporters around the Chamber. However, one light did flicker in the background and he must have been grateful for that.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford expressed the matter well in a scintillating speech when he said that he would love to have given even a qualified welcome to the Bill but could not do so. Everyone understands that the Government wish to take steps against foot and mouth disease. I agree with the remarks of the right reverend Prelate; we all want to see foot and mouth disease curtailed. One can understand that the Government want to curtail it, but I am bound to say that I find the Bill most unacceptable. I view it with concern and horror.

I start with a slightly pedantic point. Why is the Bill called an "animal health" Bill? It is not that at all; it is an animal health (amendment) Bill. It starts by stating in Clause 1(2):

"In sub-paragraph (1) omit 'and' at the end of paragraph (a), and after paragraph (b) insert"

something else. Therefore, one must keep referring to the original Act in order to find out to what the Bill relates. Does my noble friend wish to make an observation?

My Lords, I simply agree with my noble friend. It is a very messy Bill.

My Lords, it was the word "messy" that upset me. I believed that my noble friend was referring to me. I am glad that he was referring to the Bill. I am grateful that he put words into my mouth which I should not have dared put in myself. It is a very messy Bill, and I believe that it is wrong to call it an "animal health" Bill.

The Bill gives inspectors—civil servants—more power than almost anyone else has ever had. The powers to act against farmers are almost Hitlerite. The inspectors can enter a farm's premises and, if necessary, use force. They have simply to go not to a magistrates' court but to a justice of the peace and obtain a signed piece of paper. In other words, an inspector could go to a justice of the peace who was washing up after her breakfast and ask, "Would you mind signing this paper because we want to go on to someone's farm and slaughter all the animals?" The chances are that the justice of the peace would agree to do so. That is fairly awful.

I believe that sometimes the Government have no conception—indeed, nor have I—of what it is like to have one's animals killed. One looks after those animals all one's life and then finds them with their feet, in a state of rigor mortis, up in the air on one's own land. All one's life work has been destroyed and it is a most terrible thing. It is devastating financially, emotionally and as a reflection of one's life's work. It is not surprising that farmers do not take too kindly to Elliot Morley when he says,

"I sometimes think that farmers are a pretty ungrateful lot".

My word, that is an extraordinary remark to make. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, said:

"What I know is that in this foot and mouth crisis, the people who have economically come out of it best of all are the farmers who have had foot and mouth".

I find it extraordinary that such remarks should come if not from a Minister then from a person who has been appointed by the Government. The fact is that farmers have suffered indescribable damage both financially and emotionally.

To that festering sore of sorrow, the Government add this Bill. It is a sad fact that the Government have consistently refused a public inquiry. One asks why they have done so. My noble friend Lord Jopling said that he was the first to request such an inquiry, and I believe that he was right to do so. He gave an example of some of the things that went wrong. We all know of examples such as the occasion when the Army, the vets and all the killers, for want of a better word, were gathered ready with their bulldozers and diggers. Suddenly a health and safety inspector arrived and said, "Stop, stop". Why? "Because you do not have enough portaloos". As a result, the whole operation had to stop and the animals were left in a distressed state. That was no way to carry on.

We heard other stories of young men riding around on bicycles taking pot-shots at animals which had escaped. That was no way to carry out a government policy on slaughtering. That is why we wanted a public inquiry to be held. It was not only in order to blame the Government but to find out what went wrong. The Government—I say this with the greatest respect—were wrong not to have held such an inquiry. They say that they have set up three other inquiries, but we all know that issues can fall between the stools.

There should have been one inquiry. The noble Baroness, Lady Gibson of Market Rasen, said that the last outbreak of foot and mouth disease was the worst ever. She was right. It was far worse than the one in 1968. Following that outbreak an inquiry was held and produced very good guidelines for people to follow. I believe that it is a great pity that the Government have not set up a public inquiry following the latest outbreak, and I ask them to reconsider that decision.

I find it a grossly irresponsible attitude that some £5,000 million of government money was spent dealing with the foot and mouth outbreak and yet the Government are not prepared to say, "We shall now look at it to see what went wrong and whether we can improve matters in the future". The inquiry by Dr Iain Anderson on the lessons to be learnt from last year's outbreak has only just started to gather evidence. It has not deliberated, let alone provided any recommendations. Why did the Government not wait for those recommendations before starting to produce their solutions? We have a hugely dictatorial Bill in which a number of points are raised to which many noble Lords have drawn attention. Indeed, I do so, too.

I start by asking why the Bill refers only to England and Wales. If we are an island, it is nonsensical that the Bill does not include Scotland. I am sure that all sorts of political problems are involved, but that is what happens when one has devolution. We now have the absurdity of certain rules applying on this side of the Border and others on the other side. That is no way in which to counteract the disease.

The House of Commons was never able to consider the matter because of a programming Motion which applied to the Committee and Report stages of the Bill. Although Elliot Morley said that he would he prepared to consider amendments, as one noble Lord has already said, none was accepted. I want to ask the Government what their policy is on slaughter and compensation or vaccination. There always was a slaughter and compensation policy. Then in the middle of the outbreak there was a wobble: perhaps one should change to vaccination.

But what will happen next time an outbreak occurs? Shall we have slaughter and compensation or shall we have vaccination? Has anyone said what will happen? The vaccination arrangements have been greatly improved over the past 20 years. Has anyone said that we should change to vaccination, and have the Government indicated that they will do so?

Why are the Government giving huge powers to Ministers based on unproven science? Such action should be based on proven science. Faced with no evidence because they could not wait for it, why are the Government allowing inspectors to enter premises and enabling them to contact JPs to ask for a piece of paper to be signed so that they may enter a farm? The noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, said that a person could he told to hold a cat while another person killed it. That is a fairly awful thing to happen but it is perfectly possible. Under the Bill the Government can virtually commandeer help. They can go on to a farm and say to a person, who may be a contractor, "Look, you have to come and help" and he will be liable to a fine if he does not do so. Whatever the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson, says, the Bill enables the Government to kill any animal, be it pet, dog or horse. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, might say that the Government have no intention of doing that. However, that is what the Bill allows. That is a terrible power to give to people.

The noble Baroness, Lady Gibson, said that that will not happen to pets. Your Lordships may remember the person who had a goat which used to sit on the hearth in her sitting room. The goat was killed because it was supposed to be liable to infection. The calf called Phoenix emerged from a whole lot of dead animals and was allowed to continue its life simply because everyone felt sympathy for it. That was a terrible decision. If the animals which were killed should have been killed, the calf should have been killed. If the calf was permitted to stay alive, all the animals should have been permitted to stay alive. Under the Bill, if the inspector comes in having had a terrible day, and says to the farmer, "I feel exhausted. Will you give me a cup of tea?", and the farmer says, "No, I won't", he can be accused of non-co-operation. That is a pretty rough tactic.

One point has been referred to by one or two other noble Lords. Why are the Government giving only 75 per cent of the value of the animal until the inspector—no one else—has considered the matter and states, "That is all right. You have not done anything wrong. You can have your extra 25 per cent now"?

What is the job of the Government in all of this? It is to control foot and mouth disease. One of the ways in which they do that is by saying that they have permission to cull various animals, to take them off people and kill them. To do that they should not compensate the person; they should buy the animals from them. However, they now say, "Oh no, this is compensation. We will give you only 75 per cent unless you, the farmer, can prove that you have been correct, in which case we can give you the extra 25 per cent". That is not compensation. It is a demonstration of the fact that one is being proved guilty until one can prove oneself innocent. That is a terrible thing to do. If a person has behaved improperly and has spread the disease, a court of law should be the place where that is dealt with.

There is a complicated appeal system. A farmer could find himself involved in three separate appeals, one of which is on biosecurity. I do not know who thought of that word, but it is a terrible word. I always dread hearing any word which begins with "bio". One thinks, "What on earth does that mean?" "Biosecurity" is a new word. I am sure that all farmers know exactly what it means. It really refers to whether one has properly disinfected one's premises or properly looked after one's transport. A farmer may be involved with an appeal on biosecurity, on evaluation of the animals and on what is a fair proportion for compensation. There are three separate appeals which all have to be made within a fortnight. If a farmer makes an appeal, he is capped on it; he is made to pay for it. That is monstrous. The whole idea of British justice is that one can appeal against a matter. An illegal immigrant can appeal against being told to go away, but if a farmer appeals because he thinks that the Government are not giving him his just desserts, he has to pay, which is monstrous.

The Bill shows that the Government are the boss, the state rules and the state decides. Let us look back to the 1950s and the 1960s and to what happened in Russia with totalitarianism and communism. We used to say how terrible it was because there, the Government, the state, ordered the people to do everything. The state told them what to do and the state ran their lives. That is happening here and now, not just over this Bill but over a number of other matters. The only difference is that we do not call it communism. We say that it is a new modern way of life. The state is running things. The Bill is an example of how the state is controlling what happens to farmers and on farmers' land.

I greatly respect the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. I do not like being nasty to him over the Bill or anything else. However, this is a rotten Bill. It is a dictatorial Bill. The Government should have waited until they had proper answers. Elliot Morley states that the farmers are an ungrateful lot. Perhaps he should look again at the Bill and he will see why the farmers feel as they do.

My Lords, one of the worst things about being a Member of this House is the possibility that one day one might have to follow the noble Earl in a serious debate. Last week, after his magnificent vintage Ferrers contribution, the Chamber literally emptied. I hope that that will not happen today, although I shall be brief. He always makes enormous sense. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, will take on board the points he made.

Oh dear—here we go again—yet another hurried, panic-measure Bill, which all sectors of the agricultural industry have unanimously condemned, most especially because there has been no formal consultation. Once again, it will be up to this House in its present form—pre-"completing the reform", as Her Majesty's Government call it—to try to persuade Her Majesty's Government to think again. It is interesting to note that nearly half the speakers today come from the doomed band of hereditary Peers, all of whom have first-hand knowledge of the countryside and, indeed, of agriculture. "Knock the industry when it is on its knees" seems to be the new DEFRA motto.

I must declare an interest as someone who tries to farm in the Scottish Borders. Our farm was sandwiched between two outbreaks of foot and mouth disease last year, which meant that every single farm animal at home was slaughtered on the contiguous basis. Needless to say, tests taken from those animals proved negative. But all that is past history. However, the sight of the executioners waiting at the bottom of the road will be one that will haunt me for the rest of my life.

I live exactly 10 miles from the English border. It is upon cross-border issues that I wish to focus my few remarks. I echo most strongly the words of the noble Lord, Lord Jopling. The issues of animal health and the control of any future outbreak of foot and mouth disease or, indeed, any other disease, as well as the eradication of scrapie from the national flock, are UK-wide concerns. They should not and cannot be dealt with separately by the different parts of the United Kingdom so that a situation could arise where different regimes are in place in Scotland, Northern Ireland, England and Wales.

Whatever one may think of the Bill—with the exception of the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson, it does not seem to have much support—or any other subsequent Bill the Government may bring forward, it is essential in my view that legislation that deals with these issues for England and Wales be matched by parallel legislation in Scotland and Northern Ireland and that such provisions come into force—this is the important fact—simultaneously across the United Kingdom.

It is extraordinary that a similar measure to the Bill is not currently before the Scottish Parliament or the Northern Ireland Assembly, especially if it really is as important and urgent as the Government would like us to believe. What would the cross-border arrangements be for a farmer who has land on both sides of the border? Indeed, I have friends who are in exactly that situation. They have a farm in England which runs into Scotland. There is no reference in the Bill to cross-border animal trade. That is a major flaw.

It is also worth pointing out that were the Government in England and Wales to undertake an eradication of scrapie from the sheep population without those measures being matched in Scotland and Northern Ireland, that would have obvious consequences for the livestock trade within the United Kingdom as a whole. Indeed, it would act as a barrier to internal free trade. Lastly, it should be said that such provisions have serious implications for international trade as well.

The Government need to provide some indication of where they stand on these issues. It once again highlights that this Bill is fundamentally flawed, ill-timed and does not represent a fully thought out and considered approach to these vital issues.

My Lords, like many other speakers today, I declare an interest as a livestock farmer, thankfully not in a foot and mouth area and thankfully not near the Scottish border.

I followed with admiration the speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford. He was right in everything he said. He was particularly right in his prediction that today there would be much repetition. I shall add force to his forecast.

There is a simple issue that has to be determined at the Second Reading of the Bill. It is tempting to range over the failures of government or others to exercise their responsibilities last year. There are two issues: first, does the Animal Health Act 1981 need to be amended; and, secondly, if it needs to be amended, is this the right kind of Bill and is the timing right?

The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, will be relieved to hear that I support him on one or two measures. I agree, as every other speaker so far has agreed, that the Animal Health Act 1981 is defective, has been proved to be defective and needs to be amended. That is the purpose of this Bill. So we are agreed that at some stage something must be done about it. But the issue—this is where repetition becomes inevitable—is whether this is the right Bill and is the timing right? My answer to that—this point was made by other noble Lords—is that this cannot possibly be the right Bill. Until one knows what problems one is trying to address—one will not know that until one has had some feedback from the three different inquiries—one cannot have the right Bill. So the timing cannot be right.

Let us continue to find the areas that we can agree on. In a Bill of this importance it is important to establish at least some common ground. I agree with the Minister that it would be irresponsible not to act on all the lessons which came out of the tragic affairs of last year. I agree that we must take all reasonable precautionary measures to be better prepared next time. I further agree that many mistakes were made last year.

The fundamental change in the first part of the Bill is that the requirement to justify slaughter of cattle moves from exposure—the cattle have been in the same field or have been close to an infected animal—to one where the Minister deems it necessary in order to prevent the disease. Hence the concept of contiguous cull. That is a measure which in certain circumstances needs to be put into a future Bill. The previous Act was found to be defective because in certain cases it was necessary to carry out a cull because it could be predicted that these animals were likely to be in the line of infection and therefore cause the disease to spread.

That raises the question: who is to determine what and how animals should be culled in these circumstances? The Minister justified the provisions of the Bill by his experience of what happened in north Yorkshire, and specifically in Thirsk. That is precisely why the Bill is inappropriate. Perhaps I can explain further. The reason the Yorkshire farmers, and indeed many others, exercised the right to appeal, which will exist until the Bill is passed, is that they fundamentally lacked confidence in the procedures put in place by MAFF and then by DEFRA.

By then they had had enough experience of the contiguous cull, as implemented from late March, to recognise that even if this was better scientific advice than that given in February and early March, by no stretch of the imagination could it be described as "best scientific advice". I remind noble Lords why it came in. It came in because the then Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was deemed by the chief scientific adviser to be making a poor job of dealing with the outbreak. There was a feeling that it was not implementing its own best practice, which had been propounded as a result of the BSE inquiry, and that things could be done better. That is clearly indisputable. The reason things were not being done well is that MAFF was not hitting its targets on slaughter, on disposal and on many other aspects about which we have already heard today.

Therefore, the mathematical modeller and epidemiologists and virologists were brought in. All can make a helpful contribution. It is most important to use models. But they must have the confidence of the man on the ground. They must always take into account the realities of animal health and of the situation that farmers recognise as being common sense on the ground. That is why in July farmers, having seen how the contiguous cull was working, had absolutely no reason to have any further confidence in it and why, not unnaturally, they resorted to law in order to stop what appeared to be an extraordinary poor practice from being perpetrated any further.

The reason was not because the mathematical model was introduced, but because the veterinary surgeon—the person who the farmer instinctively looks to for matters of animal health and for advice on local knowledge, on topography, on infection sources, on species and all those other issues which must be taken into account—was sidelined. The model being promulgated was by no means sophisticated enough. For example, it could not distinguish between different strains of foot and mouth. The farmers recognised that these issues were not being addressed. Therefore, because the veterinary profession had been sidelined, not just on the ground but in the ministry itself, there was a total and utter suspension of belief that DEFRA would do any better than MAFF.

That is why the Bill is the wrong Bill at the wrong time. One cannot simply say as part of a social contract that, "Yes, the Government got it wrong" and "Yes, there are a lot of lessons to learn" but there is only one lesson that we are going to learn at this moment; that is, that you cannot resort to law even if we are doing a bad job. That, on the face of it, appears to everyone to be a totally unreasonable bargain. That is why this is a bad Bill. The Secretary of State has not understood her obligation to demonstrate to farmers and, indeed, her responsibility to the veterinary profession. Its members have been badly let down by no longer being required to do what they were able to do in 1967, which is to put an uncertain case through a laboratory test—meanwhile ensuring that animals were properly isolated—and return with a professionally justified diagnosis.

The diagnoses which were required after the middle of March really amounted in large measure to guessing. One either had to deem that the animal was free of disease or that there was reason for suspicion. That was a retrograde step compared with what happened in previous outbreaks. It puts a veterinary practitioner in an ethically impossible position—to be told that he cannot go for the option of isolation and a test.

The culls can and should be justified but they must be recognised as appropriate for the circumstances. It may be that the protocols that we are now seeing will try to address these issues. But we will not have any confidence in these protocols either unless at the end of the day the advice that will ultimately rule is not just the advice of epidemiologists—that is very important—or of virologists, and certainly not the advice of officials in the ministry, but ultimately advice which the veterinary surgeon on the ground can also support.

My Lords, I declare an interest as a farmer and as a flock master of pedigree sheep. I agree entirely with everything said today by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford in a most eloquent and first-class speech.

The area in which I live was right at the centre of the local foot and mouth epidemic. Some 58 farms were taken out. Many of my neighbours had their stock taken. I was extremely fortunate to escape with my flock intact. I say fortunate because the flock survived and I have been able to keep my bloodlines going, bloodlines which have taken a number of years to develop and improve. But I was not so fortunate in another way, as I find it almost impossible to sell my stock. Because of the necessary restrictions on stock movements, and the fact that there have been no agricultural shows where farm stock can be shown and no livestock auction marts, I have in the past 12 months sold four ram lambs and two shearling rams. In a normal year, I would sell at least 30 ram lambs, 10 shearling rams, 20 shearling ewes and a few culls.

Agricultural shows are the pedigree breeders' shop window. Without them, we are all severely restricted in reaching our potential customers. Can the Minister provide any information as to whether sheep will be allowed to be put forward at agricultural shows this year, and if so from when? A further problem with showing pedigree sheep post-FMD is the introduction of a 20-day standstill period. As it stands, I understand that if showing is allowed and I take stock to the Shropshire and West Midland Show and bring them home, I have to isolate those animals on my farm on return and cannot move them for 21 days. I may wish to show the same animals at the Stafford County Show two weeks later, but I cannot, as that contravenes the 21-day period.

Will the Minister please reconsider both the standstill period and the licensing regime for movements where it affects stock used for the purpose of showing? That is a major market place, and it would greatly help the sheep industry in their marketing of stock.

I wholeheartedly support the second part of the Bill in its purpose to try to eradicate scrapie over time. That is both welcome and necessary if we are to rebuild confidence in British farm produce both here and abroad. I applaud the Government on their initiative to introduce a national scrapie plan for Great Britain. Like the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, I am concerned about cross-border problems. It would be only sensible also to introduce the national scrapie plan in Scotland, which is a great country for the breeding of sheep.

Like many others in the pedigree breeding world, I have registered my flock and my willingness to have it tested and to take action voluntarily. In the main, my sheep are tested ARR and ARQ, as I have been testing for a few years and have eradicated genetically suspect sheep whenever they have appeared. It is absolutely vital that British agriculture improves its stock, practices and marketing, with full traceability and both genetic and veterinary advances being implemented. Never again must we allow the industry to fall to the depths which we have been experiencing during the past few years. It will take a long while to rebuild British agriculture's reputation as the world leader. Thousands of people are leaving the land thoroughly disillusioned with working in an unprofitable industry unloved by the Government.

While I fully understand and agree that action must be taken to prevent another catastrophic epidemic like FM D, the Government want to go far too far, far too soon, pre-judging the results of the inquiries and the consultation process. The Government should not act until that advice has been received and thoroughly digested, and further advice taken. Unless some hyperactive spin doctoring takes place, any inquiry can only be sufficiently fair to lay a considerable amount of blame firmly at the door of the former MAFF, DEFRA and the Government.

There has been a chapter of disasters and massive errors. However, the Government owe a serious debt of gratitude to the local employees of MAFF and DEFRA, the Army and the local veterinarians, slaughtermen and many others who have been involved at the frontline of the battle. Theirs has been an horrific task, and they have done their best. Ministers have not been helpful, and nor has the hierarchy at MAFF—now DEFRA. The story at higher levels is not encouraging, and the Government should accept blame where necessary and learn the lessons, rather than continue to blame the farming community in a scattergun approach to polish political halos.

Finally, I understand from the farming press that the Government may intend to introduce a licensing system for farmers, whereby a farmer has to submit his farming plan to DEFRA for approval before being allowed to farm his land under licence. If DEFRA should disapprove, the farmer would be denied a licence. Who is more qualified to judge how a farmer should farm the land—a civil servant behind a desk in London or the farmer whose family have farmed that land and the stock on it for generations and who has hands-on knowledge of good husbandry practices? Quite frankly, that proposal is absurd. Such a system would be intolerable and I sincerely hope that what I have read is pure rumour. Perhaps the Minister will be able to assure your Lordships that that will not be the case.

British agriculture is in urgent need of strong encouragement, support, good sound advice and action, not knee-jerk legislation. Those of us who were involved in the two knee-jerk Acts regarding hand guns—I must say from two different Governments—know that knee-jerk reaction legislation achieves absolutely nothing. The Bill will achieve little except to drive a further wedge between the agricultural community and the Government.

My Lords, I also declare an interest, as I own three breeds of sheep, one being classified as a rare breed. I also breed ponies and own dogs and cats. The Bill covers a variety of animals and diseases. I shall speak to the concerns of some people who own rare breeds, but, first, I must say that I wholeheartedly agree with the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer. I hope that the Government realise how strong feeling is about the Bill.

The Government are putting the cart before the horse. I wonder whether the Minister will be able to give the House a satisfactory answer about why the Bill is being rushed through Parliament before Dr Iain Anderson's "lessons learned" inquiry and the Royal Society inquiry into infectious diseases of livestock chaired by Sir Brian Follett are to report.

This Animal Health Bill is more like an animal extermination Bill. It contains draconian powers. Would it not have been scientifically wise to hear t he independent inquiries' findings? The membership of the committee includes veterinary scientists, virologists and epidemiologists, together with representatives of farming and consumer groups. The inquiry will identify lessons to be learnt from recent outbreaks of infectious diseases such as foot and mouth disease and swine fever, and will hopefully help the UK to be better prepared for future occurrences. The committee will also consider issues relating to the provision and use of scientific advice.

Many of the interested stakeholders have lost confidence. To get the brains of sheep muddled up with those of cattle was a most unscientific blunder. Not to mark specimens clearly, whatever they are. is totally incompetent. Should not the Government be trying to build bridges, instead of forging ahead without the scientific evidence that we so badly need? Sir Brian Follett said:

"These infectious diseases can cause epidemics that result in tremendous distress and suffering for both animals and people".

How I agree with him. To give an example, a herd of Dexter cattle were shot not far from Northallerton in North Yorkshire. They escaped and ran onto the main road in total panic. The cattle were distressed, but so were the people who witnessed that horrible example of culling.

I should like to ask the Minister how much research is being done to find quick and efficient tests so that animals do not have to be wasted in contiguous culling. What progress has been made on a vaccine for foot and mouth disease, so that diseased animals can be identified from those with vaccine antibodies?

There is great concern that meat imported legally or illegally to this country may bring in disease yet again. It seems only fair to all those people who suffered so much heartbreak as well as financial disaster to know the true source of the infection that caused so much damage. Is there a cover-up? I hope that, in the end, the true scientific source will be made public.

Rare breeds are part of our heritage. On Wednesday 21st November, I asked a supplementary question to a Question on the Animal Health Bill and scrapie in some genetically susceptible rare breeds. I was grateful to the Minister, who wrote to me on 4th December 2001. He said that the Bill required the Minister to consider whether there were exceptional circumstances that justify an exemption from restrictions on breeding from genetically susceptible sheep. That was in Section 36C(2), as proposed in Schedule 2 of the Bill.

There is a great need for breeders, researchers and Government to work together to find a way to increase resistance to transmissible spongiform encephalopathies. There is much to learn, and I was pleased that the Minister said that the Government would work with breed societies to agree realistic timetables for breeding in resistance to TSEs and that there might be exceptional circumstances. The Rare Breeds Survival Trust recognises that breeding TSE-resistance in the national flock is an effective long-term means of ensuring that BSE does not occur. The science behind any such programme should be sound.

It is not known how many varieties of scrapie there are. It has been said that there might be as many as 20. It is a technical matter and needs urgent research and sound conclusions. If we eliminate one strain of scrapie, sheep might be more susceptible to another. Eradicating TSEs in sheep is not compatible with the commitments made to the Rio convention. The science on which the policy is based is yet to be substantiated, so I hope that the Minister can give a commitment today that research will be stepped up and that all interested parties will be kept informed.

The Rare Breeds Survival Trust seeks to secure the strength of all appeal procedures for rare breeds in the future event of a government exercising the right to slaughter or remove animals from breeding in a disease crisis. The trust would like to see that written into Section 36D of the Act. It would be feasible under the proposed Section 36D(7) and should be administered by an independent body.

In the recent foot and mouth epidemic, many people became frustrated and lost confidence when they were passed between different branches of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and told different things. It was difficult for vets, farmers and DEFRA staff, and I hope that such situations will not arise again. However, for many people, the future is still shrouded in uncertainty.

I hope that we will be able to improve the Bill, as it passes through its stages in your Lordships' House. At the moment, the Bill denies the right to natural justice, giving the Minister the power to order slaughter solely on the basis of what he thinks, without any explanation, justification or recourse to appeal for the owner of the animals.

My Lords, I must declare an interest as a small sheep farmer. My flock is more akin to that of Marie-Antoinette than to that of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, but, like other farmers throughout the country, I have spent the past year in considerable trepidation. Fortunately, I escaped what happened to the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, and others.

As the Minister sits in some isolation on the Front Bench during the debate—feeling rather lonely, no doubt—can he begin to imagine how increasingly lonely some of us on the Back Benches have felt in the past year when we had to look the farming community in the eye and try to tell farmers that the Government were not anti-farming? The provisions in the Bill will make that task even more difficult.

I am grateful to the Minister for his impassioned and eloquent explanation of the reasoning behind the provisions, and I understand why his department wants the Bill. It seems that the Animal Health Act 1981 provides no legal basis on which a government can order the slaughter of animals that are neither infected nor dangerous contacts. The contiguous cull, which was a major part of the Government's strategy in the recent outbreak, and the proposed firebreak culling had no legal basis. My memory may play me false, but I can remember no stage in the many debates that we had in the House during the crisis at which any Minister mentioned that lacuna in the powers that they sought to exercise. If there is a good, sound reason, based on the best scientific and veterinary advice that such a step is necessary, the authorities may, I accept, need to have available to them the power to implement it, if a political decision is taken to combat animal disease with a slaughter policy. I shall return to the question of whether such a political decision can ever be made again.

The Bill has been introduced in a way that goes far beyond what the Minister suggested were the necessary reasons. It gives virtually unlimited powers. providing DEFRA officials with, in effect, carte blanche to order slaughter without any requirement that they publicly justify, explain, give reasons, provide a fair hearing or, in some circumstances, compensate properly those whose animals are destroyed.

Some of us have said for some time that we hoped that there could be a department for rural affairs. We welcomed the formation of DEFRA and hoped that the criticisms that were validly made about the way in which the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food operated would not be appropriate to the new department. Above all, we hoped that DEFRA would, in time, rebuild and command the confidence of the farming community. Many of us in this Chamber had close contact with that community during the recent crisis.

It is difficult to overstate the traumatic effects on stockmen, their wives and their children and on the communities in the areas that were affected. One message came back repeatedly, however. There was a common sense of powerlessness and frustration in the face of the authorities, not the people who came to the farm, but faceless people taking decisions far away in offices and in MAFF itself. The decisions taken seemed to show no understanding of the consequences for those who faced the slaughter of treasured stock and the spectacle of piles of carcasses in the back yard for days, or even longer. Others had to face restrictions on even the limited movement that would have allowed them to alleviate the suffering of animals in dreadful welfare conditions.

The first Bill introduced by the new department not only gives the authorities blanket powers of further slaughter but imposes criminal and financial sanctions on farmers who do not assist in that slaughter. That is a bad way in which to rebuild the confidence that British agriculture must have in its government.

The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, made a point about the timing of the Bill. It is extraordinary that the Government should introduce such a wide-ranging Bill without any formal consultation with the farming industry on Parts 1 or 3. The decision to

introduce the Bill before the results, at least, of the Government's scientific inquiry—whose report and recommendations should be available in the summer—smacks of a return to the bad old days of arrogance and lack of consideration for the industry.

If the Bill is to be based on good science, surely we must hear from the scientists first. If it really is so urgent to provide additional powers for contiguous culling in the event—heaven forfend—of a further foot and mouth outbreak in the near future, let the Bill be narrowed to foot and mouth susceptible animals. Let it be restricted to circumstances in which such a cull is judged to be clearly necessary by the best possible veterinary and scientific advice, when those who are on the receiving end are given proper notice of what is to be done, are enabled to have a proper hearing and to challenge, albeit speedily, the reason for what is proposed.

The progress of the Bill up until today is also something which should give all of us in Parliament, particularly those of us in this House, cause for concern. Last week there was much debate about the future of the House both here and in another place. The general public are under the impression that each piece of legislation proposed by the Government is scrutinised by both Houses of Parliament. But they are wrong and this Bill is a clear illustration. Not only were no amendments of any kind made to the Bill during the whole of its passage through the Commons—which presumably indicates either that the Government majority prevented any such amendment being made or that the Bill is considered to be perfect—but, because of timetabling in the Commons, important parts of the Bill to which amendments had been tabled were not debated at all.

I would he the last person to suggest that there should not be timetabling or to suggest to the other place how it should conduct its business. If people want to arrange their business so that they can return to their husbands and wives and the cat on the hearth, that is fine, but it should not be at the expense of proper scrutiny of legislation. If Bills are sent to this House in that way, surely there must come a time when we in this House start to say, "We will not consider that Bill or that part of it".

I urge the Minister in this House, because this is the one place where such legislation can expect proper scrutiny, to take the initiative to take the Bill away, if necessary to delay the Committee stage, and to return with his own amendments which reflect concerns which have in this debate been voiced by Members on all sides. Concerns come from organisations as diverse as the veterinary profession, which has strong objections to what is proposed yet is key to its effective working. Il has been expressed by people ranging from members of the Kennel Club to the British Horse Society, not just those involved with the rare breeds which the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, mentioned.

In the other place, amendments were foreshadowed even by the Minister's colleague, Mr Morley. In this House, the Minister told us that there will be consultation on a protocol on the use of the slaughter powers. Surely we must see the protocol before we give the Government the powers. How can we possibly do it the other way round? Indeed, it seems to me that the protocol—the way in which the powers are to be exercised—should ideally appear on the face of the Bill. How else can we know what we are authorising the authorities to do?

As other noble Lords have said, there must also be a proper independent right of appeal. One cannot have, as the Bill proposes, an appeal to the very person who sent the inspector out in the first place. That is not sufficient. Why should there be a reversed burden of proof on compensation? If, as we are told by the Minister, a small number of farmers fail the biodiversity test, it must be right to penalise them. I would have no objection to that, but to penalise everyone seems to me to be the wrong way round.

I echo the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson: who is to make such assessments? As the president of the Royal Veterinary College said to a number of us who attended a meeting in this House last week, if it is to be the veterinary surgeon who has just told the farmer that his stock is to be slaughtered and is then required to go on to tell him, in effect, "It's all your fault", that is not a role which many young vets are equipped for or could possibly be expected to undertake.

Applications to magistrates on powers of entry must include notice and a right to either appear or be represented. Ex parte applications simply will not do, for the reasons given by the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson. The need for urgency for such culling—and we are dealing with stock which is neither infected nor dangerous contact—cannot justify overriding the right to a fair hearing. Very short notice hearings can be arranged at which notice is given to both sides. Above all, a farmer must be entitled to have reasons for the actions given in writing and in advance of the slaughter.

The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, spoke about scrapie. Surely it must he a matter of concern to the Government that the president of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons says that the science is not sufficiently developed for us to be able to say that it is right to slaughter certain genotypes. He told those of us who attended the meeting that there was a real danger that if we went down the path of compulsory slaughter we might inadvertently be destroying the very genotypes which have greater resistance to this and to other diseases.

The Minister said that those powers were to be taken further down the line, so I ask simply: why are we taking them now? The voluntary scrapie eradication scheme has bearly started and most farmers are nowhere near as advanced as the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury. However, most pedigree breeders are willing, and many of them are anxious, to sign up to the scheme. Surely the Bill ought to contain provisions which encourage joining in that voluntary scheme. If at a later stage when the science proves it is necessary that the power of compulsory slaughter is required.

those matters can be brought back before Parliament and the authorities can be given the necessary authority.

Underlying the tone and the approaches in the Bill is a matter which I find most disquieting. It is in a sense unstated. It is a feeling that the responsibility for foot and mouth disease lies with the farmers of England and Wales—I exclude Scotland for the reasons, rather artificial, which have been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer. Let us face the fact that it is not poor biosecurity on Britain's farms or resistance to culling which caused the national disaster which we are just getting over. So far as we can tell, and according to all the material that is in the public domain, the primary causes of foot and mouth arise outside this country.

Foot and mouth disease did not originate here. It started—let us face it squarely—because the Government's own biosecurity was inadequate. The disease entered this country because the restrictions had failed. Yet the Bill contains no provisions whatever to tighten import controls, to increase sanctions, or to bring us more into line with countries such as the United States, Australia and New Zealand, to which the right reverend Prelate referred in a remarkable speech. Why not? The Minister said that the Bill was intended to provide a full armoury of weapons. It seems to me a great pity that all the weapons which he seeks to take are aimed at the farmers and not at the disease itself.

I conclude with an issue that was foreshadowed by what was said by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe. It is for me the most disappointing aspect of the proposed legislation. It underlies my concern that out of all that has happened in the past year the most important lesson of all has not been learnt. The Government are proposing the legislation in anticipation of a possible future occasion when a mass slaughter policy may be considered to deal with animal disease. The last outbreak brought the rural community in this country to its knees. It brought many families to a state of despair and many farming families to a position in which they were on the verge of open defiance of the law. I do not believe that they or the wider public will stand for a similar policy in the future.

It was done from the best possible motive: to rid the country of foot and mouth disease. But the reality, shown night after night on television, was an obscenity. If our scientists, vets and skilled politicians cannot provide better solutions to animal disease than our medieval forefathers had available to them, and if this Bill is passed and ever used, it and they will have failed all of us.

My Lords, it is, as always, an enormous pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu. She gave a thorough scrutiny of the Bill. The Minister would do well to pay close attention to what the noble Baroness and one of his own Back-Benchers has said.

I declare an interest in that I own land in the north of England—land which, I am glad to say, was not affected by foot and mouth disease.

In opening, the Minister said how much the Bill reflects his personal experience. I understand that. I have no doubt that over this past, ghastly year the noble Lord and many of his colleagues have undergone unpleasant experiences and witnessed some fairly distraught circumstances. We all have. But a Bill of this nature is not the sole prerogative of a Government Minister or his department. Many others—the vets, hauliers and slaughtermen—have shared with him and his department the experiences of the past year or so. Rural businesses have suffered greatly, as have the farmers. For that reason I regret deeply that they have not had the opportunity to participate in and consult on the Bill. If they had, I am certain that we would have a very different Bill before us today.

Like most people in the countryside, I am astonished that the Government did not decide on a public inquiry; and, furthermore, that they have not waited for the results of their inquiries which undoubtedly will bring forward suggestions for future legislation. Does that mean that the Government will again make time for more legislation? Furthermore, I am informed that the European Union is proposing legislation. Shall we then have a third Bill to deal with these matters? I hope that the Government can give some answers to these practical matters.

The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, rightly referred to Scotland. I read in another news release issued recently by the department in connection with the Bill that in its wisdom the Scottish Executive has decided not to legislate until it has consulted fully. If the Scottish Executive can decide that, why cannot the Government of Westminster do the same? I put to the Minister the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer. Is it practical to have two different types of legislation, one north and the other south of the Border? I do not believe so.

No one will disagree that the Government need the relevant powers to reduce and bring under control outbreaks of any disease. The two words "urgency" and "purpose" are paramount. If those two principles had been adhered to at the outset and if, as the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, rightly said, the Government had brought in the Army a little earlier with a brigadier rather than a civil servant in charge, I am certain that much of the tragedy that we have witnessed over the past year would not have occurred.

The Bill has what I describe as an aura of arrogance about it which has dumbfounded the agricultural world. The blame is being put firmly at the door of the farmer. That seems sad. If properly constructed, the Bill could have crossed through party political divide. As the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu said, this is DEFRA'S first Bill. What a shame that it is dividing rather than uniting everyone in the countryside.

I am sorry to be repetitive but it is inevitable. I wish to comment on the impacts of Clauses 1 and 7. It is unreasonable that the officials can be provided with the enormous powers which the Bill gives them, yet the farmer, in his or her defence, has no access to a justice of the peace or magistrate. The point has been well made by other noble Lords; I do not wish to go on about it. However, it is a fundamental flaw in the Bill.

In another place, Mr Morley states in his paper on the implementation of new slaughter powers that judicial review will continue to be available. So what? It is not much use after one's stock has been killed. I do not regard that as being a sufficient recourse to law for farmers.

The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, referred to this issue. I find it objectionable that, having entered a property with the intention of killing the livestock, the inspector can then require any person to give assistance. Calling upon a distraught farmer, his wife, daughter or son is not on. I am sure the Minister will tell us that that will not happen; but it is in the legislation. We have to amend that provision at a later stage.

The question of compensation has been well covered. When there have been so few cases in which biosecurity measures have been transgressed, to reverse the onus of proof against the farmer thus ensuring that he receives only 75 per cent instead of 100 per cent must be wrong. Having said that, I have every sympathy with the Government if they have come down very hard, as I hope that they have done, on those farmers who have acted irresponsibly with regard to biosecurity measures or have been deliberately obstructive. I know that there have been a few such cases. They need to be dealt with severely so that the farming fraternity is in no doubt that in the future such actions will be treated very harshly. But there are very few cases. I believe that the Government have the compensation formula completely wrong.

Everyone will agree that effective biosecurity measures remain the key to preventing the spread of disease. In its brief, the National Farmers Union rightly points out that the Government need to provide clear advice to farmers in order to establish a benchmark against which an inspector can assess accurately the extent to which a farmer is in breach of the biosecurity rules and his compensation payment compromised. Of course, many biosecurity conditions will be common throughout but local conditions will result in different instructions, and I hope that those will be taken into account when the government inspector is assessing whether a farmer is due his full compensation.

In his paper on the implementation of new slaughter powers, to which I referred earlier in my remarks, the Minister, Mr Morley, states that:

"The instructions will be widely published, giving as much information as possible to farmers. The risk of any surprise occurring on an individual farm will be significantly minimised and that in turn should reduce the need for unnecessary or ill-informed challenges".

I suggest to the Minister—I hope that I am being helpful and constructive here—that precisely the same protocol should be implemented in the case of biosecurity, thus ensuring that farmers will be given the opportunity to receive the maximum compensation available. Equally, if not more important, it will also ensure that biosecurity measures are not compromised. I hope that the Minister will consider that suggestion.

One of the greatest bones of contention throughout the whole of the ghastly foot and mouth affair has been the question of how many animals that had not in fact contracted the disease were slaughtered. Figures of up to 85 per cent have been mentioned. We all know about the cost in human suffering, while the cost to the Treasury has been enormous. Surely the top priority from now on must be to ensure that a system of fast and accurate diagnosis is put in place in order to prevent this from happening again.

I gather that successful scientific research into a fast and accurate means of diagnosis for foot and mouth disease is not far away. Can the Minister tell the House whether that is the case and whether he feels that sufficient funding has been made available to ensure that no unnecessary delays are taking place, so that progress can be made as quickly as possible? Furthermore, does the Minister agree that the Bill should take into account the fact that when such a system of diagnosis is in place, it should be the right of anyone owning animals which have been threatened with a cull to be given access to such information beforehand? I hope that the Minister will agree that such an amendment to the Bill would be desirable.

I have many other objections to the Bill which have been mentioned by other speakers, but the point that both the agricultural industry and consumer groups should be given a clear explanation of what the Government intend to do to tighten up on imports is, in my view, absolutely essential. Generally speaking, however, a crisis such as the one that rural Britain has had to face over the past year brings people together. It forms a union. Having undergone such hardship, those with differing views are more willing to co-operate and seek a compromise for the common good. However, despite almost a year of enduring one of the worst crises to hit rural Britain, from which communities are still reeling and are likely to do so for a long time to come, with this Bill—which has been brought forward at a most sensitive time—the Government have managed to alienate virtually every farming and rural representative body, including the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. At the very least that is disappointing and I would suggest that some serious rethinking is necessary.

Ultimately, the Government can legislate as much as they want, but unless a well-thought through and properly co-ordinated set of procedures, adequately funded and supported by sufficient numbers of personnel and expertise, which are thoroughly understood and respected by all parties, is brought forward, then quite frankly the Bill will fail. That will require co-operation and input from all sides. The problem will not be solved by implementing rushed legislation that will alienate the very people who are in a position to bring that about.

My Lords, first, I should declare an interest in that my wife has a small herd of pedigree Welsh black cattle. We live in Wales where in the early part of last year foot and mouth disease swirled around us, but miraculously they survived untouched.

We have before us another rushed piece of legislation which, despite the many critical voices raised against it in the Commons, has been sent to this House without any amendment. It has been subjected to quite inadequate scrutiny, as was pointed out by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, in her contribution. As so many other noble Lords have observed in some notable speeches, the legislation appears deeply flawed. In particular I thought that the remarks of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford and the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, pointed out those flaws in the clearest terms. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, questioned the Title of the Bill. I thought it should be called the "Animal Slaughter Facilitation Bill" because that seemed far more accurate.

Until now, no formal consultation has been carried out, at any rate on Part 1, while at least a dozen veterinary, livestock and farming organisations have expressed their serious concerns. Only the NFU rather inexplicably welcomed the Bill. A notable expression of concern was contained in a letter from Roger Green, the president of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, published on 11th December in the Daily Telegraph. Commenting on the excuse of urgency put forward by Ministers, Dr Green said that no positive blood tests had been taken since 30th September. He went on to say that,

"Slaughter being extended to all animals on premises designated by a computer because they are deemed 'contiguous' gives considerable problems to veterinary surgeons. They have been and could be instructed to kill animals without any good scientific or clinical reasons".

He went on to say that there was,

"no scientific definition of 'contiguous' in the Bill",

and that slaughter was,

"a course of action likely to antagonise the main people [the Government] need to assist in any disease control: the farmers".

Inevitably, vets play a key role in this matter. Such remarks from a leader of their profession should, I believe, be taken very seriously. The noble Earl, Lord Selborne, spoke with great authority about the role of the veterinary profession and the way in which it has been treated.

Even more serious is the question why the Bill has been brought forward before the three inquiries set up by the Government have had an opportunity to report. That is really quite extraordinary. What is the point of setting up inquiries if legislation is then brought forward without waiting to see what are the results of those conclusions? What do the Government propose to do when the three inquiries report? Will they simply ignore their conclusions?

The legal basis for the slaughter last year of all those thousands of animals was the Animal Health Act 1981. Schedule 3 to the Act states:

"The Minister may, if he thinks fit, in any case cause to be slaughtered—

(a) any animals affected with foot-and-mouth disease, or suspected of being so affected; and

(b) any animals which are or have been in the same field, shed, or any other place, or in the same herd or flock, or otherwise in contact with animals infected with foot-and-mouth disease, or which appear to the Minister to have been in any way exposed to the infection of foot-and-mouth disease".

The Act clearly does not permit the compulsory slaughter of animals which have not come into contact with the disease. Thus, much of the contiguous cull carried out last year may have been sensible but was nevertheless illegal, as the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, who is learned in the law, has told us. We have not heard a word of apology from Ministers about this.

No doubt the 1981 Act now needs to be amended and brought up to date, but the way that the Government propose to do it is extraordinary. They have begun by saying that slaughter may be authorised whenever it is necessary for disease control reasons. In saying that, they imply acceptance that a good deal of what they were doing last year was not within the law.

The mechanism proposed in the law for authorising slaughter is draconian to a degree. I understand that it applies to all animals, not only cows, pigs and sheep, but also to horses, dogs, cats, zoo animals and hamsters. All that is needed is an application by an official, who need not attend in person, to a single JP without the farmer having any right to be present. I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson, criticised that. Citizens are to be deprived of their legal right to challenge the killing of their animals; it makes demonstrating against an inspector's actions an offence; and for the first time in this country, makes it a criminal offence, punishable by up to six months in prison, for anyone to refuse to assist an inspector in killing an animal. Your Lordships and I could be having a cup of tea with a farmer and, when the slaughter team arrives and we are asked to, say, hold a sheep while it is killed, and we say that we will not do this, we are guilty of a criminal offence.

Instead of receiving full compensation when their animals are killed, farmers are to be given 75 per cent with a further 25 per cent some time later if they are judged to have operated proper biosecurity arrangements. In other words, all farmers are to be judged guilty of not operating proper biosecurity arrangements until it is proved otherwise. All these provisions do seem more appropriate to a Stalinist regime than to our country.

Part 2 of the Bill deals with scrapie. This fatal disease has been with us for many years and is not transmitted to humans. It is not unreasonable for the Government to seek to eradicate it, as they are trying to do in the national scrapie plan. But the president of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has pointed out that in this part of the Bill,

"many unsupported scientific judgements are made".

It has been argued by the director of Rare Breeds International that this part of the Bill is based on bad science and, as it stands, might result in the elimination of many old established sheep breeds, such as Beatrix Potter's Herdwicks, hill Radnors, British milk sheep, Shetlands and others. But those entitled to know point out that some genotypes which DEFRA is seeking to remove have beneficial characteristics, while the genotype they seek to preserve because it is thought to be resistant to scrapie may not in fact be so but only masking a long incubation scrapie. I support what the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, said in that respect.

There is, as yet, no general agreement on the science, and it would surely be wrong at this stage to give DEFRA powers to put an end to many old established and historic breeds in direct contravention of the Convention on Biological Diversity. It is, in my view, far too early to try to deal through legislation with the problem of scrapie. We simply do not yet know enough about it.

I am astonished that a Bill of this kind should have been put forward at this time. I was myself a public servant for 40 years. In my day, in each department, a Permanent Secretary, experienced and sagacious, ensured that his or her department was properly run, that any rash proposals from below were shot down and that any unwise proposals by Ministers were tactfully resisted. I cannot understand how the Permanent Secretary in DEFRA could have agreed, if he did agree, to this Bill going forward when it did.

The Government's tendency to try to put all the blame on farmers seems to me extremely unfortunate. I very much agree with Mr Malcolm Bruce, the Liberal Democrat spokesman on environment, food and rural affairs, when he said:

"There are times when this government seems hell bent on alienating every farmer in the land, when instead they should be working out common solutions to common problems".

Perhaps these matters will be taken more seriously—at any rate in No. 10—only when my noble friend Lord Birt is asked to report on agriculture in addition to crime and transport.

In the meantime, perhaps, after all these months, the Government will at last take steps to tighten up controls on the import of meat. After all we have endured in these past 12 months, why on earth do we not have the strict controls that the United States and Australia have always had? Why do we allow anyone to bring in meat on an aeroplane "for personal use"? Why do the Government seek to duck responsibility by saying that these are matters for the EU? It seems to me scandalous that the Government do nothing about this, so that we run the risk of again importing this terrible disease. Instead of seeking retribution on the farmers who had the temerity to go to court to protect their property, the Government should remedy their own failure to protect the country from infection from abroad, and they should do it now. The statement by DEFRA, reported in today's Daily Telegraph, that it remained almost powerless to prevent people from bringing contaminated food into this country, seems pathetically feeble.

I welcome the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. The only thing that worries me about it is that it uses the word "regret", which seems very mild. I feel much more that it is not simply a matter of "regretting" that the Government have not waited for the Royal Society's report; I believe that they should definitely do so. I had it in mind to table an amendment to give the Bill a Second Reading but to say that the House resolved that further consideration of the Bill should take place only after the recommendations of the Royal Society and the other inquiries commissioned by the Government were available and had been considered and published. Unfortunately, it took me a long time to come to this conclusion and I was advised that it was too late to table such an amendment. I intend to pursue this objective—I understand that there are other ways in which I can do so later on—and I hope that that course will be generally supported.

My Lords, I declare an interest as an honorary associate of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, as chairman of the Cambridge University Veterinary Trust, as deputy president of the Countryside Alliance and as a small sheep farmer.

The Countryside Alliance is concerned that the Government have introduced the Bill before receiving any benefit from the three independent inquiries into foot and mouth. I echo the concern expressed by the president of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, who said in a letter to the Daily Telegraph that it is a hasty and ill-conceived measure. I also agree with my noble friend Lord Selborne about it being necessary to take into account the local conditions, locations, topography, local climate and the siting of farm buildings in relation to roads.

It is important that we should make much more use of the people employed within the government veterinary service who have local knowledge. In that way, at least the farmers will give a high level of compliance because they know that these are the bind of people they can trust.

I agree with my noble friend Lord Palmer about the problem of Scotland. We should think what would again happen if there were to be another cross-border situation, as happened with Cumberland and Dumfries.

However, surely the most important thing for all of us is to be absolutely certain that the disease cannot come back into this country ever again. I do not see why we should allow ourselves to have less stringent regulations than other countries. It is absolutely essential that these matters should be improved. The NFU has, quite rightly, suggested that there should be a statutory duty on the Government to provide an annual report to Parliament on what steps should be taken to stop foot and mouth or swine fever again coming back into this country. After what was said in another place, I hope that the Minister will look very carefully at the undertakings that were given there about greater restrictions on people coming into this country.

There is no question that the Bill will allow for the slaughter of horses, dogs and pets. The awful thing is that there would be no right of appeal if it is implemented. Some noble Lords will remember the sadness and worry when the "remount officers" came round the stables in 1939 and took away our hunters and hill ponies. I have, as a matter of historical record, a letter to my mother from the veterinary practice in Oak ham confirming that all the big dogs—the setters and Labradors—had been put down at the start of the war to save food. That was a real emergency; this is not such an emergency.

We do not seem to know very much about the actual position regarding scrapie in sheep. There have been serious misgivings about the need to cull them. I hope that we shall bear in mind that scrapie affects some sheep in entirely different ways than is the case with other sheep. Different breeds and different individuals have different susceptibilities to scrapie. But what is the cut-off point? There is no evidence to suggest that scrapie is linked to BSE in cattle. It is important to maintain the diversity of our sheep flock in this country.

This Bill is premature; it lacks justification; it is unnecessary; and it is based on unproven assumptions. I entirely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, that this Bill should not go forward.

My Lords, when one is dealing with a pernicious little Bill at this stage of its proceedings, there is very little new to say. We have heard some extraordinarily good speeches. The contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, was especially good, and that from my noble friend Lord Jopling was excellent. It contradicted much of what the Secretary of State in another place claimed to be fact. But perhaps the greatest speech was that made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford. I do not believe that I have heard such an acute, surgical dissection of government policy—and, indeed, condemnation of it—from the Bishops' Benches. I remember being criticised often by those Benches when serving as a Minister, but today's effort was rather better than anything that was directed at me.

I am very sad that DEFRA has followed the worst habits of MAFF. We are faced with a knee-jerk reaction and the need to over-legislate. We can compound that with the blaming of farmers for foot and mouth disease, and the bringing forward of a piece of legislation that is neither scientifically proven nor scientifically properly based. I find it most surprising that DEFRA now enjoys worse relations with the farming and rural community than MAFF managed to achieve. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, I had hoped that DEFRA would start off and mend many of the fences. However, the department has managed only to exacerbate the situation. It is making no great effort to try to mend the fences. This Bill is, perhaps, a very good example: there has been no consultation with the rural industry. DEFRA appears to be frightened to hold a public inquiry into foot and mouth. As many speakers have said, that is perhaps because such an inquiry would reveal the true incompetence that existed within the department at that time.

As many noble Lords have said, the Bill was rushed through another place—not only on a limited time-scale, but also with many of the amendments not called. The Government must find this House a particular irritant in that they are not able to steam roller us in the same way as applies in the other place.

I turn to the consultation paper that was issued last Friday. It was quite discourteous of the Government not to have informed the speakers in today's debate that the consultation paper would be issued on that day. To find out by chance at lunch-time today that the Government had issued such a paper that was very relevant to the Bill, but not to have been told about it, seems to me to be the height of bad manners. I hope that the Minister will ensure that his department never falls into the same trap again. I see that the Government Chief Whip is sitting on the Front Bench. I trust, therefore, that he will take note of my point.

The consultation paper is a help in that it reveals some of the Government's thinking, but I have difficulty in correlating it with the contents of the Bill. Let us take, for example, paragraph 20 of the consultation paper, which says:

"Among other things, the notices will certify that the decision to slaughter has been taken in accordance with the published criteria for slaughter".

However, there is no reference to that in the Bill; and surely there ought to be. Considerable improvement is needed in the Bill to ensure that the Government's ideas are reflected in the legislation. There are no criteria for slaughter in the Bill, and no mention of anything being published in that respect.

I turn, briefly, to "compensation", which is a dreadful word. The 1981 Act was totally wrong in its use of the word. It is a payment for the farmer's stock. There is no compensation for loss of livelihood, for loss of future earnings, or, indeed, for all the harassment that takes place when a slaughter policy is introduced on a farm. It is merely payment by taxpayers for the value of the stock. That is why the payment should be 100 per cent, not 75 per cent with a further 25 per cent to follow. I agree with my noble friend Lord Peel that a severe penalty should he imposed on irresponsible farmers, but that should be dealt with afterwards: one should get 100 per cent value for one's stock, as of right.

The Bill talks about inspectors and veterinary inspectors. There needs to be a clear definition of the involvement and role of both of them. It is vital for farmers who have come to know their local vet that such vets should be involved in any decision making. They should also be able to accompany the farmer to the Justice of the Peace if a warrant is needed. I believe that the local vet ought to have priority. These computer models are all very well. They can be extremely helpful; but so, too, can input from other people. The local vet is fully aware of the conditions in the area. He probably knows the stock better than anyone else, except the farmer. His input is absolutely crucial and I hope that it will receive higher priority than all the words of advice from the other interests involved. Similarly, it is also the local vet who will know more about the biosecurity of' the farm, which will vary from area to area. I trust that that, too, will be taken into account.

The point about Scotland has been well aired, as has that regarding the representations of farmers to Justices of the Peace. However, one matter that I find particularly distressing is what I call, "Lord Whitty's press gang"; namely, as we heard from my noble friend Lord Jopling, the people who go to farms and coerce farmers, employees, visitors, and anyone else they see fit, into chasing cattle round and round a field and pushing them out on the road. Indeed, President Mugabe would be proud of bringing forward such legislation in Zimbabwe. The criminalisation of farmers in that way is, I believe, totally unacceptable.

The Bill before us reminds me very much of the homes Bill that was debated during the last Session, and for which the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, had to answer. He did not have a single supporter on that occasion. I believe that it was to his credit—I have yet to be proved wrong—that the Bill never went further than a Second Reading. It was subsequently delayed and then the general election was announced. I hope that the noble Lord will show the same good sense with regard to this Bill and that he will tell his colleagues in another place, and in the department, that the Bill is not acceptable to this House unless it is reformed in a major way—preferably after the reports on the inquiries have been received.

My Lords, I rise to contribute to this Second Reading debate with some trepidation—growing up in inner-city Bradford and living in inner-city Islington as I do. Although a lifelong walker and sometime camper, I confess to being essentially an urban animal. It is because of this that I should like to make some comments.

Too often in the media and across the chattering classes the so-called "division" of urban versus the rural is played out. Frankly, I do not buy this artificial division. Taking a leaf from the book of my honourable friend in another place, Tony Banks, who also admitted to there being a paucity of farms down the Romford Road, I admit that, similarly, there are none in Archway. However, I shall make some observations.

Foot and mouth disease, BSE, scrapie and the other horrors that face the farming community are matters of concern to all of us. They are of interest to the town and country alike. This Bill is of concern to all of us as consumers and citizens, as well as to those in the fanning business—an industry which everyone admits is under enormous pressure at present.

As a consumer, I want to be sure that the public health implications of the public policy that we are considering today are to the fore. Historically, BSE and its aftermath does not fill consumers with confidence. The old MAFF in the years gone by was guilty of gross inaction—I hope that we have seen the end of that.

It was horrifying to watch the suffering brought about by foot and mouth. It was ghastly to see the slaughter on our TV screens night after night. How much worse it was for those who lived near to those farms or whose animals were involved. There was enormous sympathy across the country for the suffering of our farmers.

The economic effect on the countryside has been devastating, and the knock-on effect has also been very bad for those who live in towns and cities which depend on visitors and tourists. London, Bath and Brighton have felt the knock-on effect of foot and mouth disease. As a result, first, of foot and mouth and then of the events of 11th September, London's hotels, taxi drivers and theatres are having a very tough time indeed—and they have no compensation.

Following on from BSE, foot and mouth disease has had a terrible effect on the UK's international reputation. This country does not have the reputation of being a clean and wholesome place to visit. Everyone has heard the stories of tourists wanting to know if food in the UK is safe to eat—in much the same way as you or I might ask whether the water is safe to drink elsewhere in the world. This is not the reputation that we want for the UK. It is a problem that affects all of us.

My support for the Bill is based on the need for the Government to be able to respond adequately to any future outbreak of foot and mouth or, indeed, any of the potentially devastating diseases. As has been indicated by the Minister in another place, safeguards clearly need to be put in place. My noble friend the Minister indicated that in his opening remarks.

It seems to me that the Bill is one part of a jigsaw that is being put in place to do several things. First, it will allow the Government to act swiftly if there is a need to do so. God willing, we all hope that such a case will not arise. During the awful days of foot and mouth, many Members on all sides of this House urged the Government to act rapidly.

There are also the inquiries that are taking place and which will report later. They will add to our knowledge and will propose the long-term strategies and changes that will be required. The Bill is a beginning, not an end.

I have not heard a word in this debate which adequately answers the points made by the Minister in his introduction about Thirsk, in North Yorkshire, and the difficulties that were faced there in bringing foot and mouth under control.

I fear that ordinary people will not understand why so many Members of this House are so opposed to taking decisions which might allow a disease such as foot and mouth to be brought more rapidly under control, and thereby prevent more animals being slaughtered.

I have enormous respect for the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, and bow to her great knowledge and experience in these issues. She made some excellent points about broad organisational and other matters which clearly need to be taken further. However, I am afraid that urging delay begs the question: are those who are urging delay prepared to risk a repeat of the events of last year? Are they prepared to take the chance, unlikely as it might be, of a repeat so soon?

As my noble friend the Minister said in his opening remarks, it was a matter of luck that foot and mouth did not spread further. I for one do not think that I am prepared to leave it to luck again. We have a duty to citizens and consumers to err on the side of caution. It takes only one farmer to be careless, obstructive or dishonest and not to obey the rules of biosecurity for a disaster to occur—and at present there are no proper powers to deal with breaches of biosecurity. Surely that cannot be right.

The Bill seeks to take us forward. It is part of the long-term changes that are necessary. I am sure that improvements will be made in its passage through this House—that is our job—but the Bill is necessary, and it is necessary now.

My Lords, the Bill is so wrong, both in principle and in detail, that it astonishes me that the Government have persisted in bringing it forward. It seems to be completely friendless. It is not supported by any farmer I have spoken to or read about, the veterinary profession opposes it, as we have heard from many speakers, and none of the organisations whose submissions or comments I have read seems to support it either.

In a speech the other day on the future of this House, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, quoted the phrase of Lord Hailsham, "an elective dictatorship". She said:

"I fear that for many of us that frightening phrase echoes with growing validity as we perceive what has happened to our Parliament".—[Official Report, 9/1/02; col. 572.]

The powers that the Government seek for themselves in the Bill are the dream of those in all dictatorships: the power to slaughter any animal, at any time, whether or not it is infected with foot and mouth or any other disease; whether or not it has been in contact with infected animals; and whether or not it has even been exposed to foot and mouth disease. The slaughter may include not only cattle, sheep and pigs, but cats, dogs, horses, hamsters and parrots.

Furthermore, the Minister does not have to give any reason or provide any scientific or veterinary explanation or justification for his decision. The Bill provides the ministry with so-called "inspectors". My noble friend Lord Ferrers queried who they may be, where they will come from and how they will be empowered. It gives the inspectors unfettered power of entry to premises. Who are they to be? So far as I can make out, they can be hauled off the streets, given ministry authority and a small amount of training, fitted with a regulation pair of jackboots and can proceed to use the enormous power given to them under Part 3; namely, forcible entry into private property, with as many other jack boots as necessary, with the power to require the hapless farmer or agent to co-operate or be criminalised. There is no appeal against this "jackbootery", except post facto—after healthy animals have been slaughtered—and any opposition will constitute a criminal offence.

It goes without saying that the warrant authorising such gross abuses of governmental powers will be issued without the victim being able to put his case to a magistrate. I thought that we had gone beyond the old Communist powers of "first, the verdict, then the trial"; but it seems not. Under these provisions, instead of being able to present his case to a judge at a fair and public hearing, when an inspector calls, a farmer's premises will be entered forcibly and his animals will be destroyed utterly needlessly. Unless he offers his full help and co-operation, he will become a criminal. Into the bargain, he will lose 25 per cent of the purchase price of his stock.

The noble Baroness, Lady Gibson, said on the question of animals other than cattle, sheep and pigs that the Bill will not affect dogs, cats, hamsters, parrots or any other animals, but as the Bill stands it could do so. Am I alone in thinking that if some farmer is deemed to be obstreperous—an "awkward customer"—one of the inspectors, with a little brief authority, may say, "I'm sorry you've been so difficult about this cull. Your horse, dog or cat may be a carrier of the disease and I am afraid that we are going to have to slaughter that too"? That power is still in the Bill. I am sure that the Minister may bring forward government amendments to remove that uncertainty, but at present it is a distinct possibility.

We should not even contemplate giving the Government these kinds of powers. They already have a number of powers under the Animal Health Act 1981 which allow the ministry to slaughter, first, any animal affected by foot and mouth disease and, secondly, any animals which appear to it to have been exposed in any way to foot and mouth infection. It seems to me, with respect to my noble friend Lord Selborne, that that Act already provides the Minister with adequate powers to deal with any outbreak. If he has those powers, why is he asking for any more?

The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, asked a question to which I, too, should like an answer. Is the reason, or part of the reason, for the Bill that the contiguous cull as practised was not lawful? I can think of no other reason at the moment for bringing the Bill forward. Either DEFRA had the power to carry out the contiguous cull—in which case it does not need this Bill—or, if it did not have the power to carry out the cull, it was illegal, with all the consequences that flow from that. I hope that we shall get an answer to that question when the Minister winds up.

In any event, there is no scientific reason for the so-called contiguous or firebreak culls. There is no evidence that those culls made any difference to the outbreak. As the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, pointed out, the contiguous cull policy meant that perfectly healthy animals were slaughtered for no good reason. The contiguous or firebreak cull was a novel concept that seemed to be invented by computer modellers with no veterinary training and no specialist knowledge of foot and mouth disease.

I remind your Lordships of the scale of the contiguous cull, in which so many healthy animals were slaughtered. Of the 6 million animals slaughtered during the outbreak, 5 million were not infected or incubating the disease at the time of slaughter. Approximately 85 per cent of the animals slaughtered were perfectly healthy.

Further, the contiguous cull policy led to cruelty and abuse of power by DEFRA and the police. Can it be right for the police to break down the door of a remote farmhouse so that soldiers can move in and shoot pet animals in a bedroom? Can it be right for a young girl's pet goat to be slaughtered and left lying in the family drive? Can it be right for a land agent acting on behalf of elderly and sick clients, one of whom has since died, to be assaulted and arrested by the police? The gentleman has since been told that there is no case against him and his arrest was unlawful. He is considering suing the relevant police authority.

Those are but a few examples. There are many more, some of which we have heard this evening. What are those people doing, cloaked in a little brief authority, visiting fear, stress and humiliation on law-abiding citizens of this country? Is this the country that we are told is a beacon to the world—the country that the Prime Minister so recently boasted of as a power for good in the world?

What is the purpose of that senseless slaughter and abuse of power? Is it to protect the meat and export market sector of the agricultural economy? I cannot believe that that is so. As the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, pointed out, it is no longer tenable to consider the control of foot and mouth disease in the light of a cost benefit to agriculture, particularly in the crude and primitive way in which that was carried out last year. Who can forget the pictures of medieval pyres and of animals, tongues lolling, being lowered by chains into the flames or pushed by bulldozers into pits? Who can forget the massive cost to the national economy, as tourists cancelled in their millions, appalled that a country that they had hitherto regarded as civilised should sink to such depths?

The financial and social cost of the epidemic was horrendous and its effects are still with us. Theatres, youth hostels, restaurants, bed and breakfasts and hotels were all devastated because their supply of visitors was wrecked. The Cheltenham festival was cancelled, Rugby Union internationals were cancelled, the Royal Show was cancelled, Badminton was cancelled and point-to-pointing, racing and hunting were all cancelled.

The financial cost to the nation has been estimated at the low end at £2 billion and at the high end, by the Institute of Directors, at £20 billion. Yet the Government are asking us to authorise more of the same. There is no thought of another way as far as I can see. There is no thought of vaccination—merely a bullet-headed demand to give more powers to the same people who made such a mess of things previously, The Government want us to give more powers to the same department that was on the point of ordering the wholesale cull of sheep in Britain, based on an experiment that used the wrong sort of brains.

Why are we being asked to approve a Bill to allow such people to go blundering on, slaughtering and criminalising at will? Is that the sort of thing that we want to do in this country? I have seen a legal opinion from a learned counsel who says that the Bill would breach the Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights, in spite of the Minister's assertion on the face of the Bill that it is compatible with the Act. Do we really need the Human Rights Act to tell us how to behave in this country? Do we have to rely on it? Whatever happened to our own standards of decency, common sense and what is right and of how to legislate for our own citizens?

The Minister would do himself, the country and the Government a great favour if he would withdraw this deeply offensive Bill this evening and agree to come back with something reasonable and proportionate after the Government's committee of inquiry has reported. If he will not do so, the country will be looking to this House to stop the Bill. As the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, pointed out last week:

"the House of Commons is no longer able to discharge its duty of scrutiny".—[Official Report, 9/1/02: col. 572.]

The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, made the same point. If the Minister will not withdraw the Bill, I am afraid that this House has a duty to be difficult.

My Lords, I declare an interest in that, with my husband, I share the keeping of sheep, goats and cattle. I hope that I can disabuse the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and her noble friend Lady Gibson about the attitudes of those in the House whose interest is in farming and the countryside and who have a direct interest. We are not out to serve our own purposes. We are concerned about what consumers think about our products. We want foot and mouth to be eradicated quickly, but we are not happy about the way in which it is being done.

My Lords, I do not think that anything that I said suggested that anybody took a different view about our duty to consumers. I hope that the noble Countess will accept that.

My Lords, I am pleased to hear that.

To put it mildly, the Bill is widely disliked. It follows in the wake of what will probably go down in history as an appalling and unnecessary massacre of our farm stock. History shows that the foot and mouth disease research station at Pirbright was set up in 1924 as a result of criticism of the Ministry of Agriculture's "primitive slaughter policy". Nothing much seems to have changed in the intervening period. Despite the development of vaccines on the Continent in the 1930s and 1940s, the ministry refused to allow their use, preferring instead to slaughter thousands of animals in the major outbreaks that occurred in 1952 and 1967.

From the beginning of the recent outbreak it was clear that no one had learnt any lessons from the past when they embarked on the mass slaughter of so many animals, the majority of which, it seems, were healthy. It was not the largest outbreak in the world, but it was the one in which the most animals were killed.

The Explanatory Notes tell us that the Bill supplements existing powers,

"wherever this is necessary for disease control reasons".

Schedule 3 to the 1981 Act already gives Ministers powers to slaughter animals,

"which appear to the Minister to have been in any way exposed"

to foot and mouth disease.

It sounds as though the Bill might prove a very convenient means by which to exercise population control. Some of us have been aware for several years that officials have been concerned that our hill and mountain sheep do not conform to EU standards and that they are surplus to requirement. There have been a lot of discussions with the National Sheep Association about how we can get rid of the hill sheep. Officials have shown a singular ignorance of the way in which the British sheep raising system works.

Many of the more recent problems that have arisen in the market place are the result of the operation of the common agricultural policy. Now is not the appropriate time to digress into those realms—no doubt the Minister will be pleased to hear that—but one cannot help but observe the wonderful opportunity that foot and mouth disease has given to those so eager to reduce the hill sheep population. Similarly, the Minister's right honourable friend, Mr Jack Cunningham, told us in 1997, when he was Minister of Agriculture, that there was a surplus of beef supply in Europe.

The wording of the Explanatory Notes, when read in conjunction with the Bill and the responses to frequently asked questions published on the DEFRA website, makes one wonder whether those who drafted it really know what they are doing. For example, Clause 1 gives the Minister powers to kill any animal whether or not it is sick, not only during an outbreak of foot and mouth disease but, by order, during any disease. The Explanatory Notes make perfectly clear the intentions that a straightforward reading of the Bill convey. The spin on the DEFRA website skates hurriedly over that fact—it merely states that the farming and wider community will benefit from quick, effective action against foot and mouth disease.

We have also had various statements put out as facts to the effect that farmers refusing to have their stock killed caused foot and mouth disease to spread. Was not the Minister just as disingenuous tonight? The facts speak for themselves. Of nearly 350 cases handled by two solicitors, only three eventually proved positive. Figures from the animal virus research institute at Pirbright for June 2001, at the height of the outbreak, show that fewer than 10 per cent of their samples proved positive. That is only one example, but other noble Lords have furnished the Minister with more.

We are governed by consent. In order for a law to be obeyed it must appear reasonable to most of those who will be expected to obey it. The implementation of the poll tax by the Tory government is an example of what happens when there is a breakdown of consent. I would venture to say that there is ample evidence that this Bill, in its entirety, is unreasonable. Others have spoken about human rights and ethical aspects, but I would strongly recommend to the Minister that he read the paper entitled "Legal and ethical issues arising from the recent foot and mouth disease outbreak", by Mr A. Richardson and published in the Veterinary Times, volume 32, number 1, of today's date.

Noble Lords who have known me for a long time will be aware of my struggle to obtain recognition for the many individuals whose health has been damaged by organophosphate chemicals. I have repeatedly been told that there is no scientific evidence that those chemicals, which are extremely toxic to all kinds of living organisms, can be toxic to humans. I was told that, in order to prove my case, I would have to provide incontrovertible scientific evidence. In this case, however, we have the Minister expecting to be given very wide-ranging powers to kill animals of any species for reasons that have no scientific basis.

I cannot begin to express my dismay at the quality of the scientific advice currently in vogue. Here I speak particularly about the advice taken by the departments responsible for human and animal health. In June 1997, shortly after this Government first came into power, I quoted the words of Sybil Marshall. She said:

"I fell to thinking why the experts so often get it wrong. Because they are experts, they no longer ask questions. They simply take the nearest ready made answer from the shelf and use it".

I have no hesitation in repeating that lady's wise observation today.

It has always been my understanding that scientists should have inquiring minds. My experience with the organophosphate saga and subsequently with a number of other subjects has worried me profoundly. The "experts"—those who shoulder the enormous responsibility for giving their considered advice to Ministers—have shown an almost callous lack of concern for human and animal suffering and an extraordinary lack of curiosity. It is almost as though they have no need to do any more for they have reached the top of their tree.

Significantly, it has nearly always been the scientists who have direct contact with their subjects who have produced the most important results. The current vogue for computer modelling is leading to weekly food and health scares of an unprecedented scale. Whenever I see the word "epidemiology" my heart sinks. Epidemiology has its uses, but it must be used in conjunction with clinical studies; otherwise it is virtually useless. Why is there no virologist at Page Street?

There has been a huge waste of physical and financial resources brought about by academics, rather than veterinary surgeons or scientists, making assumptions devoid of any scientific principles in order to enable Ministers to determine the action to be taken to defeat the disease. They ignored the state of the art science for diagnosis in foot and mouth disease. Ministers failed to grasp the perfect opportunity for data gathering and yet, with no more information, they are asking for more powers to control the disease. There persists a lack of understanding of the disease process, evidenced by the destruction of flocks continuing when antibodies are found in few, if any, individuals.

The opportunity has been lost to use the state of the art methodology to study and extend our knowledge of the natural history of foot and mouth disease and, dare I say it, of the prevalence of scrapie with any other TSE that the academics would care to dream up in the vast numbers of uninfected sheep that were destroyed during the outbreak. Nevertheless, the Government are prepared to legislate without that information. Are Ministers willingly caught up in a time warp? Can they not see the torpor, arrogance and reluctance to accept that others may be able to do things better than they can that has restricted the vision of the State Veterinary Service for decades? This draconian legislation is no substitute for reliable information and credible scientific data.

Conversely, the authors of the Bill choose to assume a known science about scrapie and the genetics of spongiform encephalopathies in sheep. In fact, the science is far from clear, and the significance of any genetics in terms of transmissibility is quite unknown and purely speculative. Currently, we are being fed a weekly dose of food and health scares. Last week, there was an interesting coincidence. Professor Anderson's team's paper on the theoretical risk of BSE in sheep was published in Nature. Headlines proclaimed that:

"Scientists estimate that up to 150,000 people could die from Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease if BSE is discovered in sheep".

On the same day, the Chief Medical Officer announced that 30 tropical diseases, for which there is no treatment, are being introduced to the UK by British holidaymakers and foreign tourists. Surely, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Why are the Government not proposing to prevent all those potential carriers from entering the UK, or, if they do manage to come in, to euthanise them on the basis that they may or may not be dangerous contacts? Some of the diseases mentioned by the CMO are just as nasty as CJD.

Dr Neil Ferguson was approached by Mr Jon Dobson, research director for the FMD Forum, in order to draw his attention to the effects that papers such as his have on both producers and consumers. Dr Ferguson gave the usual "the press does not understand me" response. In addition, he told Mr Dobson that he was commissioned by the Food Standards Agency,

"to look into the risks that might be posed if BSE had entered the sheep flock, not to make judgements about the likelihood that BSE has infected sheep".

Dr Ferguson went on to say that,

"there remains much uncertainty in performing this type of analysis, but that one definite conclusion we could draw was that even if BSE had infected risk"—

I think that he probably meant sheep—

"the overall scale of the risk posed by this up to the current time would have been a fraction (1%) of that posed by BSE in cattle".

So there we have it. To date, there has been no sound scientific evidence that either sheep scrapie or meat and bone meal in the rations of cattle was the cause of BSE. We have no sound scientific evidence that prions are the infectious agents. We have no sound scientific evidence that variant CJD is caused by eating beef.

We have plenty of scientific evidence that scrapie has been endemic in our sheep for at least 250 years. We have plenty of evidence that scrapie is not transmitted to humans. I ate dozens of sheep brains in my youth—they are delicious fried in black butter and served on toast. While friends and colleagues might doubt my sanity, I do not think that the brains were the cause.

There is not a shred of evidence that sheep get BSE. Dr Ferguson pleaded that,

"it is no longer acceptable to portray the absence of evidence as evidence of absence, particularly when it may be probable that the reason we haven't found something is because we haven't really looked for it".

My goodness me, how many times have I expressed that thought in relation to organophosphates? However, in the face of the total failure by government and science to examine causation for numerous other life threatening and high-morbidity diseases in humans, that remark in these circumstances takes the biscuit.

On the basis of a mad double hypothesis, the Anderson team produced a paper which is endorsed by Professor Sir John Krebs, Fellow of the Royal Society and head of the Food Standards Agency, and Professor Robert May, Fellow of the Royal Society and Mr Blair's former chief scientist. It was May who recommended as his successor Professor David King, Fellow of the Royal Society, who in turn, on Krebs's recommendation, appointed Professor Anderson, Fellow of the Royal Society, as chief policy adviser on foot and mouth. Krebs, May and Anderson all worked together at the Oxford University zoology department, which also employs Professor Sir Brian Follett, Fellow of the Royal Society, who also just happens to have been picked by the Royal Society to chair Mr Blair's inquiry into the scientific handling of foot and mouth. Put all those connections together and it may be seen why we are never going to get an independent public inquiry into last year's foot and mouth disease.

In recent months, I have been reminded frequently of the story of the emperor's new clothes. I now recognise why it was written; and if noble Lords think about it, perhaps they will recognise why it was written.

My husband is a member of the sheep scrapie scheme. We also have goats, which do not seem to be mentioned in the Bill. However, I would be interested to know what the position is on goats, as I understand that they can contract scrapie.

I question the haste that lies behind Part 2 of the Bill, and believe that we shall be taking a huge risk if we agree to it. We do not yet know about all the interactions between genes. If, as the Bill proposes, we wipe out a whole section of the sheep population, we may well lay the sheep and ourselves open to all kinds of problems. We need to work with nature rather than against her. She has a nasty little way of getting her own back, as we have seen, but may not have recognised, in recent years.

My Lords, such has been the exceptional ferocity of criticism against the Bill that I hope very much that your Lordships will forgive me if I repeat, albeit briefly, a few of the arguments so as to send a message to the farming community of just how strongly many of us in your Lordships' House share their severe misgivings. Indeed, they probably regard your Lordships' House as their last hope for sense and reason.

In my part of Devon, in the north, where my wife farms, people refer to this Bill as "DEFRA's revenge"—the Government's way of spitefully getting their own back for the repeated humiliations inflicted upon them during their brutal and incompetent efforts to deal with the foot and mouth outbreak. That was certainly the impression created by the shameful spin which the Minister responsible in another place, Elliot Morley, applied to the legislation when he said that farmers who had resisted the contiguous cull had allowed disease to spread and so prolonged the epidemic. There is not a shred of evidence to support such an allegation. In Devon, of the 150 or so farmers who successfully resisted the contiguous cull, only one subsequently had the disease in his animals and he took no other herds or flocks down with him as all of his neighbours' farms had already been slaughtered out.

As speaker after speaker has said, this is a vindictive, badly drafted and, above all, premature Bill. Why, oh why, do not the Government wait until the outcome of their inquiries, particularly the "lessons learnt" and scientific inquiries, before legislating? They have the existing powers at their disposal. Why this extraordinary rush to judgment? It is nothing but pure panic.

Compare and contrast the unseemly haste with which this Bill is being introduced with the Government's abject failure to do anything in almost a year now to close off the route by which the disease almost certainly arrived in this country last February and by which it could return at any time; namely, illegal meat imports. Why do we not take the same stringent precautions against imported disease as, for example, the Australians, the Americans and New Zealanders? Why are such precautions not provided in the Bill—a point so strongly brought out by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford, the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, and many other noble Lords?

If we look at what is in the Bill, we see that the Minister is granted—I use the phrase that I believe my noble friend Lord Ferrers used—Hitlerian powers to order the slaughter of any animal anywhere which he or she "thinks" might need to be killed in the cause of controlling disease. There is no appeal. Just consider the utter wretchedness of a farmer in those circumstances. Indeed, the Bill will allow DEFRA officials to knock up a magistrate at dead of night to sign a slaughter warrant without the farmer or his representative being present, or his view being taken into account, as if they were dealing with some highly dangerous criminal in a police state. That is virtually rural dictatorship.

Government Ministers have talked about developing a "protocol" to govern how those powers would be used. But what guarantee is there that such a protocol would be heeded when it came to the crunch? We know from the experience of last spring the lengths to which government Ministers and their tame scientists will go in order to stamp out politically inconvenient disease. If they have done it once, they can do it again. If the protocol is to be the guiding light, let it be given the force of law by inclusion in the Bill. Failing that, farmers must be allowed a right of appeal before, rather than after, their animals are killed. As it stands, the clause is an affront to basic human rights.

Then there is the issue of compensation. The Government want to reduce a farmer's entitlement to 75 per cent of the value of an animal unless the farmer can prove that his biosecurity was satisfactory. Again, we know from the experience of last year that whenever DEFRA officials were unable to account for a particular outbreak, or felt that its occurrence might reflect unfavourably on them, they instantly blamed poor biosecurity on the part of the farmer, usually without the slightest justification for so doing. The clause simply provides them with an even more powerful financial incentive to blame someone else. If the provision is to survive at all, it must be turned on its head. Just as under English law a person is innocent until proven guilty, so the presumption should be that a farmer's biosecurity is adequate unless DEFRA can prove otherwise.

Of course, we need to learn the lessons of last year's tragic foot and mouth epidemic and provide a legal basis for whatever policies may need to be adopted to deal with any future outbreaks. But the time to do that will be after the various inquiries have reported and it should be done behind the most secure defences we can possibly construct against the importation of disease.

The Bill does nothing to strengthen our defences. But it will provide the Government with unfettered powers to inflict on farmers and their animals the consequences of their own Ministers' failings. As it stands, this is a disastrous piece of legislation created by the ignorant against the innocent. We must set to it; we must oppose the Bill in its present form with all the force we can muster.

My Lords, as the 22nd speaker in the debate I could just say that I support many of the comments that have been made, many of the strong opinions that have been expressed in reference to the so-called "reform" of the Animal Health Act 1981 and those who have expressed their concern that the Government seem to be pushing ahead in indecent haste. Although the Minister is not present, I know that he is getting the extremely clear message that is being expressed.

The Minister opened the debate. On our side, the debate was led by my noble friend Lady Byford, supported by the fine speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. Nearly every speaker has mentioned the great and forceful speech of the right reverend Prelate. I could not help remembering that when I spoke at a large memorial service the other day I apologised for making a political statement from the pulpit. The right reverend Prelate made a good speech today with the freedom of the bishops to speak as would a farmer or citizen of this country.

I could simply wish my noble friend Lady Byford a happy birthday and sit down. As it is her birthday I think that it is fair to say just that. However, I must start from the beginning. The Minister spoke of the lessons that had been learnt from the epidemic. Of course, it is necessary to be prepared at all times to take action that is needed. The Minister spoke of the inadequacy of the existing powers. As the Minister returns to the Chamber I suggest to him in all modesty that the powers proposed in 1969 would have stood the test of time had they been implemented immediately this outbreak started. That might indeed have prevented its spread and, therefore, the slaughter of animals that have inevitably been slaughtered during the drastic outbreak. That, however, is, of course, always a matter of speculation.

I declare an interest as a livestock farmer and President of the National Sheep Association. I also have a few other agricultural interests. I speak from experience—I spent hours on Friday morning filling out forms to qualify for the movement of 300 lambs for slaughter and export. I suggest to the Minister that when he starts the consultation process to which he referred, he should simplify some of the movement regulations without weakening the risk of traceability. That can be done without more red tape and bureaucracy. My noble friend Lord Shrewsbury made a fine point when he referred to the 21-day period and concerns about the movement of sheep.

The public consultation paper has been launched and I understand that it will go to all concerned stakeholders. It will be about how the new disease control powers in the Bill will work in practice.

I tell the Minister that I read both documents—the Bill and the consultation paper—very carefully last night. That prevented me from watching "Who wants to be a Millionaire?". I found that there was little relationship between the two documents, but perhaps that is me being too simple. I could not determine the relationship between them. For example, the consultation paper states that the Bill will not advocate any one approach to disease control and that it will strengthen the four elements of culling, vaccination, blood testing and biosecurity. Fine; but I do not find that in the Bill, which is more specific and more direct. It states, "This is what you are going to do".

The Government appear to accept that farmers and livestock owners must have confidence in the way in which the powers will be exercised and, where necessary, an opportunity for a reasonable hearing. We all say, "Hear, hear" to that. That, is welcome news and I hope that it will remove some of the fears of the many who read into the Bill the draconian measures that were proposed in the original draft—they involve the powers to slaughter stock on affected farms and, presumably, on farms that are contiguous to an outbreak.

I find it extremely difficult to understand why the Government propose measures for action in the event of an outbreak of foot and mouth disease before the committees of inquiry have hardly started, especially in relation to science and the lessons learnt. Is there not a possibility of conflict? If I were a member of one of those committees, I should find it pretty awful that the Minister was coming up with proposals that could well undermine the determinations that we on the committees might come to. Does the Minister accept that there is logic in waiting for the reports before introducing further legislation? Does he also accept that if the urgency procedure is to he adopted, the important point about preventing animal disease is to stop it coming into the country? Should not that be the priority? However, there is no mention of that—or very little—in the Bill.

Will the Minister tell the House what quantity of meat is being imported into this country from countries in which foot and mouth exists or where it is endemic? Over the past two years, I know that that: has continued and that it is continuing. We are sitting on a time bomb waiting for the next outbreak, but we are discussing how we should handle it rather than how we should prevent it.

What action is being taken at airports? We all know when we travel through airports that the answer is absolutely none. There is plenty of checking as we go out but no checking when people come in. In terms of taking preventive action, there should be far more vigour and commitment than is currently evident. As has already been said, Australia, New Zealand and the United States are fine examples, and their animal health record speaks for itself.

Another matter of concern, which could be a recipe for huge confusion and divisiveness, involves the geographic extent of the Bill, which will apply to England and Wales unless corresponding legislation is introduced at the same time in Scotland. That is a matter of great concern to those who live, farm and work in the Border country. Perhaps the Minister will clarify that point. He is aware of the difficulties in those areas.

All changes have to be assessed against the tests of reasonableness and practicality. I cannot accept—many noble Lords have already said this—that it is reasonable to pay compensation at less than 100 per cent of the actual value of an animal. Paying less than that is extremely unfair, particularly against the background that the onus of proof for the last 25 per cent of the value is put at the door of the producer. Many noble Lords have already said that that affects a minority, who are already under pressure and stress and in difficulty as a result of what they went through last year. That could create a lawyer's paradise, but it could also exacerbate a further breakdown in relations between farmers and DEFRA at a time when they should be improving.

It is suggested that compensation for slaughter and vaccinated stock should be put in the hands of Ministers. I ask you! It is surely not realistic to expect Ministers to know the value of stock; that is the responsibility of professional valuers.

I can but applaud other parts of the Bill, which are not related to foot and mouth disease. I refer in particular to the provisions about the creation of a sheep flock that will, in breeding terms, become resistant to all spongiform encephalopathies. That word is pronounced with a soft "c" in my part of the world, but I take note of the comments of the right reverend Prelate.

On the other proposals, persuasion, not coercion, needs to be the byword. The Bill needs many changes. I know that the Minister is well aware of the importance of consultation. If he was not previously aware of it, he certainly is now, after listening to this debate for the past five hours.

I welcome the wind of change—at least a consultative document has been produced; it will allow people to consider the proposals. However, the Bill's whole approach is misdirected and tends to apportion blame on the farming fraternity. Following the difficult year that they have faced, that is totally unfair.

The trend to reduce the scale, influence and authority of the State Veterinary Service needs to be reversed. The numbers need to return to levels that will allow them to do their job not as policemen but as part of the livestock business. Many private vets have left the large-animal practice recently but they and the state vets need to be on a par with practices in the rest of the world. I inform the Minister that the Bill should reflect all of those facts.

My Lords, I am in a minority because although I want to speak in this debate I am not a farmer. However, I am a consumer of meat and I have an interest in continuity of supply, quality, price health and diversity.

I have watched farming and the foot and mouth disease from the outside. I saw farmers protest 18 or so months ago against the low prices and the consequences of BSE, and I see that the campaign against the supermarkets is continuing. I also see the supermarkets abusing their monopoly buying power with some 80 per cent of the market, leading to lower and lower prices for farmers. Therefore, I am not surprised that the farmers are upset.

As we have heard today, for many, foot and mouth disease was the last straw. I do not believe that DEFRA—with a new name and new responsibility—has yet grasped the nettle of the conflict between the role of farmers as guardians of the countryside and their role as producers of cheap food. It has not incentivised farmers separately for those two functions.

In the context of FMD, to which I shall confine my remarks, I see the farming industry as part of the meat-producing industry. As I said, it is led by the supermarkets, which require certainty of supply from wherever they choose, be it here, the EU or the rest of the world. Like many foods, meat is subject to scares and fads, which can bring great profits and great losses. I believe that that was illustrated in a comment made by my noble friend Lord Whitty about the West Yorkshire pig producers. As I understand it, if those pigs had caught FMD, the losses would have been huge. Pig farming is a big factory operation. Therefore, we have industrialised farming with big businesses at one end and small farmers, about whom we have heard today, at the other.

As noted by many speakers, the other great change to have come about is the much longer distance over which meat is transported, whether it is dead or alive. There appears to be clear evidence that that contributed to the spread of the disease, and, of course, it includes imports. But I have also heard many farmers talk about the importance of exports. I believe that, for the export market to work, the quality of the meat and the legislation, and so on, must be preserved, even though many governments—perhaps including this one; perhaps not—use the fear of infection as an excuse to prevent the import of competing products.

Therefore, whatever the benefits, or lack of benefits, of vaccination, it is clear to me that at present the Government believe there to be little alternative to the culls until and unless scientific evidence, export demands and all supermarkets accept an alternative. I have not heard alternatives to culling suggested in the debate. I have heard only how badly the culling was done and I believe that arguments can be made in that respect. Therefore, in relation to outbreaks, it appears that, if we are to cull, time must be of the essence in order to preserve what people believe to be necessary—that is, a disease-free market. If we cull, it must be done quickly and comprehensively and must create what I call "firebreaks". Again, my noble friend the Minister illustrated that. One must have a 100 per cent firebreak in order to be effective.

We have heard about the severe problems that arose during the last crisis. Many lessons are to be learnt: the culling did not take place in time; it was not done quickly enough; the incineration was bad; and there were severe animal welfare problems. There is also evidence that a few people put at risk a much greater number of animals—sometimes, in their view, successfully; sometimes not.

I believe that it is unrealistic to expect to be able to control the movement of animals around the country in trucks. One cannot stop every truck on the motorway. Therefore, the ability to cull and to dispose quickly and humanely of animals is obviously a necessity. Although I am concerned about the lack of the possibility of a challenge to such a decision in the Bill as it stands at present, I believe that the need to do so quickly requires legislation. Today we have heard again about the human rights aspects and whether or not a criminal activity is involved.

I recall that a similar debate took place about importing illegal immigrants in trucks. We have debated that issue in your Lordships' House more than once. Many noble Lords said that the fining—or "charging", as the Government called it—of the truck drivers by £2,000 per illegal immigrant was against human rights legislation because there was no appeal as the Government had decided that it was to be a charge and not a criminal activity. The first truck driver to appeal won his case. The judge in the High Court said that such charging contravened human rights legislation. Therefore, I believe that we have work to do in your Lordships' House when considering this matter in respect of the culling of animals. We need to see exactly what lessons can be learnt and whether the Government's advice on human rights legislation is still correct.

I turn now to the subject of compensation. Personally I do not understand why obtaining 75 per cent compensation when the cull takes place and 25 per cent subject to compliance with legal disease control requirements is all that wrong. My noble friend Lord Whitty said that similar compensation in relation to pigs gave 50 per cent on cull and 50 per cent later if compliance had been demonstrated. My noble friend Lady Thornton reminded your Lordships that many of the others affected by the disease—the businesses, the countryside hotels, tourism and so on—received nothing. Those who it is demonstrated have not complied might be encouraged to adopt a more compliant disease control requirement. Again, the vast majority have no fear of not receiving the full payment.

Farmers have suffered. As I said, much of the FMD process was inept, and I hope that lessons have been learnt. But farmers have also suffered from the action of supermarkets, from the lack of exports and from cheap imports. It is clear that improved import controls and checks are necessary. However, as was said by the noble Countess, Lady Mar, as with so-called "illegal immigrants" or the new type of flu or worse diseases affecting humans, and with international transport and trade developed as it is now, I do not believe that anyone can say that, whatever the checks, foot and mouth or any other disease will not enter the country. There is always a chance of that happening. Therefore, I believe that we must he prepared. No security can keep everything out.

I believe that the provisions as described in the Bill are a proper precaution with which to start the process of learning from the last outbreak. I believe that we have more to learn, but I am persuaded that such provisions would help in that regard. New infections could enter the country at any time. If they did, culling appears to remain the only solution. Then responsible farmers would surely welcome more certainty that their neighbours were not intentionally or unintentionally spreading the disease and putting their own flocks at risk.

My Lords, the muddle between myself and the Government Whips' Office, which led to my not being included in the List of Speakers but having to speak in the gap, has robbed noble Lords of a trenchant, brilliant and very important speech. But it has not robbed noble Lords of it for long because, on behalf of myself and the Green Party, I shall be tabling amendments in Committee and supporting amendments tabled by others, and I shall be able to produce all the gems then.

In my 35 years' experience in this House, emergency Bills are almost always disastrous, and this one is no exception. But the subjects of such Bills are rarely great emergencies, as is the case in relation to this one, as the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, said. They do harm, but not that much harm, and they are more acceptable when a major emergency arises. The noble Lord, Lord Kimball, talked about the conscription of horses in 1939. I remember the conscription of horses at that time, as will one or two other noble Lords. The Bill that implemented such a measure was badly drafted and was not of much use. The noble Lord said that at least it related to a real emergency. But which noble Lord remembers the great cavalry charges of the last war in which the horses took part and which led to the defeat of the Germans and the Japanese?

These Bills, of which we have had a number over a period of time, almost invariably in their haste trample civil rights into the ground. As has been proved in speech after speech in this debate, this one is no exception. When the Minister says that in his view the provisions of the Animal Health Bill are compatible with convention rights, one can say only that either his view is wrong or that convention rights are useless and should not ever have been embarked upon.

This is a nasty Bill in which, at one stage or another, a great many things need to be put right. It would be best for the whole Bill to go out of the window. However, if that cannot be done, and if we cannot achieve a delay for reports so that we can legislate firmly and competently, we must summon all our forces and amend the Bill drastically, root and branch.

My Lords, this has been a long and stimulating debate. One of the problems of winding up is that one has nothing left to say about sheep that has not been said at least 10 times previously, often by people who are much more knowledgeable that oneself. Perhaps I should declare an interest. I am somewhat "freaky" in your Lordships' House. I do not own any sheep and have never done so. The closest encounters I have had with them were on a couple of occasions when involved in rescuing them from a rock ledge when they were crag-fast. One learns a lot about sheep when doing that.

It may be that the Government are tempted to say that they have had a bit of a battering in this Second Reading—I do not think they had one in the Commons—but that the House of Lords is not representative of the country and that Members of this House with interests in and connections with farming are not representative of farmers in this country. I would say to the Government, "Come with me and talk to Pennine sheep farmers or Lake District shepherds". One will find that they are just as eloquent in their thoughts on the Bill, the only difference being that they would be a great deal ruder than it has been possible for Members of your Lordships' House to have been today. The sentiments expressed from all sides of the House and from most speakers reflect the thoughts of the livestock farmers in this country, particularly in the uplands and in places which were badly hit by foot and mouth.

At the beginning of the debate my noble friend set out comprehensively the views on the Bill from these Benches. She set out what should happen to the Bill and the attitude we shall take to many of its provisions should it reach Committee stage. In many ways, her views were paralleled by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, from the Opposition Front Bench. The range and quality of speeches that we have heard today has been exceptional. On the occasions when the right reverend Prelate was out of the Chamber, his ears must have been burning. The tributes to his contribution have been fulsome. There were many such contributions. I refer to that of the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, the noble Countess, Lady Mar, the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, and many others. In particular, I remember the speech at the beginning of the debate by the noble Lord, Lord Jopling. He set out the case against the Bill with a clarity unmatched by many of the other speakers.

If the Government are not prepared to listen, and the Minister is not prepared to go away and say, "What can be done to find a consensus even at this stage on these important matters?" that will not just make life difficult for the Government—it will do so, and make much work in this House—it will be bad for the countryside and the livestock farming community. That is important; what it does to us is less important.

I should like to put the Bill into context. I refer not to the state of livestock farming in this country, which has been battered in many places in the past year, but to the state of mind of sheep farmers, cattle farmers and livestock farmers generally, particularly where foot and mouth disease has hit, or where it has come close to hitting. It came within five miles of the village where I live. As many noble Lords have said, the trauma experienced in the places in which it hit had to be witnessed to be believed.

The traumatic effect on families, farmers and communities has been desperate. I refer not just to the mass slaughter and its effects; in many cases the farms which were not hit by foot and mouth or were not taken out by it were in a worse situation than those that were because of the acute animal welfare problems and acute financial problems suffered by many such small businesses. In our part of the world many farms are, indeed, small businesses. Someone referred to bureaucratic bungling and mismanagement by DEFRA and MAFF. The Minister referred to "poor organisation". That is an interesting admission by him that all has not gone well in the foot and mouth outbreak and that that was not all down to bad, careless or malicious farmers. "Poor organisation" is the biggest euphemism I have heard in this House for a long time. In many cases, it was a shambles.

Those farmers are now faced with a wholly uncertain future. In many cases that uncertainty is not over whether to restock or rebuild their businesses and their economic futures. Every time they open a farming newspaper or listen to a farming programme they are being told by a Government Minister that farming must change; that nothing can be the same again; that subsidies will be abolished and in future things will have to be different. That may be true. In many cases that may be inevitable. But the way in which it is done is seen as the farmers being lectured to from on high by politicians, when the people on the ground are struggling with their problems.

The future of farming in this country is not clear. The Government may set up this study, that commission or that working party. Sooner or later decisions must be made. Nowadays, everyone talks of partnerships. However, such decisions must be made in a genuine partnership with farmers and the farming community. If they are not, and there continues to be a series of lectures by the Secretary of State and other politicians, we shall not get anywhere. Unfortunately, whatever the rights and wrongs of the Bill—my noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, both said that we believe this to be a bad Bill—it is seen by livestock farmers as part of a process. It is seen as, "The Government know best. You will do what the Government tell you. If you do not like it, and try to struggle against it, we will pass new laws to make it impossible for you to do so". That is the context in which the Bill is seen. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, called the Bill the "Animal Death Bill". The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, called it the "Animal Extermination Bill". Those are strong words. However, they are mild compared to what one would be told if one spoke to my neighbours who keep sheep on the Pennines.

For many noble Lords an interesting aspect of the debate is that it is not just about farming or how to cope with a particular disease; nor, indeed, is it about every possible disease in farming. Other vital issues are involved, which are issues of human rights and civil liberties. Some of us are told by leading members of the Government that we are airy-fairy civil libertarians. That is often said in the context of the rights of prisoners, of those accused of offences, asylum seekers and so forth. However, just because people are farmers and keep sheep does not mean that they do not have the same civil liberties and the same human rights as those in the more obviously disadvantaged sections of the community. Essentially, human rights are indivisible. If we want human rights for one group of people, we have to have them for other groups of people. Whether or not DEFRA and the Minister like it, that includes farmers.

Some of the Bill's proposals are outrageous. The noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, talked about the requirement regarding anyone who happens to be on the farm at the time a visit is made. Goodness knows how far this provision extends. It may extend to a rambler walking across a footpath or someone just visiting for Sunday tea. There is the possibility of his being dragooned into assisting with whatever the man from the ministry wants him to do.

The right reverend Prelate talked eloquently about the need to reverse the burden of proof in relation to biosecurity issues. Therefore, people do not start off under the assumption that they are guilty and have to prove their innocence. A whole series of other issues have arisen.

The question of Scotland has been raised. We, on these Benches are quite clear about the position in Scotland because the Minister for Environment and Rural Development in Scotland is a Liberal Democrat—Ross Finnie. When the Scottish Parliament discussed the matter in November, as the noble Earl, Lord Peel, said, Ross Finnie stood up and said, yes, he thought that there would have to he new legislation, but, yes, they were going to wait until the three English inquiries and the one Scottish inquiry reported before they decided what legislation was needed. That is a sensible way to go about the matter. This is an occasion when matching what happens in England with what happens in Scotland can sensibly be done by the Minister deferring the Bill until that information is known.

There has been some technical discussion, much of which most of us will never understand, about the scrapie provisions and Part 2 of the Bill which refers to TSE in sheep. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, spoke eloquently about that matter.

There is a real concern about the effect that the provisions will have on rare and traditional breeds and on the diversity of the gene stock within this country. In Committee the Government and the Minister will have to tackle that matter head on and provide satisfactory answers. The concept of trying to get rid of scrapie is obviously desirable but the question is how it is clone and what knock-on effects there may be and its effects on the rare and traditional breeds. Answers must be produced.

The crunch of this whole argument is that this Bill is being brought forward totally out of context with how a future outbreak of FMD will be dealt with. Many people, including Ministers, go around saying, "It must never happen like this again. We must never close the countryside down like this again. The knock-on effects on the countryside service industries and particularly the tourist industry must never be allowed to happen again". Certainly, if they happen again in the near future it would be absolutely disastrous.

The noble Viscount asked whether the public would allow the funeral pyres and the mass slaughter and all the rest to happen again. I agree with him; I do not think that they would. But the Government do not have a strategy. They do not have one because the whole process of inquiries and information finding is not far enough along the line. Yet, we are told that we must legislate now on one narrow section of it. It is premature; there was no proper consultation; the inquiries have not had time to come up with their proposals; and we have no clear idea whatever of what the strategy for a future outbreak will be. It is not proportionate. It narrowly focuses on livestock farmers as though their sins and crimes are at the heart of the problem. I ask: if this new legislation had been in place last year, what real difference would it have made to the course of the outbreak? The answer is: not very much at all. It is one-sided, as the right reverend Prelate said; it is draconian; and if it comes to Committee, it will get a considerable degree of sceptical scrutiny.

If the Government are sensible, they will look and say, "Do we really want compromise or confrontation in the countryside and in the farming community?" If they want compromise and consensus, they will defer the Committee stage until the inquiries have reported. They will start to build bridges with the people who the Government will call their stakeholders in the countryside—although I would never use such a Blairite word—and they will say, "Let's draw back a bit. Let's talk to people. Let's try and build bridges. Let's get away from the present situation in which farming and the farming community generally believe that the present government do not have any interest in their future and do not care about them".

There is a widespread view that the Bill is just part and parcel, as some noble Lords have said, of getting rid of the sheep from the uplands in this country. I do not say that that is the case. There is time for the Government to draw back and to start building bridges and partnerships. But if they rush ahead with the Bill now, they will not just ferment a confrontation in this House but they will cause a great deal of damage in the countryside.

My Lords, like what some may regard as too many of your Lordships, I declare an interest in managing a herd of cattle and a flock of sheep. In the last months I have been through all the permutations and combinations of forms, permits, licences and papers that farmers are getting used to.

After all that has been said, there is no need for me to go back over what, with all the wisdom of hindsight. appears to have been lacking in the operation to clear up foot and mouth. We wait anxiously to see the reports that should emanate from the many inquiries that are being carried on at the moment. But considering all the evidence of how out of touch with the situation those with responsibilities, at even the most basic levels, appear to have been when the outbreak started, one can see why the Farmers' Weekly and its members will not be satisfied with anything less than a full public inquiry.

On Friday, the Minister kindly sent me an advance copy of the consultation document which lays out the proposal on the operation of powers contained in the Bill. I had the weekend to look at it. This, he hopes, will allay a great many of the fears and horrors which most noble Lords who have spoken today have expressed after reading the Bill.

I ask the Minister: if this document is so vital for the understanding of the Government's intention, what does this tell us about their attitude to another place? As the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, stated, the Bill has been through all its stages there—being both timetabled and subject to no revision—without a chance for those at the other end to examine the method by which the Bill would be implemented. One wonders whether that is a further example of the Government's wish to downsize the other place.

My noble friend Lady Byford wanted to call this the "Animal Death" Bill. I know that my noble friend Lord Plumb had some problems in bringing the two documents together. In putting these two documents together one can see that once again we are in the Government's rather favoured territory of the skeleton Bill.

The major concern of anyone who is liable to be covered by this legislation lies in the way that it will be carried out. There in the consultation document is the Government's plan, without any guarantee that it is the last word on the matter. Only a statement from the Government that they are,

"committed to implementing the provisions openly and transparently, in the light of an effective dialogue with stakeholders".

Coming from the mouth of the Minister, we know what he means. But given another Minister in another Government how much will that be worth? If we must have the Bill, we must take the advice of my noble friend Lord Jopling and have the code of conduct included in the Bill.

I am glad to see that the first reason given for the consultation is that tackling FMD must be what the Government express as a "partnership exercise"; and the Ministry expects

"to work with those affected to increase understanding of their purpose and application".

I hope that that constitutes a new understanding, as that does not appear to have been the approach taken at the start of the present crisis. The cries of farmers and farmers' unions asking for more urgent action were at first met with denial and treated with disbelief. The Government then began to abandon persuasion as their approach by accusing farmers of illegal practices. I am not talking of the issue of taking the Ministry to court but, apparently, just because a number of markets had taken place while the Government were trying to decide what to do and because farmers had been carrying out trading individually between buyer and seller in the time-honoured fashion in which I expect that most business is done today.

To my way of thinking, that accusation could stick only if it were found that farmers' personal movement records, when inspected, were not up to date. The fact that the authorities could not trace what was going on is an entirely separate issue. Perhaps that should be brought to the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, who graced our debate at least during the speeches of six speakers, but who is no longer in his place.

On the art of persuasion, I was more than intrigued in December to be invited to one of the series of "witness seminars" being held by the Wellcome Institute on the history of medicine in the 20th century. The witnesses were those who took part in the eradication of the last foot and mouth outbreak in 1967. They ranged from senior government officials of the time down to those who were then just starting on their veterinary career. They had a lot to say about how the whole episode had been handled on a much more local basis.

Towards the end, as questions were being asked, I asked if they had received a lot of objections to the cull at that time, to which the answer was yes. So I then asked how many cases had gone to court, and the answer was practically none. They explained that that was because in a difficult case they would enlist the local policeman, who was well known to the farmer but was also at that time the official livestock inspector. He was perfectly pleased to have a reason to visit the farm in his official capacity, and was also well placed to explain the situation to the farmer and get his co-operation.

My noble friend Lord Plumb talked about the need for persuasion and something to be drawn from the different approach of the Scottish Ministers and the situation in which the Government find themselves down here. Scottish Ministers do not appear to be in such a rush to legislate, because throughout the outbreak the community showed greater solidarity and persuasion seemed to have a greater effect.

We are certainly now a different generation of farmers. Farming is now all about training and qualifications as well as practical experience. We now have the Government pressing all farmers to become computer literate. The Government may not have liked the relationship that at one time existed between MAFF and the farmers, but an attitude of confrontation is likely to prove very damaging to both parties. Surely, the situation calls for an individual if not just a higher level of communication from the Government if they want to persuade farmers to follow their proposed lead. My noble friend Lord Ferrers spoke of the similarity with Communist or Hitlerite regimes. Simply to resort to the old jackboot approach belongs to the last century.

I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson of Market Rasen, that it is an exaggeration to say that the Bill will affect goldfish. However, perhaps the Minister will clarify whether the mention of "animals" in the Bill is purely that defined in the 1981 Act. Two diseases listed in the Bill—African horse sickness and vesicular stomatitis—affect horses and as such will affect pets.

The noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, spoke out strongly—as have many other noble Lords—on the powers of entry that the Government seek both for slaughter and vaccination. On a slightly smaller issue, I should like to ask the Minister about the biosecurity inspections included in the Bill. The question arises from Schedule 3A. 1 understand that paragraph 2 applies only to premises that have been designated an infected place. The Minister is required to carry out a disease risk assessment only if paragraph 2 applies. But under paragraph 3(7), the inspector is expected to carry out inspections up to 21 days before that event is likely to happen. Can the Minister give the House an assurance that any inspections that take place before the designation of an infected place will only be on the periphery of the holding or with the full assent of the owner?

I want to deal with the question of biosecurity. A farmer's priority must be to protect the health of his animals. The compensation that the Government offer is, at most, only for the value of the animal on the day of slaughter. There is no compensation for loss of production or income, let alone the continuity of a breeding programme in the case of those with pedigree or dairy herds. From the farmer's point of view, the danger of infection conies at three levels. The first level is those who have already been involved in the eradication of the disease. That includes most veterinarians. The second level is other farmers and farm workers from other holdings, because it is not possible to tell where the disease will next break out. The final level is people and livestock straying across his land, for a similar reason.

Given the powers that the Government seek for entry to premises, there must be an undertaking that there will be no attempt to enter premises unless that is genuinely required as the next immediate part of the eradication process. The broad powers in the Bill seem to go well beyond that. Even a penalty of 25 per cent will not persuade farmers that people who appear unnecessary to them should enter their premises. Some sort of altercation is likely to ensue, even before anyone has attempted to involve a magistrate. One even wonders what chance there is for farmers or others with livestock to supervise the disinfection process of those about to enter their grounds.

The implications of the Bill will have to be readily understood by everyone involved with animals. It used to be said that instructions had to be clear enough for a man running for a bus. In this case, it might be more appropriate to say "A man who has to calve a cow in 10 minutes". That is where the approach of the Government in offering 75 per cent compensation in the first instance is at fault—the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford raised that point. One must ask whether they have learned nothing since the BSE crisis. At that time, the offer was for only 50 per cent compensation, but that meant that a great deal of infection was hidden at the start of the outbreak and never recorded. The object, especially with this disease, is to get farmers to report when they have the least suspicion that their animals are infected, not for them to wait to see whether true symptoms develop because they know that they will then be in a kind of lottery as to whether they will receive the remaining 25 per cent. Penalties for lack of compliance can be thought about and included afterwards.

Around the House, we have seen something of the passion that the Bill arouses. I should like to echo the words of the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu. The Bill contains powers too frightening to entrust to an organisation that has to such a large extent lost the confidence of the people.

My Lords, it is not every day that I am accused of being Hitler, Stalin and Mugabe in rapid succession. My shoulders are broad, but after some of the things that have been said today I hope that during the Bill's subsequent stages your Lordships revert to your normal sense of proportion and balance. In particular, I resent the implication that the staff of MAFF, DEFRA and veterinarians have engaged in jack-bootery. There have clearly been insensitivities, mistakes and organisational failures; I accept all that. But it is unfair to describe the staff of the department and the veterinary service in those terms, when they have struggled for months to get on top of the disease and worked incredible hours in fraught situations. Whatever your Lordships think of Ministers, I hoped that Members would not talk of the staff in that way.

My Lords, my remarks were not in any way directed at what the staff at MAFF have done. I was merely referring to what they might be asked to do if the powers included in the Bill become law.

My Lords, I shall come to that. There are deep concerns about this matter. I am prepared to be reasonable, to consider amendments and to consider the relationship between what is proposed in the draft protocol and representations from the farming organisations and others. However, as the Minister responsible, among others, for the exclusion of the disease from these shores, I need the Bill, I need the principles in it and I need them as rapidly as possible.

I am prepared to accept that much of the comment that has been made this afternoon reflects the results of a great trauma in our countryside and the degree of distrust or suspicion towards the authorities that has developed in many parts of the farming community. That distrust has, in some circles, developed into a degree of paranoia and denial that does not allow us to approach the matter sensibly and logically. Certainly, the Government made mistakes, but it is foolish to deny that some of the responsibility for the spread of the disease rests with farming practices, with the farmers themselves and with their trading patterns. It may he a minority—as regards biosecurity lapses, it is a distinct minority—but if we do not address that problem, we will not prevent any further incursion of the disease from spreading in the disastrous and catastrophic way in which it spread in this instance.

It is also important to recognise that some of the comments made this afternoon do not reflect the position of the farming organisations. Certainly, those organisations have problems with parts of the Bill, but the vast majority of farming organisations support the scrapie provisions in the Bill, subject to one or two queries. It was clear from the briefings that were provided that it was not the principles in the first part of the Bill that were being queried, but some of the safeguards and other aspects. In many ways, there has been distortion of the considered views of the farming community and of what it would think, were we to have to use the powers in the Bill.

There are one or two other contextual things that I should say. As noble Lords have rightly pointed out, the Bill is more or less in the form of an amendment to the 1981 Act. Aspects of the Bill about which queries were raised today will not, when set in the context of the 1981 Act, have the draconian implications that have been suggested. It is also important that the Bill be considered in parallel with the protocol, to which the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, referred at some length, and that the provisions and implications of the Bill should not be at odds with the tone and implications of the protocol. We intend to bring them together. It is quite rare, at this stage of a Bill's passage, for a draft consultation paper on the implementation of a Bill to have been produced. The House must know the Government's intentions in that regard, and if there are changes to the Bill that are needed, we must put them forward.

The key issue, to which the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, relates, is timing. In that regard, I have little sympathy with the sentiments expressed in most contributions this afternoon. I must clear up one point. We have been accused of rushing the Bill through Parliament and rushing consideration of it in the House of Commons. The noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, made that point just now. I must say that the Opposition in the House of Commons were offered eight sessions and took only six. When there was a discussion on programming, there were no representations from the Opposition parties and, indeed, it lasted only one minute. It is not the Government's fault if the House of Commons rejected the offer of greater consideration. In any case, it is for your Lordships to consider the Bill now, and I shall abide by the normal provisions.

On the bigger issue of why the Bill has been introduced now, I have a clear answer that, I thought, I had spelt out in the introduction. The reason is the danger that the disease will recur—or it might still be present—and it or another disease could come into the country before Parliament has had time to consider legislation or other measures arising from the inquiry. Nobody wants it to happen again, but if we do not adopt the lessons that we have already learnt, or if the House forces the Government not to adopt the necessary measures, we leave ourselves open to the recurrence of the disease. It need not be a big spread. It could be one case in one part of the country, but the issue of whether we should engage in a contiguous cull would still arise. Failure to act will lead to further spread.

Some of the comments made have been inconsistent. Noble Lords press me to act instantaneously on some of the other lessons. They ask us to accept that we should stop movement instantaneously, once a disease is spotted. I have sympathy with that view, and I believe that that will be part of a future regime. They ask us to act on imports immediately, before we know the outcome of the inquiries. Noble Lords are right to do so. If we learn the lessons, we should act on them. That is precisely what we are doing now.

If the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, presses her amendment, or if, at a later stage, we delay the Bill—as the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, and others threatened to do—until after the inquiries have reported, what do we do in the coming months when it is clear that another outbreak of the disease could lead us down the same road? A great responsibility rests on the House, in considering that question. I have not heard an answer in any of today's contributions.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. I take his point, as I am sure do other noble Lords. If such emergencies recur, is there no recourse for the Government to have emergency legislation to cover the situation, rather than rush the Bill through leaving us in the same position? I do not understand why that would not be possible. Why must we pass the whole Bill about which difficulty has been expressed today?

My Lords, we went through some of the issues in connection with the terrorism legislation. The fact of the matter is that if the disease recurred we would have to take instant action on the ground. We are talking about taking action within 24 and 48 hours. With great respect to the parliamentary procedure, we would not have certainty of the availability of those measures and the disease could slip through and engage in the same degree of spread that happened last year.

My Lords, can the Minister explain why he did not take these powers on an emergency basis at the height of the outbreak?

My Lords, if the noble Earl had been present at the beginning of today's debate—admittedly it was a long time ago—he would have heard me say that for much of the time Ministers were convinced that their objectives could be achieved and the spread of the disease contained under the powers of the existing legislation and the emergency provisions relating to it. It was only after the experience of the Thirsk outbreak, to which I may return if time permits, that we concluded that there were gaps within those powers. That led to us to bring forward the Bill today.

Some consider the Bill a knee-jerk reaction. That was the first of the seven criticisms of the Government clearly enunciated by the noble Lord, Lord Jopling. It is not a knee-jerk reaction. We originally decided not to go down this road. Only the process of events persuaded us that we needed to do so and that we needed to do so in anticipation of another problem. We have considered most carefully whether we need these powers and with great reluctance, as my right honourable colleague Margaret Beckett indicated in the other place, we have come to the conclusion that we do.

The noble Lord, Lord Jopling, in his seven points mentioned one with which I agree; that this is only a partial solution. Of course it is; it is the lessons we know already. However, it is to be hoped that the rest of the solution will emerge from the inquiries and the new considerations. At that point we can give effect both operationally and legislatively if necessary to the rest of the lessons learnt.

However, the time-scale is not immediate. At the earliest the inquiries will be completed in the late summer. We would not have a Bill ready at the beginning of the next Session and it would therefore have to be introduced during it, at the earliest in the middle or end of next year. I repeat the question: what shall we do in the next 18 months if another instance of the disease arises?

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He has understandably admitted that the initial reaction to the events was not right and that therefore the Government want to be able to take different action in future. Why, therefore, did the Government decide not to have a full inquiry to ascertain what was wrong before deciding how best to put it right?

My Lords, I was hoping that I would not have to go into the ding-dong about a public inquiry yet again in this House because we have been over the ground many times. I reiterate my belief that the form of inquiry we have set up will give us an answer earlier. A full public inquiry would not give the answer by the end of the summer; we would be looking at a much longer time-scale. Whatever are the other arguments for or against a public inquiry, in this context it would be downright counterproductive.

The noble Lord, Lord Jopling, went on to say that the response was unco-ordinated but his only example seemed to be that we were not co-ordinated with Scotland. I know that most noble Lords who spoke did not agree with devolution, but it is in the nature of devolution that we take different decisions and in different time-scales in the devolved administrations. We have, however, kept in close touch with the Scottish authorities in this period. If an emergency arises, perhaps they have more flexibility over their legislative timetable than we do. That partly affects the situation. Furthermore, the outbreak and devastation in Scotland was much less than in England and there was therefore less pressure in avoiding a similar outcome. It is a consequence of devolution, whether your Lordships like it or not.

My Lords, cannot the Minister see that the reason the devastation was less was because the Scottish authorities dealt with the matter much more efficiently?

My Lords, the inquiries will no doubt indicate whether that is true. It is certainly true that the less widespread outbreak was dealt with more rapidly. There may be lessons to he learnt from that.

The noble Lord, Lord Jopling, went on to say that the response was mean of the Government. The taxpayers, who include many people who are not farmers, unlike many speakers in today's debate, have spent £2 billion on eradicating the disease. Frankly, we do not want to spend any more. To regard that as mean seems to me absurd and I do not believe that average taxpayers, rural or urban, would regard payment of full compensation to an infected premise where the farmer himself had partly contributed to the disease entering his stock as reasonable. We are justified, therefore, in considering methods of adjusting compensation in the light of biosecurity performance.

A number of noble Lords said that it—whichever part of the Bill was being referred to—was not scientifically based. We have had the best scientific advice—admittedly not at the beginning of the campaign. Vets, epidemiologists, virologists and other scientists at a high-powered level have been brought together to consider how to control the disease. One of their first conclusions was that we had to meet our targets, and better, for the contiguous cull. We could not have had better scientific advice. We are engaging with the veterinary side as well as others. There is no question of conflict between one group of scientists and practitioners and another. They all point in the same direction.

The noble Lord then said that we were unfair and arrogant. Unfair to whom, my Lords? Are we unfair in coming down on the farmer who has allowed this disease to develop when his neighbour next door has observed fully biosecurity precautions? Are we unfair to those farmers who did not receive compensation during the epidemic but, nevertheless, suffered grievously in terms of their own economic and social perspective? Are we unfair to the rest of the rural community who received no compensation and will not do so in the future; and to society as a whole? In many of the contributions today the question of fairness was seen through a very narrow prism.

My Lords, the Minister's comments are a smidgen over the top. I do not mean that rudely; the Minister is a good friend. My noble friend said rightly that there has been meanness and unfairness. The issue has been debated fully. The unfairness is that nothing stops the imports coming in in the first place. It is not a UK disease; it comes into the country. If the Minister persists on this issue, I shall continue to interrupt him. I recognise—the noble Lord and I agree—that there are some bad farmers. They must be sat on immediately. However, in referring back to meanness and unfairness, the Minister might bear in mind that it is unfair that the disease ever comes into the country in the first place.

My Lords. I do not think that it is I who went "over the top" today. However, I turn to what is a perfectly logical exposition of the debate, the issue of imports.

It is true that the most likely origin of the disease—it is by no means proven; although the committee of inquiry may throw some light on it I doubt whether it will ever be able to reveal the whole truth, as was the case in 1967—is from abroad. Illegal imports through commercial transactions and passengers is an important issue. I have some sympathy with noble Lords who have advocated that we should have greater powers in relation to imports. However, to take greater powers on imports does not require new primary legislation. First, it requires alterations at the EU level. As far back as April my predecessor, Joyce Quin, started the ball rolling from the EU, looking at tightening up the substantive controls. Secondly, it requires secondary legislation to alter the powers and resources of the enforcement authorities. With other departments involved, we are engaged in consideration of secondary legislation. But it is not necessary to alter the Animal Health Bill. Indeed, in the Animal Health Act 1981 there is no peg on which to hang import activity. Therefore, we are saying that we will take action on imports but it does not require action within the cogntext of this Bill. Nevertheless, as Elliot Morley indicated, monitoring imports might be relevant because there is a cross-reference with regard to the Animal Health Bill. I may consider amendments in that context at later stages of the Bill.

Apart from the issue of imports—it was a powerful argument—there was concern about the powers to slaughter, appeals and the designation of animals. I deal with those three immediately. On the powers of slaughter, as was rightly identified, the change is to move from proof of exposure to prevention of spread. The noble Lord, Lord Moran, and others suggested that that meant that everything we did previously regarding contiguous culls was illegal. That is not the case. It was identified on veterinary advice that contiguous premises within a three-kilometre circle were exposed. That is a somewhat arbitrary definition of exposure. What is needed is a general rule to prevent the spread of the disease by the use of culling, or by vaccination should we go down that road, by use of the powers provided in this Bill. That may in fact exclude some animals that previously would have been culled because they would no longer be relevant to the spread of the disease, but it might include others where prevention of the spread would require such animals to be culled. This is a useful change—it is no more than that—and one that will be better informed than the blanket rule of a three-kilometre circle. Furthermore, it will require the direct input of local vets on the local situation.

I turn to the question of appeals and the Human Rights Act. The first point to recognise is that, whatever it was called, there was no right of appeal under the 1981 Act. We are not removing any right of appeal. All we seek to do is to remove the process whereby the authority to act is dealt with in the High Court and replace it with an order made by a justice of the peace. That does not affect any representations a farmer may make to the vet to reconsider the judgment to cull or not to cull.

Remaining with the right of appeal, in abstract terms, under the Bill we are not taking away any right of appeal.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for taking an interruption. I have not spoken so I must declare an interest. My wife and I have a small farming unit in which we keep cattle and sheep.

I wish to ask the Minister a further question on his comments on the Human Rights Act and the convention. The Bill bears on its face a statement from the Minister, no doubt written on advice, that none of the provisions conflicts with the rights granted by the European Convention on Human Rights. Can the Minister reflect on that and, before the Bill returns for further consideration, share with the House any further details with regard to that advice?

In particular, does that advice concentrate on the scenario which has been discussed several times in the course of the debate; that is, of an order being obtained by DEFRA behind the back of a farmer, who does not need to be told that an application has been made to a magistrate? That order confers a right of entry, pursuant to which is an intention to destroy the flock or herd. The official carrying out the order may then require the farmer to assist in that destruction. Under pain of criminal penalty, the farmer is obliged to lend his assistance, whatever the circumstances and possibly at personal risk. We have been told of cases of herds being driven in terror across roads.

Has the Minister's advice focused on the combination of those features: an order is obtained in secret behind a farmer's back, and he is then required to be a party to the cull of his own herd. Is all that said in no way to constitute a violation of any of the provisions of the convention?

My Lords, I have to be careful because, as the noble Lord rightly pointed out, I act on advice. However, noble Lords will know that it is the convention that the nature of advice from law officers is not disclosed for obvious reasons. No doubt we shall return to this subject at later stages in our deliberations, when perhaps we shall exchange views on the various points raised by noble Lords relating to human rights and other equity provisions. However, I am not able to give the noble Lord the undertaking he seeks.

The noble Lord has raised the same point put by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, in relation to a precedent for requiring assistance in certain circumstances. The noble Viscount commented that he had not been able to find a case congruent with the provisions of the Bill before us. I have to say that the only Act I have to hand is the Food Safety Act 1990, which noble Lords will observe was passed by the previous regime. It refers specifically to anyone who,

"without reasonable cause, fails to give to any person acting in the execution of this Act any assistance or information which that person may reasonably require of him for the performance of his functions under this Act, shall be guilty of an offence".

The provisions in this Bill are almost exactly the same.

My Lords, before the Minister ducked the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Neill, he said that, under the Bill, the Government had made no change to the appeal position of farmers. Does he agree that if a farmer appeals now it can cost him a fee of up to 25 per cent of the payment that he receives for his animals as of right?

My Lords, the noble Earl is probably confusing the different rights of appeal. My noble friend Lady Gibson said that there were three different rights of appeal—which is true—but they are at different stages of the process. It is right that a fee is required in valuation appeals in order to discourage frivolous appeals.

However, there is no appeal in regard to a decision to contiguously cull. I am sorry for the split infinitive. The farmer has a right to make representations to the divisional veterinary manager. That right was there in the 1981 Act, it was there during the disease in the regulations in relation to the disease, and remains now. So there is no change in the right of appeal.

As to compensation, I have dealt with the need to provide a regime of compensation which, on the one hand, protects taxpayers' money, and, on the other, provides an incentive to farmers to observe biosecurity precautions. However, I should say to the noble Duke that it does not require a hindsight inspection over the previous 21 days. It is only if an infected premise is identified, and an inspector or a vet feels that there was a biosecurity lapse some time previously or at that time, that the issue of not paying the additional 25 per cent would arise. I repeat that this applies only to affected premises; it does not apply in relation to contiguous cull or direct contacts.

I have been speaking for some time. I have touched, at least, on the main points. Other points were raised which I shall look at to see whether they require a written reply. I have no doubt that we shall return in Committee to all the points that have been raised. I intend to proceed to Committee stage as soon as the usual channels allow because the Government, the country and, above all, the farming community need the powers in the Bill to face the contingency of the disease recurring.

One item with which I should deal relates to the definition of "animals". The existing legislation designates animals which are susceptible to foot and mouth. As long as the power applies only to foot and mouth, it relates only to those animals. Therefore, goldfish, cats and horses cannot be dealt with under this legislation as long as it is restricted to foot and mouth. There is an affirmative procedure by which both Houses can agree that there should be an extension to other diseases. In that case, clearly other species of animals—specifically horses—could, in certain circumstances, be involved. I have dealt with the matter slightly out of sequence, but I thought it was important to clarify the position.

My Lords, I asked the Minister a question about the 21 day stand still on sheep for showing purposes. Will he revisit that subject, have a good look at it, and come back to me, perhaps, in a written reply?

My Lords, that is not part of the Bill. It relates to the interim movements regime we are introducing, on which we made an announcement a week or so ago. The new interim regime will operate from February. It will include a disapplication of the 20-day rule in certain respects but, in relation to shows, that decision will come further down the line, particularly in relation to sheep. Although the showing of cattle and pigs will be allowed from the beginning of the new regime, the showing of sheep will be delayed by a month or two beyond that, assuming that everything goes well.

My Lords, before the Minister sits down, can he say whether there is any chance of developing a quick test? That would give many people hope. Surely that is the whole point of culling, and so on. If we had a test and a safe vaccine, it would give us hope.

My Lords, considerable work is taking place on the development of a test, though there is not, as yet, a completely validated test. There is unlikely to be a an acceptable test on an international basis in the time-scale about which I am talking here—that is to say, the next 18 months or so. Nevertheless, efforts are being put into that area. The noble Baroness asked earlier about research. I can tell the House that such research is certainly being prioritised on that front, both at UK and at EU level.

My Lords, the Minister will recall that he kindly made several references to the remarks that I made earlier in the afternoon. However, he has made no comment on what was perhaps the severest criticism that I made with regard to the huge offence that the comments of the Secretary of State in another place caused to farmers in the Thirsk area. The noble Lord was kind enough to apologise to me for the incorrect information that the Minister gave in another place. I cannot over-emphasise the huge offence that that caused. Before the Minister finally sits down, could he express both his and the Government's apologies to farmers in the Thirsk area for that totally inaccurate information for which he has already apologised to me? I believe that farmers in the Thirsk area are also entitled to an apology.

My Lords, I apologised to the noble Lord for the fact that the figures to which my right honourable friend referred relate to the whole of north Yorkshire, not simply to Thirsk. The information was given in the context of an outbreak that centred on Thirsk, but the 55 cases figure relates to the whole of North Yorkshire. I may need to write to the noble Lord on the matter, but a significant number of those cases eventually proved to have the disease. Seven out of the 26 cases where we actually allowed the appeal or representations to be made went on to develop the disease. That indicates that, first, we were quite lenient and reasonable; and, secondly, that we should have been tougher.

My Lords, can the Minister please tell me about the position of goats with regard to Part 2 of the Bill?

My Lords, as I understand it, there are no current proposals under the scrapie provisions of the Bill to deal with the goat side of the issue because the most useful genome that needs to be identified as maximising resistance to scrapie does not occur in most breeds of goats. Therefore, more work will have to be carried out in that respect before we can apply a similar scheme to goats.

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who spoke on my amendment. I am most grateful for the widespread support that it has received in your Lordships' House. In weighing up and trying to decide whether or not to withdraw the amendment, I have taken note of the fact that many noble Lords would have been willing to accept something that was truly an amendment to the Animal Health Act 1981 rather than a very limited and narrow Bill that did not lay new ground of precedence in the areas of civil liberties. I have in mind a Bill that included in it specific guidance that was published and referred to on the face of the Bill; and one that took account of natural justice, representations and appeals. Such an amendment Bill could enable work to begin on a national scrapie plan, perhaps on a voluntary basis, which certainly does not criminalise sheep owners.

There is quite a strong feeling that the Government should have considered the timescale for the Bill, and the fact that it would be possible for a simple amendment Bill to have been brought forward; that they should have considered the recommendations of the inquiries that they have commissioned, and that that would have been the time to bring forward comprehensive legislation—when the Government had firm scientific advice upon which to base real guidance on disease control and risk assessment. That would be the time to legislate more widely—when science has something more to offer on the eradication of scrapie than simply eradicating many of the breeds of sheep native to this country. That would be the time for a definitive Bill.

The Minister has a huge job between now and Committee stage, during which time the Government will consider these issues. On the basis that he is genuinely willing to consider the issues raised in the debate and that we shall have the opportunity to see proper amendments brought forward—preferably by the Government—and agreed to, I am willing for now to withdraw the amendment and beg leave to do so.

rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have considered the impact of the proposed residential care standards for younger adults on their national drugs strategy and crime reduction agenda.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, first, I declare an interest. I am chairman of a charity providing treatment for drug addiction and alcohol addicts called ADAPT, which stands for Alcohol and Drug Addiction Prevention and Treatment. We run two large clinics, one at Barley Wood near Bristol, and the Princess of Wales Treatment Centre at Mundesley, in Norfolk. Each has a capacity of over 60 beds. We also provide treatment in prisons.

Perhaps I may begin with some general observations about drugs and crime. As is pointed out in this week's edition of the Economist, more people in Britain use hard drugs than in any other European country. We also have the largest number of people in gaol per head of population, except for Portugal. Those are hardly two records to boast about.

Part of the reason why our gaols are so full is that we impose longer sentences. However, there is clearly a connection between the two records, because at least 50 per cent—most people believe 60 per cent—of crime is drug-related. Certainly, two-thirds of those arrested test positive for drugs.

One way to combat drug-related crime may be—as is argued by an increasing number of senior policemen—to change the law relating to drugs. However, that is a controversial topic and is not the subject of our debate. Probably the most effective way of reducing crime is to cure people of drug addiction. It also saves lives and avoids untold misery for the families of addicts.

Government policy has recently changed for the better. It is now accepted that in principle it is better to treat addicts than to send them to gaol. It is also recognised that residential care is the best form of treatment. Furthermore, some order is being imposed on the chaotic pattern of referral for treatment. At present, there are about 10 different channels for referral, ranging from various local authorities and community health centres to the probation service. At present, where you live decides whether you have access to treatment, and some local authorities do not refer people at all. The new National Treatment Agency should be a vast improvement. I hope the Minister will assure us that in future treatment will be available for all addicts, irrespective of where they live.

Another change is that more effective treatment is provided in prisons, through the rather inelegantly named CARAT scheme—Counselling, Assessment, Referral, Advice and Throughcare services—and also through rehabilitation courses.

Ten days ago I visited Blundeston Prison near Lowestoft. I was much impressed. Treatment seems to be working well. That is not only because of the quality of the professional service, but because of the personal initiatives taken in the prison by the drugs strategy co-ordinator, Mr Tony Goldson, and the strong personal support of the governor, Mr Jerry Knight. Prisoners whom I talked to spoke enthusiastically about the rehabilitation course. The biggest problem is resettlement after release, particularly providing accommodation and employment, but that is another story.

The regulations for residential care standards—or national minimum standards for care homes for younger adults, as they are now officially called—were designed with the best possible motive of improving standards of care generally. However, when I saw the original draft of the regulations which were to apply to those being treated for drug abuse, I was amazed. The work of various drug treatment clinics was about to be made impossible. That is why three of us—the noble Earl, Lord Howe, the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, and I—went to see the Minister who is replying to the debate and his colleague in the Department of Health, Jacqui Smith.

Let me give a few examples of what the proposals would have meant as they stood. Under the proposed standards, patients were to have their own rooms with bathroom en suite, their own key and a right to lock themselves in. That is a perfect recipe for suicide, which is a common danger among addicts. Patients were to receive their own mail unchecked and to receive visitors of their own choice at any time. That is a perfect recipe for ensuring that they continue to get drugs. They were to be free to opt out of group activities, yet the whole basis of treatment is often group therapy. Further, by severely limiting the size of all establishments, the proposed standards would have ruled out clinics such as ours, which I can sincerely say does a lot of good work, as many of our former patients testify. The costs of complying with the new standards would have driven many clinics out of business. Many other provisions were wholly unsuitable for drug treatment centres.

The basic trouble, as one of my colleagues in the deputation pointed out—I forget who—was that the requirements, which might be well suited to those in long-term residential care, who need privacy and a non-institutional environment, were wholly unsuited to drug addicts on a relatively short-term course of up to six months, who need to be taken out of their own isolation.

Let no one say that Ministers never listen. I am sure that the noble Earl will echo my delight that the proposals have now been amended. As far as I can see, without having had the chance to consult workers in the field on all the details, our main concerns have been met.

On the standards for dealing with individual needs and choices, the new document states:

"In homes for people who misuse drugs or alcohol, restrictions on decision making may be necessary in the initial stages of a treatment programme".

The section on lifestyles states:

"For people with substance misuse problems, curtailment of lifestyle preferences may be required at the start of the rehabilitation process".

Further, patients' control over their own medication is required only where appropriate and the required option of a single room does not apply to homes offering rehabilitation for people who misuse alcohol or drugs.

I am deeply grateful to the Minister and his colleague Jacqui Smith for allowing common sense to prevail. It may be said that that makes my Unstarred Question otiose, but I do not think so. It gives us an opportunity to stress the importance of treatment and of approaching it in the right way.

I shall end with a general observation that is, perhaps, rather more critical. Over several decades, too many Ministers have allowed over-regulation and bureaucracy to become a national disease. We are now probably the most heavily regulated country in the European Union. I shall give various examples of that from various fields.

Recently, the Financial Times reported that exporters in the European Union found that they had to fill out more forms in exporting to Britain than to any other EU country. Teachers complain about the enormous amount of time they have to spend filling out forms. Research workers conducting necessary experiments on animals find that it takes at least twice as long to obtain a licence in Britain as in Germany and five times as long as in the United States; and yet extra bureaucracy can actually worsen the plight of animals.

Even these much improved regulations for the standards of residential care go into minute, often—one suspects—unnecessary detail. Some of them may still be inappropriate for drug users. Managers, for example, have to agree with each service user a written and costed contract. However, when they arrive, most of our patients are in no state to agree or understand anything, let alone to sign a legal contract. They can of course walk out if they want to, and some of them regrettably do; so in that sense they agree to their treatment. The regulations, however, are totally unrealistic in the extent to which they require detailed consents. It is still not clear, for example, whether they still require that we must let patients lie in bed in the morning as long as they want to.

The standards require that, in rooms for four patients, which are now allowed, privacy must be assured by screening or the provision of furniture. That type of detail really does not make much sense. Furthermore, although it no longer applies to drug clinics, is it really necessary to stipulate that communal areas, for meals or for socialising, for example, must be at least 4.1 square metres per service user? Are Ministers sure that it should not be 4.2 or 4.0 square metres?

Is it realistic to insist that there must be staff on duty at all times

"who can communicate with service users in their first language, including sign; and have skills in other communication methods relevant to service users' needs (eg block alphabet, braille, finger spelling, Makaton, total communication, manual deafblind language, moon, personal symbols"?

Regulations cannot cover everything. We should not be dominated, as we are, by the blame culture that tries to cover management against liability for every conceivable mishap. The motive is to cover your own back in case you are sued; or, if one is a Minister, to avoid criticism if something goes wrong. We are going to have to become more robust and defend the need to take some risks. If regulations try to guard against every conceivable risk, they quickly become oppressive and self-defeating.

I therefore hope that the admirable example set by the two Ministers in the Department of Health will set a precedent, and that in future a fresh air of common sense will blow away the cobwebs of over-regulation throughout the whole machinery of Government. Hope springs eternal.

My Lords, I am very happy that the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, has introduced this non-otiose Question, and done so with such knowledge and concern. It gives us the opportunity to debate the important issue of the treatment of drug misuse. I must declare an interest as I have recently become the chair of the National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse, whose brief is to raise standards and increase the consistency of drug treatment. I shall say more about standards and consistency later. I shall first briefly discuss the larger picture of problematic drug misuse, and then move on to residential care.

We are currently discussing crime reduction. However, although it may be obvious, it needs to be restated that crime is not the only problem. As the noble Lord, Lord Taverne said, drug abuse can devastate the health of individuals and be destructive of relationships and of families. So, for many reasons, we have to get interventions to treat drug misuse as right as possible.

Treatment and, within that, residential care are of course only one strand of the national strategy; the other strands also are key. They include a focus on helping young people to resist drug misuse, protecting communities, and stifling the availability of drugs. We know that treatment works and that there are major ways of treating problematic drug misuse: out-patient prescribing interventions and counselling interventions as well as residential rehabilitation. The effectiveness of all has been studied and residential rehabilitation seems to be effective, depending, of course, on the problems and motivations of the individual being treated and on the quality of the intervention.

The national treatment outcome research study has estimated that for every pound spent on treatment, £3 are saved to the criminal justice system. However, for treatment to be more effective, we need better consistency of practice among the current 600 treatment providers. We need to get people into treatment faster. We need research on both prevention and treatment. We need better data on drug related attendance at casualty departments and on numbers in residential treatment. Here there seems to be some inconsistency between Department of Health figures and those of addiction agencies. That seems to involve which beds you count; for example, whether or not we include those provided in mainstream sectors such as units for the homeless and probation hostels. Whatever the problem as regards counting the number of people in residential treatment is, I suggest that accurate baselines of who is being treated where, how and for what are needed to inform practice.

One target of the national drug strategy is to double the number of drug users entering treatment by 2008. The number of problematic drug misusers in this country is estimated to be between 100,000 and 200,000, many of whom do not seek, or cannot get, access to effective services.

Let me address the issue of residential care from some basic principles. We know that people who get into difficulties with drugs comprise a diverse population. Many have relatively minor problems. What requires treatment is the range of acute and chronic problems. Drug dependence is the main condition requiring treatment. Dependence is, as we know, a psychiatric disorder made up of psychological, behavioural and physiological symptoms such as continued use and problems with withdrawal. Many patients entering treatment have high levels of psychological health problems; 50 per cent have committed some form of crime in the three months prior to intake.

The tasks for rehabilitation centres are thus complex and difficult. Added to those problems, early drop-out from residential rehabilitation appears, not surprisingly, to limit the effectiveness of treatment. Some 25 per cent of those being treated leave within two weeks and 40 per cent by three months. The thrust of the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, is related to the draft standards for young adults published by the Department of Health last year. He went into that in some detail. I understand that about 90 per cent of those standards were considered appropriate by drug and alcohol specialists—DrugScope and the European Association for the Treatment of Addiction are to be congratulated on their tenacity and concern—but that those relating to the physical environment (for example, multi-occupancy rooms) could close some units. Clearly, that would have had a disastrous impact on the individuals concerned and on the likelihood of more crimes being committed. The national treatment agency was, and is, concerned to raise quality without reducing capacity.

As the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, said, the Department of Health listened and agreed that the standards be modified. The national treatment agency expert residential group met last week and the sense was that the group had been almost too successful in its lobby and that the standards now set a relatively low baseline. That needs addressing and I shall comment on it further in a minute.

It seems likely that providers will be challenged to meet the human resource standards; that is, to have all managers and 50 per cent of staff holding relevant NVQs by 2004, with the rest of the staff working towards them. That may be particularly difficult for some of the smaller units not linked to umbrella organisations. In addition, the rehabilitation units are not well linked to the regional social care training development networks and resources. They need to be encouraged to be so.

The agency is also concerned that commissioners have difficulty investing in rehabilitation due to the spot purchasing agreements; the fact that the cost of placements is likely to rise as staff become better qualified and quality rises; and the fact that commissioners may need to invest in regional groupings, such as that set up by the Greater London Purchasing Group.

There is also concern that, in the longer term, units may face difficulties as the cost of all residential care rises and local community care funding potentially does not. As there is a statutory requirement to provide care for other groups—for example, the growing number of elderly—local authorities seem likely to spend less on preventing drug and alcohol misuse because there is no statutory requirement to provide placements in those circumstances.

The agency was created last year and its strategy recognises the challenges. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, will agree that having the agency in place should address a multitude of issues relating to reducing crime and improving the health of those individuals who are addicted to misusing substances. Importantly, the agency has a regional structure, and it will be able to address, with other regional bodies such as community drug teams and drug action teams, those issues at the micro-level which is where national strategy must focus if it is to work.

The Department of Health "models of care" project points out that to achieve an effective care system, screening, assessment, care co-ordination and treatment review need to be in place. There must be collaboration between all health and social care organisations.

The agency will commission work on the impact of the standards and, working with the new Care Standards Commission, a project to address the issue of human resource standards to ensure that inspection units have staff who are competent in substance misuse and that guidance is developed. Implementation projects could address the issue of standards and build on Department of Health standards. Once those have been achieved, it should set benchmarks that are higher.

There is clearly much work to do. How does the Minister think that quality standards, training of personnel and inspection and co-ordination of the organisation of residential treatment for drug misusers contribute to successful treatment and its impact on individuals and communities?

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, for bringing this matter to the attention of noble Lords. Having just spoken in the previous debate, I assure noble Lords that I should not speak again unless I felt that this was a very important matter.

For some years I chaired Phoenix House, which is an organisation that has several residential drug and alcohol rehabilitation houses in various parts of the country. I have also attended two funerals of young people who died from drug and alcohol addiction. One of them was a god-daughter who had been to Oxford University. Those lost young lives arc such a waste and such a tragedy to families and friends.

I have served on the All-Party Parliamentary Drugs Misuse Group for many years—since its inception. Governments for years have tried to stem that growing scourge which causes so many problems throughout the world. Drug and alcohol addiction take over the lives of many people. They lose the ability to control their own lives and their lifestyle becomes chaotic and unreliable. They often turn to crime or prostitution to feed their habit.

When addicts see sense and want to go into treatment, it is important that there are rehabilitation places to help them to kick the habit. If there are not enough beds and they have to wait, the urge to seek help may pass and the opportunity may be lost. That can mean a matter of life or death.

I am sure that most people will welcome the national minimum standards for care homes for younger adults in long-term residential care. However, for the rehabilitation of drug and alcohol addicts, the needs can be different. It would have been excessive to have en suite bathrooms to every bedroom. Could it not encourage the smuggling into bedrooms of drugs and alcohol if the resident addict was able to lock his door from the inside and have locked cupboards?

Much of the treatment is carried out in group sessions and people in treatment support each other. Addiction can mean devious behaviour, and service users with such problems need a regime of coming to terms with a condition that they must watch for the rest of their lives. It can be a hard struggle, and many treatment centres work following the 12-step programme. It is a progress ladder.

At a presentation by the director of Clouds drug and alcohol rehabilitation unit, the members of the All-Party Parliamentary Drugs Misuse Group were told that if all the requirements had to be put in place, they would have to cut the number of their beds by 50 per cent. If that was the case with all the centres throughout England and Wales, many desperately at-risk addicts would miss out on rehabilitation and could well be sent to prison as an alternative.

I hope that the Government will be able to take a flexible view of the different situations and of the priority needs of the different groups. Drug and alcohol addiction rehabilitation requires a high percentage of trained staff to deal with the many side-effects of coming off drugs, such as suicide risks and depression. Much time is also spent on anger management and counselling. The treatments are expensive.

I am delighted to hear that the Government have listened, but I hope that tonight the Minister will give us an up-date on what the new standards will be. Are there enough places for young addicts with problems? They seem to be getting younger and younger and some are of school age. I shall be interested to hear the answer that the Minister gives tonight.

My Lords, I support the cogent arguments put forward by my noble friend Lord Taverne on the need to ensure that the proposed residential care standards for young adults impact positively on the reduction of drug misuse and criminal activities by young people. For that reason, I thank my noble friend for introducing this debate.

I have sat as a magistrate for more than 17 years. I have also been a member of a board of visitors for that amount of time, and I have chaired NACRO. Resettlement is at the heart and centre of what we do. It is that background that makes me believe and understand that, unless there is clarity in relation to sentencing, which includes a treatment and rehabilitation model, many of our efforts to divert young people from offending will be futile.

The purpose of residential care standards is to improve the behaviour of young people from what is normally a very low starting point in their lives. The task expected of carers is very demanding and often least appreciated. In many cases, those who are part of the care culture come from backgrounds which carers find hard to handle and change. Young offenders fall into that category. The inadequacies of resettlement arrangements are particularly marked in relation to young people. Most are short-term prisoners. Short-term offenders receive no post-release supervision and much is left to the carers. It is at that point that they could impact on the lives of young offenders.

The evidence documenting the powerful links between drug misuse and crime is now overwhelming. Persistent heroin users typically spend around £10,000 per year on drugs while crack addicts spend on average more than £20,000, much of which is raised by criminal activity. That is more than someone on a minimum legal wage could earn in a whole year, and that must be multiplied by the number of users.

There are many issues which are directly related to drugs. The increasing availability and use of illegal drugs, along with large-scale alcohol abuse, contributes to crime in our society. If we look at any part of our criminal justice system we will find example after example of links between illegal drug abuse and crime to pay for those drugs. That is as clear as the link between alcohol abuse and the level of violent crime.

The number of people convicted of or cautioned for drug offences has more than quadrupled over the past 10 years. Offenders feeding their drug habit now commit around one half of all thefts and burglaries together with a growing amount of crack-related violence and a high proportion of prostitution. The estimated cost of drug-driven crime is now between £3 billion to £4 billion annually. That includes £2 billion to £2.5 billion in losses to victims; £600 million spent on drug services and over £500 million in costs to the criminal justice system.

That is a frightening figure, but it does not feature in the equation when we talk about drug problems. Yet many arrested drug users are at a crisis point, which can be a powerful motivating factor to accept help. That was powerfully demonstrated by a recent study of 80 offenders seen by arrest referral schemes, which arrange treatment for arrested drug users. Six months later, 21 were drug free, 35 were no longer using hard drugs and most of the others had reduced their drug use. The number of crimes committed by the group had fallen to one-fifth of the number they committed in the month before arrest. That is a positive example of the success of the referral scheme.

The effectiveness of drug misuse treatment has been underscored by the Department of Health-funded National Treatment Outcome Research Study (NTORS), which has followed 1,100 people who entered drug treatment programmes in 1995. As the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, pointed out, the NTORS study showed that treatment saves money as well as lives. For every £1 spent on drug misuse treatment, more than £3 was saved as a result of the reduced costs of crime. Moreover, that was just the money saved in the first year after beginning treatment. The long-term savings will be even greater. That is a strong argument in favour of a treatment model, which needs to be developed even further.

There is also encouraging evidence that well-structured drugs prevention programmes can be highly effective. A follow-up study of Project Charlie, a prevention programme used with Hackney primary school children, found that at the age of 14 they had more negative attitudes to drugs than other children, were less likely to have used illegal drugs or tobacco and were better able to resist peer pressure to use drugs.

There is a desperate need for the treatment of drug-dependent offenders and a need for a substantial reallocation of resources to provide for more treatment facilities. Bearing in mind the findings of recent studies, it is clearly identified that the number of offences committed by addicts reduced by one-fifth when proper treatment was available. Treatment programmes are best carried out in the community. However, when drug-dependent offenders go to prison, it is vital that they have access to treatment in prison and effective resettlement on release.

Although the number of treatment programmes in prisons has increased in recent years, there is still a long way to go before we can be satisfied that prisoners with drug problems receive the help that they need. That is frightening, especially for young offenders leaving custodial institutions. That is where those in care, particularly residential care, can receive considerable benefits if the issue is tackled with imagination and skill.

Yet until recently only one-third of the Government's spending on combating drugs was on treatment, prevention and education. The other two-thirds was devoted to enforcing the drug laws. Since then, however, the Government have adopted a strategy to tackle drug misuse, which is backed up by extra resources for new treatment and support services for drug misusers, including measures to combat drugs in prison—mainly by treatment programmes—drug treatment and testing orders for the courts, education and prevention programmes and arrest referral schemes.

Past approaches to tackling illegal drugs, which have devoted the lion's share of resources to enforcement and wholly inadequate funding to treatment and prevention, have failed. Success in reducing drug-driven crime depends on continuing moves towards a more rational response in which prevention and treatment receive much greater priority than they have in the past. Residential care can play a key part in providing the stability and support, which can enable young people to persist with treatment to overcome their drug habits. It is vital that the proposed care standards enable that to happen. We should ensure that care standards put emphasis on a balanced, proportionate and effective response to the harms done by illegal drugs. It will do far more to reduce drug misuse than punitive approaches, which increasingly lack credibility with law enforcers, the general public and the drug addicts whom we are all trying to reform.

My Lords, I express my grateful thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, for initiating this short debate. My contribution will be very short indeed. The debate gives me the opportunity to speak as one of the patrons of the European Association for the Treatment of Addiction (UK). I am happy to see the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, who is similarly a patron. I express gratitude on behalf of the association to Ministers and officials for the way in which they have not only listened to the representations made by the association and others, but have acted on all the major points which have been put to them.

It is a pleasure—having listened to criticism of the Government in this Chamber for two days solidly last week and then for most of today's debate—to be able to say that in some very important areas the Government are listening closely and taking up the points which are being put to them.

Had the Government proceeded with the original well-intentioned proposals which they put out for consultation on core standards for residential homes, certain aspects would have had—as has been mentioned—a detrimental effect on the number of young adults gaining access to residential treatment for drug and alcohol problems. Happily, there has been a positive response. All the major changes, certainly those that my association were advocating to the original, were accepted by the Government. Again, I say many thanks.

While on my feet I want to take the opportunity to congratulate my noble friend Lady Massey of Darwen on her appointment as chair of the National Treatment Agency. I am sure that she will do an outstanding job. I am certain that the House would want to join me in wishing her well. There is much to be done, as my noble friend acknowledged earlier, not only in providing coherence and consistency—to pick up the point of the noble Lord, Lord Taverne—out of the chaos which, to a degree, seems to be emanating in the treatment of drugs following the establishment of the NTA.

There is much work also to be done, as the Minister knows—I raise the matter frequently with him—on the subject of alcohol. In many respects, we have even more criminality and even more people needing treatment in that field, notwithstanding the great difficulties we have with drugs.

I conclude with a sting in the tail, after all the "thank-yous" to the Minister, to press my points. When can we expect the Government to make similar provision on alcohol to that of the NTA and drugs? When can we expect to see whether the NTA's remit is to be extended to cover alcohol, so that we can start to achieve a more coherent and consistent approach to treatment on that front as well? I thank the Minister and officials for the work done in this area. We look forward to even more listening and action in future.

My Lords, I should like to have spoken on the important Unstarred Question of the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, at slightly greater length, but unfortunately I returned to the House only today so must content myself with the gap, for which I am sure that your Lordships will be extremely grateful.

I should start by declaring my interest as chairman of the Drug and Alcohol Foundation, of the Addiction Recovery Foundation, of the Mentor Foundation and one or two others. I have been involved in the field for some time and in debates about standards for many years. Had those standards arrived on the book, as it were, in their original form, it would have been completely disastrous for this small, underfunded and incredibly fragile sector.

We should see if there are lessons to be learnt: why did we go down that route and what could we learn for the future? First, we probably got on that track because officials who were drafting the proposals, with the best will in the world, did not understand the difference between short-term residential rehabilitation and the needs of caring for the elderly and disabled young people who are in facilities for much longer. It must be said that most politicians do not understand the differences and requirements of that incredibly important but tiny sector.

The second reason is that the consultation process on the standards was not carried out correctly. I do not mean that anyone was cheating, but it is another example in which officials did not really know who to consult and how to consult them. That is partly their fault but partly ours: it means that we are not talking to government properly; equally, it means that government are not talking to us properly. The line of communication is clearly wrong and we must do something about that.

I find it slightly ironic that the department should be talking to us about standards. My experience is that the quality of care in most voluntary care facilities in this country is infinitely higher than ever it has been in the state sector. The state sector holds us back. I should like the state sector to get out of drug treatment altogether. It is expensive and not well provided for.

We have learned from the process and the standards that we have now arrived at that the system works. We have ended up with the right standards at the end of the day. That is good, but it is a pretty tortuous route down which to go. The Government will deny this, but I do not mind criticising them for it because I criticised my own party when in government much harder and will continue to criticise any government until they get it right, but drug treatment is the forgotten sector. Politicians and government do not like it. It is forgotten and tiny. I have been involved in drug treatment for 15 years now, and the sector has grown by a maximum of 10 or 15 per cent—perhaps a little more, but it is tiny. It has certainly not grown at the rate that the problem has.

That may change with the new National Treatment Agency. I am sure that it will. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen, on taking on the chair of that incredibly important organisation for which we in the sector—those of us who are providers—have great hopes. We look forward to working with it. I listened carefully to what the noble Baroness said and will read it again in Hansard tomorrow with great care. The only solution to the drug problem is healthcare. Drugs are a health problem, and we cannot cure health problems using the criminal justice system. We must use healthcare. After reading today's and yesterday's papers, I never again want to hear anyone claim that drug use is a consequence of social deprivation. Anyone who thinks that should read today's newspapers.

I suspect that the Question tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, is a hangover from before Christmas, when we were more concerned than we are today. We are happier now. We are immensely grateful to the Government for having taken on board our concerns. It was worth all the hard work. The standards will be immensely helpful, as will anything that improves standards.

It is clear to me that it is to the Minister that our gratitude should be directed. I am certain that it was his intervention in the issue, when he recognised that something had gone awry, that helped to put things right. That is when the problem was solved. It is rare to find a Minister who is prepared to go out on a limb like that, and the House and everyone in the sector are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, for doing so.

My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the gap. What the previous speaker said about the Minister rings absolutely true to me, although I do not know the details of the matter.

I shall draw the House's attention to a conversation that I had this afternoon with Professor Sonia Jackson, who has spent many years studying the education of children in care. She drew my attention to the pedagogy system used on the Continent. Children who are troubled are looked after by pedagogues who have a degree-level qualification in their area of expertise and one or two years of specialist training. In this country, 80 per cent of our residential care workers are without any educational qualification whatsoever. The Government are making inroads into that situation, and I appreciate that. I hope that that will continue.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Taverne for introducing the debate. There is a great deal of support in all parts of the House for much of what the Government are doing, and they are to be congratulated on that.

Important caveats have, however, been raised. The Government are right to move towards treating drug addicts as patients who need help, rather than criminals who need punishment. Other crimes committed in order to support a drug habit may require some sort of sanction, but it is unreasonable and ineffective to criminalise the addiction itself. When a drug-dependent person is an involuntary guest of Her Majesty, it is often a good time to interest him or her in the idea that a drug habit can be conquered. That is why my noble friend Lord Dholakia is right to say that it is important to have good drug treatment centres in prisons.

It may seem contradictory, but the two key words in the debate are "flexibility", to which the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, referred, and "consistency", to which the noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen, referred. While urging the Government to operate to the highest possible standards in its care for people with a drug dependency, noble Lords have stressed the importance of being responsive to the needs of the people concerned. The system must have built-in flexibility. The size of rooms and sensible lifestyle rules are important, but much more important are the human beings with whom people in drug clinics interact. They need their knowledge, experience and commitment and the interaction of the clinics with other relevant agencies.

We must have the same standard of care for all our citizens who need it. It must be equally accessible in all parts of the country. Currently, it is not, and that is one of the problems with the system. As my noble friend said, there are multiple routes to referral. Some are through local authorities or health authorities, who have little or no budget for drug treatment, which means that it depends on where a drug addict lives whether he or she will get the necessary help. What do the Government propose to do to tackle the problem of so-called postcode drug treatment?

I recently chaired a policy working party of my political party reviewing our policies on drugs. In the course of that work we heard from many experts across the whole spectrum of opinion. However, two issues clearly came out of our evidence sessions. First, none of the statistics is reliable. No one really knows how bad the problems of addiction to serious drugs is in this country, except that it is much worse than it is in most other European countries.

The prohibitionist strategy pursued over the past 30 years since the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 cannot be shown to have enjoyed much success in terms of reducing the supplies or use of illegal drugs. Indeed, one of the most disturbing aspects of existing policy in this field is that there has never been any rigorous official assessment of its effectiveness. After such a long period, it inevitably gives rise to the suspicion that the policy is driven by dogma and/or inertia rather than an intellectually or politically honest appraisal of the issues. The need for more research work is obvious.

According to both the Economist and the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Abuse, the UK has some of the highest levels of drug use and misuse in Europe. The number of hard-drug addicts has increased from about 1,000 30 years ago to 270,000. Who knows if the figures are to be believed? The problem has grown enormously but the resources have not grown to match, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft.

However, changes of scale are probably true. For example, from 1995 to 1999 the number of deaths attributed to heroin or morphine use in England and Wales rose by 110 per cent. That is just over a four-year period. There is also information about trends. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, is right; drug abusers are getting younger. The average age of heroin users is declining in the UK—it is currently 26 years—while it is rising in other European countries such as the Netherlands where it is 39 years. The authorities there are talking about opening up drug rehabilitation centres for the elderly very soon. The greatest increase in hard-drug use in recent years in the UK is among the under-21s.

The amount of crime associated with drug use is mind-boggling and has been referred to by a number of noble Lords. It is estimated that in 1998 alone drug-related property crime accounted for stolen goods of more than £2 billion in value.

The picture is of a situation completely out of control. It is clear therefore that if we can reduce addiction we can reduce crime. Clearly it is vital to get the approach to drug treatment right and more treatment services need to be available.

The second issue which emerged from our evidence-taking from representatives of the drug charities to whom we listened was the fact that drug treatment works only when the addict wants it to and that one needs to treat the whole person, not just the addiction—preferably in a residential and mutually supportive environment such as those described by my noble friend Lord Taverne and affected by the care standards.

Serious drug dependency is usually a symptom of a life that is lacking in something. It fills a gap. In fact, it fills a person's whole life from when he gets up and goes to find the wherewithal to get his first fix to when he seeks the refuge of sleep. Drug addicts are not lazy, disorganised people. It needs a lot of effort and organisation to feed a habit. The addict's whole life is often dedicated to it.

So-called "problem" drug users—that is, those who are addicted to hard drugs who are at most risk of damaging their health and who are most likely to become involved in crime—generally experience a range of social and personal problems, but not always. They include, for example, unemployment, poor housing and dysfunctional family relationships. Programmes to help such people break out of their drug dependence have to tackle all those problems holistically. Even if a user comes off a drug for a time, if the underlying problems he faces in his life, and above all the pervasive sense of hopelessness and having nothing positive to live for, are not tackled, he is likely to fall back into drug abuse.

If therefore one just takes away the drugs, one has to fill the life with something better. That is why the quality of staff at treatment centres is even more important than the quality of the facilities. It is vital that bureaucracy and dedication to detail does not get in the way of creativity and experimentation with ways of putting together programmes and support systems based on best practice and knowledge of what works.

One of the areas in which the Government's drugs policy is failing is that of drugs education. Not every young person has the opportunity afforded to one high-profile young experimenter highlighted in yesterday's Sunday papers of seeing for himself what drug abuse can lead to. Many young people do not listen to much drug education because they can see that the law is inconsistent and illogical. As the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, pointed out, dangerous drugs like alcohol and tobacco are legal and cannabis is not. But that is a debate for another time.

Another of the ways in which the system fails at present is the lack of facilities to prescribe, supply and administer drugs safely under the control of medically qualified people. The majority of deaths of hard-drug users, apart from those which result from needles that carry infection, result from overdoses caused by the variable quality of contaminated drugs. Yet a very small number of GPs are licensed to prescribe heroin. Heroin can be very useful as an alternative to methadone for maintaining an addict while other aspects of their problems are tackled. Can the Minister tell us whether there are any plans to extend the small pilot schemes for heroin treatment centres which I gather are already under way in some parts of the country? Will he also tell us what results have emerged at this early stage about the effectiveness of drug testing and treatment orders?

Finally, perhaps I may join with my noble friend Lord Dholakia in urging the Minister to think long term. As with bed blocking in the NHS, a patient costing the NHS £1,000 a week could be looked after in a care home for £400 if beds were available. Penny pinching on drug treatment services is short-term wisdom but long-term folly. The human cost to the lives of addicts and their families and the cost in peace of mind to those who are burgled and mugged to support someone's habit and the financial cost to the country of policing and health services vastly outweigh the cost of a concerted drug education and treatment programme. From these Benches, we say this to the Government. Keep up the good work. But we need to see even more courageous and visionary policies and the resources to implement them.

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, demonstrated how well qualified he is to bring this important Question to the Floor of the House. He spoke with a great deal of wisdom and authority. I have no doubt that the Minister will wish to pay close attention to all that he said. The same applies to no less an extent to the speeches of other noble Lords, not least of my noble friend Lord Mancroft. His commitment to the cause of drug prevention, education and the treatment of drugs misuse has been unstinting over many years. It is with considerable relief, therefore, that we anticipate that the Minister's answer to the Question on the Order Paper will be "yes".

While the Minister is to be thanked unreservedly for and congratulated on listening to representations made to him on this issue, many noble Lords are worried that in seeking to lay down care standards largely designed for long-term residential establishments the fundamentally different requirements of drug and alcohol treatment centres would be overlooked. The truth is that in the standards as drafted last year those requirements were overlooked. Had the draft proposals not been challenged from a number of quarters in forthright terms, it is probable that the Government's wider, over-arching drugs strategy might have been seriously derailed. What that says about joined-up government does not bear close scrutiny. What it says about the initial consultation process, as my noble friend Lord Mancroft pointed out, is equally concerning. I agree with my noble friend that the objections to the draft standards that were voiced by drug and alcohol treatment organisations across the country were not some form of spurious special pleading founded on worries about the financial viability of the sector. They were root and branch objections about the catastrophic effect that the proposed standards would have on the Government's fight against illegal drug use and all that goes with it. To illustrate that, I should like to say a little about the strategy itself.

Since they were first elected, the Government have quite rightly devoted a great deal of time and effort to the problems of illicit drug use. The 10-year drugs strategy, published in April 1998, and the national plan that followed it, focused on several key areas: stifling the supply of drugs; reducing the prevalence of drug taking; and protecting communities from drug-related antisocial behaviour. But the strategy also laid emphasis on enabling people with drug problems to overcome them. One of the main planks for achieving that was a system of well-directed support services, including supervised treatment for addicts.

The target the Government set for themselves was both ambitious and laudable; namely, to increase the number of drug misusers in treatment by two-thirds over the four years to 2005. The rising prevalence of drug misuse over the past 20 to 30 years is worrying not only for the deaths and ill-health to which drug taking leads—bad as those are—but, as has been pointed out by many speakers, also for the devastating social consequences. There is no doubt whatever of the link between drug taking and crime.

Research carried out at the NHS Scottish Centre for Infection and Environmental Health estimated that those who inject drugs, primarily heroin, need £324 a week to buy their supplies. Four out of five people questioned in the survey said that they had committed crimes during the previous six months. Half of the addicts said that nearly all their drug spending money was illegally obtained. The overall average sum acquired through crime each year was £11,000 per individual. The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, quoted even higher figures than that.

Drug treatment must be a key ingredient in the fight against illegal drug use. Drug treatment and testing orders, introduced under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, require the offender, if he consents, to undergo treatment for his drug problems as part of his community sentence. The 2001 annual report by the anti-drugs co-ordinator stated that DTTOs had had a significant effect in reducing illegal drug consumption and related offending. Rehabilitation has been shown to work, as was rightly pointed out by the noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen—I should like to add my congratulations on her recent appointment. The national treatment outcome research study showed around a 70 per cent reduction in the number of specific offences among those willing to be treated.

No wonder that the Government's drug strategy set itself such an ambitious target for increasing the numbers of drug misusers receiving treatment. But the strange thing about the Government's drugs strategy, which started on such an extremely promising footing, is the mixed messages from Ministers that periodically cut across it. The draft residential standards are but one example. Another example is the apparent abandonment of specific targets relating to the use of heroin and cocaine by young people. That target has now been replaced by a much more general one which no longer speaks of percentage reductions or specific drugs. It refers merely to reducing Class A drug use among under 25 year-olds. Last October, the Daily Mail reported that Ministers are quietly planning to ditch even that amended target. If that is true, I should be grateful if the Minister could confirm it and say what is likely to replace it.

It is a sad fact, from the statistics most recently published, that the use of Class A drugs by young people, especially cocaine and heroin, shows no signs of decreasing. The consumption of cocaine among the young has risen fivefold since 1998. The most that can be said is that, as some young people take up cocaine, they may he turning away from drugs such as ecstasy, LSD and amphetamines. Against that background, how strange it was last autumn to find Ministers proposing the reclassification of cannabis under the terms of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 from Class B to Class C.

The Home Secretary justified that proposal, in part, by saying that it would make sense to those responsible for policing the system and those providing education and advice to prevent young people falling into addiction. The aim of having a sensible and effective policy to reduce drug dependency is laudable. The trouble is that the Home Secretary has not produced any evidence to back up his statement that a change of policy will achieve a reduction in dependency. I am not saying that he is necessarily misguided, but where is the evidence? There is a distinct impression of policy being made on the hoof.

I say that because only the day before the Home Secretary made this announcement in October, the Home Office Minister, Mr Bob Ainsworth, answered a question from the Select Committee in another place about the reclassification of cannabis, to the effect that the present UK policy was not so different from those of other European countries. Bizarrely, the Government proceeded to change their policy even before the Select Committee had reported.

The danger in reclassifying cannabis is that it sends out a message of tolerance—that somehow smoking cannabis is not so very bad. In America, it has been found that when young people think that drugs are harmless, as they increasingly do, drug use increases dramatically. Already in the UK the prevalence of cannabis use is the second highest in the EU, and it is rising.

It is perfectly true that many cannabis users do not go on to use harder drugs, but a number of studies have found links between cannabis taking and heroin. One reason for that is that using cannabis puts young people into contact with those who are users and sellers of drugs, increasing the risk that they will be exposed to, and urged to try, more drugs. The drug czar, Keith Hellawell, has stated in terms that cannabis is a gateway drug. That is why he has been quoted as saying, when a more gentle line on cannabis has been hinted at by the Home Office, that,

"One of the problems I have is that people and parents who worry are not sure what the strategy is".

That is the trouble that the Government tend to get into when they set out a co-ordinated long-term strategy and then deviate from it. All the more reason, therefore, why the welcome, last minute retreat on residential care standards should be carried forward into sensible implementation at local level and adhered to over the long term.

I hope that there will be appropriate guidance and training for inspectors and providers. The need for residential treatment centres is greater now than it has ever been. But the Minister must remember, as my noble friends rightly said, that this is a small sector and its budgets rest constantly on a knife edge. I look forward to the Minister telling us that he understands the need to maintain the confidence of that sector, and, indeed, to see its capacity increase, by sending out clear and consistent messages from all quarters of government.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, for raising this important subject and for instituting an interesting debate. I acknowledge his contribution, and the contributions of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, in coming to meet my colleague, the right honourable Mrs Jacqui Smith, and I to discuss the issue of the care home regulations and national minimum standards. I can testify to their eloquence and strength of argument. I hope, as they have said, that they feel the Government listened to the points they put across.

The debate has ranged rather wider than matters relating to the Registered Homes Act, and rightly so. I have taken the points made by the noble Lords, Lord Taverne and Lord Dholakia, when they pointed out the relationship between drugs and crime, and their acknowledgement that government policy has sought to address those issues.

A number of important matters have been raised. I should say to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, that I agree that it is important to ensure that there is a co-ordination of treatment referral. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, who said that we need a consistent approach across the country. I believe that the drugs strategy to which a number of noble Lords referred offers a way forward in relation to consistency of approach and effectiveness of action.

We can point to a number of achievements thus far. For example, the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, referred to the issue of education. The figures show that 93 per cent of secondary schools and 75 per cent of primary schools now have drug education policies in place. That is a substantial increase over the past two to three years, although I accept that we can never be complacent about the role of schools in ensuring that an effective drug education policy is in place.

I was also most interested in the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, about the arrest referral schemes. We are now on track to have schemes that will cover all custody suites in all police forces in England and Wales. I was encouraged by the noble Lord's remarks about the impact that they are having by encouraging problem drug users who are arrested to take up appropriate treatment or other effective programmes of help. It is worth pointing out that there has been a steady increase in drug misusers attending treatment services over the past few years. As far as concerns the national roll-out of drug treatment and testing orders, I can tell the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, that we are committed in this respect following successful completion of the three pilot schemes in Liverpool, Croydon and Gloucestershire.

I turn now to the targets in relation to the drug strategy. I should point out to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that there is a Home Office/Department of Health review in that respect, which is specifically looking at the feasibility of measurement. As regards the point he made about a change in target, I can tell noble Lords that one of the problems is centred around the exact measurement that is used. The issue at hand is that we do not have a baseline against which to measure the target improvements. However, as I said, the matter is now under review.

The noble Lord, Lord Taverne, referred specifically to drug treatment services in prisons. Again, I was very glad to hear his positive comments. Despite the many challenges, it is worth acknowledging that we are starting to see improvements, and not just in relation to drug treatment services. We know that over 23,000 prisoners are currently embraced within intensive treatment programmes supported by voluntary drug testing units. That is assisting prisoners to tackle their drug problems away from an environment that may pressurise them to take drugs. Efforts made in relation to drug treatment services are consistent with a general improvement in health standards and in healthcare within prisons. I also acknowledge the work of the Joint Task Force, incorporating the Home Office and my department, which will ensure that that happens. There is a long way to go, but I believe that the development of health improvement programmes for prison healthcare services in partnership with local NHS services is an important step forward.

Noble Lords have congratulated my noble friend Lady Massey on her appointment as chair of the national treatment agency. This has great potential for the future as regards dealing with some of the issues that have been raised, especially as regards the quality of treatment services, the need for consistency, tackling some of the issues around waiting times for those who require treatment services, and the workforce issues to which a number of noble Lords referred. There is no doubt that there is a significant shortage of professionals available to work in this sector. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, that the task expected of staff working in those circumstances is considerable—all the more so when one considers the lack of available trained professionals.

The Government are anxious to improve the situation. Additional funding has been made available for an ambitious programme of work increasing the number of practitioners dealing with drug misusers. Importantly, by March 2002 the national treatment agency will determine and launch its workforce strategy to encourage professionals to work in the crucial field of drug treatment. Once those standards have been agreed, they will be supported through a programme of training for which the NTA will assume lead responsibility on the appointment of a workforce planning manager.

The NTA will also work with other professional bodies to ensure that substance misuse issues are adequately covered in the basic training and professional development of related professional groups such as doctors, nurses, social workers and probation officers.

Understandably, part of our focus in this debate is on residential treatment centres. They are but one of a range of services to meet the needs of drug misusers as they try to overcome their dependence. However, as my noble friend Lady Massey pointed out, the national treatment outcome research study demonstrated not just the value of a number of treatments in general but specifically the value of residential treatment in reducing drug use and the consequential benefits of improved mental and physical health for the client and reductions in criminal behaviour. I wish to make it absolutely clear that the Government believe that residential treatment has an important role to play. It is one which we believe will be enhanced, rather than diminished, by the introduction of national minimum standards.

The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, asked specifically about the number of rehabilitation places available within residential care. My understanding is that there are approximately 3,100 residential rehabilitation places within the current drug treatment services. Of course, there will always be a debate about whether there are sufficient places. It is a matter which I have no doubt the NTA in particular will wish to take forward over the next year or so.

My Lords, how many of those places are for children? If the Minister visits a young offenders institution, as I do, he will see many 15 and 16 year-olds. They would be much better in a young persons' residential setting with drug and alcohol rehabilitation. The problem with alcohol is probably just as bad, if not worse, particularly among girls.

My Lords, I do not have specific information on the number of places for young people, although I shall certainly follow that up with the noble Baroness. The concern in this debate has been about whether the national minimum standards will cause real problems for the organisations that provide those places. It is important to remember that at the heart of the Care Homes Act and the national minimum standards is a desire to ensure good quality provision. It is within that context that I pick up the issues raised by the noble Baroness.

The noble Lord, Lord Taverne, thinks that this country is over-regulated and extremely bureaucratic. I am responsible for what is described as better regulation within the Department of Health. I must make two points to the noble Lord. First, although he has expressed concerns about over-regulation, the parliamentary process usually leads to governments being called upon to regulate almost every sector of life in this country. It is very rare that noble Lords ask me to relax regulation. One has to recognise the context in which regulation takes place. The overwhelming pressure on the Government is to regulate.

The interesting point about care homes is that much of the original pressure to pull together the regulation from local authorities into a national system came from the care sector because of concerns about inconsistency throughout the country. I well remember meeting proprietors who had a number of homes in different parts of the country and who were finding it very difficult to relate to individual local authorities, which were inconsistent in their demands.

In general terms, there has been broad support for a national system of regulation but it needs to be proportionate, sensitive and practical. The purpose of the consultation process has been to try to ensure that the standards eventually agreed to were practical and that the care sector as a whole would be able to implement them. I accept that the modifications for the homes that the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, was particularly concerned about took place at a late stage, but at all times during the process of developing regulations and national minimum standards we have attempted to listen carefully to views within the sector to ensure that the standards eventually agreed to were capable of realisation.

I do not need to go into the details set out in those standards. It is clear from the comments made by noble Lords that they and those in the care sector accept that the main points raised have now been dealt with.

However, I ought to deal with one or two other issues, which are apposite to the practicality of the implementation of the standards. I shall focus in particular on funding. I understand the concerns on that subject. In general, we have assured, particularly in the recent announcement, that social services authorities as a whole will receive extra funding. I hope that some of that will be made available to the providers of care homes and that within that care homes that deal with drug and alcohol misuse will receive their fair share.

We have encouraged the development of an agreement, which was announced last autumn, between the Government, independent care providers and local authorities to ensure that there is a common understanding as to how funding is to be provided in the future and the principles on which that funding should be provided. I strongly endorse the hope that local authorities will enter into tailor-made contracts that take account of specific local circumstances and ensure that there is a consistent approach and that care homes are fully aware of the likely funding stream that will come to them over a sufficiently lengthy period.

On the more general issue of care home viability, the Government have commissioned the University of Kent to conduct a review of information on t he supply side of the industry in terms of costs, fees, profitability and number of closures. We hope to publish that fairly shortly. I am sure that it will be very useful in informing the sector and the Government on the more general funding issues and the viability of the sector as a whole. That applies as much to voluntary organisations as it does to profit-making organisations in the sector.

Various noble Lords, but particularly my noble friend Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, mentioned the work of the European Association for the Treatment of Addiction. I very much pay tribute to its work and its assiduity in expressing concerns about the draft regulations. My noble friend Lord Brooke also asked me about alcohol. We are committed to producing a national strategy to tackle alcohol misuse, and we shall be implementing that strategy by 2004. The strategy's aim will be to influence drinking behaviour by improving understanding of the harmful impact of alcohol misuse. We shall be promoting early interventions for those who are experiencing alcohol problems, and we shall also address the issue of more intensive treatment for those who need it.

This has been a short but extremely interesting debate, and I very much welcome the constructive comments of all noble Lords. I believe that the Government's strategy on drug misuse is beginning to pay dividends. I particularly commend the work within our Prison Service.

I believe that, with the more sensitive approach that we have taken on residential care standards for homes that play such an enormously helpful role in relation to people suffering from drug problems, this is a consistent and effective package. However, we cannot be complacent about the issue; we have to redouble our efforts. We also have to ensure that resources are available. Nevertheless, I believe that this debate has been very encouraging and suggests that we are on the right lines.