My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In so doing, I declare an interest as an unpaid president of the British Association for Biofuels and Oils and as a farmer.

My Lords, the Government recognise that biofuels have potential for UK agriculture and can deliver environmental benefits. The green fuel challenge was an initiative designed to stimulate industry to come forward with practical proposals for alternative fuels. Following the challenge a new, reduced rate of duty for biodiesel was announced.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that reply, but would she perhaps agree with the premise that the polluter should pay? If one could have a slight increase on the likes of LPG, that could balance a reduction on the rate at which biofuels are taxed.

My Lords, I have to say that the noble Lord may not have uniform support throughout the country for increasing tax on other forms of fuel, if recent public expressions of concern on that subject are taken into account. As we explained in the "Powering Future Vehicles" strategy, we will continue to keep transport taxation under review and look at the taxation policy avenues that are available to incentivise the further use and development of both low-carbon vehicles and fuels.

The Chancellor sets rates of duty Budget by Budget and has to take into account a wide range of economic, social and environmental factors. We are committed to looking at avenues to promote the use and development of low-carbon vehicles and fuels.

My Lords, following that slightly disappointing and perhaps slightly feeble Answer from the noble Baroness the Minister—

Oh!

My Lords, that is quite uncharacteristic of the noble Baroness.

Is it not a scandal that £184 million a year is being wasted by paying farmers to leave their land fallow in the form of set-aside when that land could be used for growing crops that could be used for biodiesel or bioethanol, which would help to meet our reduction of carbon requirements and probably slightly reduce the cost of fuel?

My Lords, I am, as always, deeply sorry if I have been feeble in the eyes of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. As he knows, feebleness is not something that I normally seek to achieve. We have very strong policies in terms of encouraging the development of biomass and biodiesel crops. As part of an overall strategy, we take into account the benefits of the fuel's production and its effect on greenhouse gases. However, government must balance that against other interests in terms of other forms of renewable energy development.

My Lords, does the noble Baroness recollect that the Government rejected the recommendation of the Select Committee on Science and Technology to establish within government a champion for non-food crops in order to take forward this whole area and that instead they proposed a forum? Does she also recollect that at that time the Government fully accepted that there was great potential for industrial and other products from non-food crops, including from set-aside land? One has to ask why it has not happened. Why have the hopes expressed by the Government two years ago in their reply to the Select Committee not yet produced anything?

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, knows that the Government have developed a wide range of different strategies within this area and that they take advice from a wide range of sources. His argument that the Government are doing little can be resisted because of the wide range of issues that the Government have taken into account.

At present, we are in the middle of producing an energy White Paper, which will be published early next year, in order to consider further strategies. However, perhaps I may simply refer to the current ongoing programmes. Energy efficiency best-practice schemes are in progress, as is energy labelling of domestic appliances. A bio-energy infrastructure scheme is being set up with £3 million of funding from the £100 million allocation announced by the Prime Minister last year. I am sorry if the noble Lord feels that that is inadequate, as he visibly does. However, I believe that the range of strategies, including the development of combined heat and power projects, is in line with some of the recommendations of the Select Committee to which he referred.

My Lords, is the problem that the Government are still concerned with the reports produced some years ago and that they favour biomass in the form of coppice, which takes at least six or seven years to mature? Taking into account the present state of agriculture, it is very hard for a farmer to consider an investment which will not pay off for six or seven years, compared with the possible advantage of biodiesel or bioethanol, which come from annual crops.

My Lords, my noble friend is right that there is scope within these fields. However, I can say in response to the three noble Lords who spoke before my noble friend that the new and renewable energy research and development programme, worth £55.5 million, is an enhanced R&D programme and stimulates development over a wide range of areas. My noble friend is wrong to believe that we are concentrating on one particular area of development. On off-shore wind development, £74 million has been spent; on energy crops and biomass, £81.5 million; on photovoltaics, £20 million; on wave and tidal energy, £5 million; and on biomass heat, £3 million. In addition, a range of projects, including a highly developed package, comes from sources such as the Performance and Innovation Unit, the New Opportunities Fund, DEFRA and the DTI working together.

My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that in Germany 500 million gallons of such fuel were burned last year and that the Germans expect to burn 750 million gallons this year? In view of the fact that such fuel reduces by between 80 and 90 per cent the carcinogenic content of exhaust emissions, should it not be given some fiscal advantage so that it is used more generally?

My Lords, we obviously recognise the need for fiscal advantage. That is precisely why the differential rate of fuel duty was levied by this Government.

My Lords—

My Lords, I think we must move on now.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, I fully understand the fears that events of this type could be used to spread racial hatred if allowed to do so. I believe, however, that the current legislation on public order and incitement to racial hatred has so far proved sufficient to deal with the problems posed by gatherings of this kind. We would, of course, be willing to reconsider this judgment in the light of any emerging evidence that suggested that the powers were inadequate. The powers contained in the Public Order Act 1986 will be kept under constant review.

My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for that Answer. However, is it not totally inconsistent, unreasonable and unacceptable that the authorities have and use the power to ban marches and processions when they have good reason to expect breaches of the peace but have no such power to ban rallies and assemblies? For example, at the Al Muhajarun rally in Trafalgar Square on 25th August the police expected trouble. The authorities banned the march, but they did not ban the rally because they were unable to do so. There was trouble because the Nazis and the fascists turned out and there was violence, as expected. In those circumstances, will my noble and learned friend reconsider the law to see whether the authorities should have the power to ban rallies and assemblies as they have the power to ban processions and marches?

My Lords, my noble friend is right in his summary of the law. The police have power to apply to a local authority to ban a procession, but they do not have such a power to apply to ban a rally, although they can apply to the local authority to impose conditions on a rally. The law is as it is because in the 1980s the Government took the view that while some rallies are more difficult to police, and therefore are more likely to bring trouble, problems do not arise to the same extent in relation to static rallies.

We take the view that one should intervene with civil liberties as little as possible. In relation to the events in August in Trafalgar Square to which my noble friend referred, a local by-law was used to ban it. The Metropolitan Police did not make an application, as they could have, to impose conditions on the rally; yes, there was a right-wing counter demonstration; there was some disorder; but it was not considered sufficient to justify even an application for conditions.

Although, as I have said, we shall keep the situation under review, we consider that the correct approach is to balance the intrusion against civil liberties with what is necessary for public protection.

My Lords, I recognise the legitimate concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Janner, but docs the Minister appreciate that many are concerned that our law on public order can already be used to prevent people exercising their right of free speech in a public place? They were amazed when, for example, a man voicing his views about homosexuality was prosecuted rather than those abusing him and throwing missiles at him.

My Lords, I am not sure to what incident the noble Lord refers. As I made clear in my Answer, we regard the right way to approach such matters as being to intrude on civil liberties as little as possible. That is the approach that we currently take in relation to the powers of the police to apply to ban rallies. We do not believe that that is necessary or appropriate. I shall write to the noble Lord about the particular incident to which he has referred. I am sorry that I do not know the detail of it.

My Lords, in further considering this matter, and with deep respect to my noble friend, will the Government bear in mind that the police already have more than enough to do, are undermanned in many parts of the country, and that their time should not be taken up in giving protection to small gangs of people who are behaving in an anti-racial way or stimulating disorder?

My Lords, the obligation of the police is to ensure that public order is preserved. That is a very important role of the police. I am happy to tell noble Lords that there are more policemen in this country than ever before, indeed since records began in 1921.

My Lords, I support what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Janner. Does the Minister accept that the recent demonstration by the fundamentalists and the right-wing extremists was obnoxious? Does he further accept that at present the police have powers simply to react to situations rather than to ban marches proactively? Therefore, would such a move require a change in the law?

My Lords, I entirely agree with the condemnation of bodies whose aim is to provoke racial hatred, but for the reasons that I gave at the outset, I do not believe that there is any evidence to suggest that it is necessary to give the police power to apply to a local authority for a ban in relation to a rally. I believe that we should move to that stage only if there is evidence that it is necessary to preserve public order. Although I have indicated that the matter is kept under constant review, at the current time I do not believe that there is a basis for saying that that is the right course.

My Lords, does my noble and learned friend have any plans to issue further guidance to police in localities such as east Lancashire where neo-fascist organisations are often provocative in saying what they will do? The police, with the local authorities, have a difficult time working out what powers they have. The previous question referred to the police being proactive rather than reactive. Are any guidance notes being reissued to help with the situation?

My Lords, I am well aware of the issue to which my noble friend refers; namely, the extent to which racist groups can provoke difficulties, particularly in the east Lancashire area. In that respect one of the most important points is that the local authority and the police stay closely in touch with each other and have a joint approach to dealing with the issue. I do not know the position on specific guidance so perhaps I can write to my noble friend on that point.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, the original model for the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) was based on a call-centre, telephone-based and online application route, with capacity to deal with individual paper applications. That arrangement was expected to be convenient for applicants and would reduce errors. It was also in line with the Government's e-government objectives. However, during extensive consultation with registered bodies and employers from January to June 2001, there was strong pressure from them to introduce a full-scale paper-based application. Consequently, in May 2001, the CRB agreed to introduce more extensive capacity to deal with paper-based applications. That was negotiated with a contractor between May and October 2001.

My Lords, in thanking the Minister for that response, I ask him to explain why the Home Office and the Criminal Records Bureau accepted the ICT system from Capita designed to deal with most applications by phone before asking its known customers how they wanted them dealt with, which turned out to be by paper. After similar failures in IT contracts signed off by the Home Office, the Prison Service, the Passport Agency and the Immigration Service, to name but a few, should there not be an immediate review of procurement practice to ensure that systems are fit for the purpose before the start button is pressed and the results of such a review published?

My Lords, in regard to the focus on a call-centre, telephone-based approach, both the contractor and the CRB thought that was appropriate, but before they went live there was detailed consultation with the clients of what was to become the CRB. That took place between January and June 2001, which was approximately nine months before the process went live. It was sensible to hold that consultation before it went live. It led to the discussions between the contractor and the CRB during the period that I indicated in my original Answer and the change that was then introduced in relation to the system of dealing with applications.

On the problems about ICT contracts generally, yes, my noble friend is absolutely right. In both public sector ICT contracts and private sector ICT contracts, there are frequently great difficulties in making them work at an early stage. In organisations such as the Government, but also in the private sector, we have a huge amount to learn about how they are best introduced. We have an Office of Government Commerce and a series of NAO reports looking at that kind of issue. We have a huge number of lessons to learn. But please do not be under the illusion that this relates only to the public sector. Anyone in this House who has been engaged in the introduction of major ICT contracts in the private sector may well have experience of similar problems.

My Lords, the importance of such disclosures is not questioned; it is the process. Are the Government aware of the chaos that has resulted in the appointment of teachers, clergy and all kinds of voluntary workers such as youth leaders and Sunday school teachers—and the anxiety that it causes, not just to the people concerned but to the communities around them? We need to have some action to make the process speedier.

My Lords, I am fully aware of the particular problems referred to by the right reverend Prelate. The aim of introducing the CRB was that there should be reliable vetting of people who work with children and vulnerable people. I do not think that anyone in the House would disagree with that outcome. The process of introducing that has been problematic, particularly in relation to the ICT. It has been running since March, but it is not running properly at the moment. A great deal of effort is being put in to make it right, in particular, by bringing in three outside independent people to look at the system and to make sure that it is being done in the best possible way to reach the conclusion that I know the right reverend Prelate wants. Please bear with us in relation to that. Do not be unrealistic about how long these things take to get right. We all know the aim that we want. Please bear with us to get to the aim that we are after.

My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord explain to the House the relevance of a question that applicants have to answer about personal details of their bank and building society accounts, which includes the sort code, account numbers and the personal confidential word that they have to use in order to secure information from their bank accounts? What is the relevance of all of that to securing information about a background of paedophilia and safety to work with children and adults? Can the noble and learned Lord also say whether much of the processing still takes place in Delhi, India?

My Lords, as to the first question, a very important aspect of what is done is that people are appropriately identified before any checks are made, so that the right person is identified.

As to the second question, the process involves material being sent to India. In India the details of paper forms are entered into the information system. That is done extremely quickly and effectively so that the system can then help in the process of identification.

My Lords, the noble and learned Lord said that we should not be unrealistic about the time it will take to put matters right. Could he be realistic and tell us how long he expects it to take, because while this is going on, it is causing enormous problems, not only to schools but to hospitals, doctors' practices and so on?

My Lords, as regards the time it will take, the three independent people appointed to look at the particular issue are doing so now. I do not want to create any false expectations, but I shall keep the House informed as to their views.

My Lords, is it not about time that the Government started to get things right the first time, not only in this case, but as regards A-levels and everything else that they have got wrong, ending up with disaster and huge expense to the public purse?

My Lords, I believe that everyone in the House will agree that we are seeking to achieve a right and identifiable outcome. The noble Baroness will be aware that a number of contracts were entered into by the government of whom she was a member, including the one for the benefits card which had to be scrapped. I think that one should be realistic rather than political in relation to these matters.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, we are increasing the number of dermatologists. At March 2002, there were 387 consultants in dermatology, an increase of 24 per cent since 1997. GPs are expected to keep their professional skills up to date and to keep abreast of developments in areas such as dermatology. The appointment of GPs with special interest in dermatology has considerable potential in that area.

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that a large proportion of the public—one-third—suffers from one form or another of skin disease, whether it is cancer, psoriasis, alopecia or one of a number of things, yet it is increasingly difficult to get proper medical advice from the NHS? Does he recognise that there are some 96 vacant consultant dermatology posts in NHS hospitals and that whatever he has said about GPs, the truth is that many of them have had no training at all in the treatment of skin disease? What does he intend to do about it?

My Lords, the noble Baroness is right to suggest that this is a big issue for many patients. My understanding is that skin conditions account for 15 to 20 per cent of all GP consultations. I have explained that there has been more than a 20 per cent increase in the number of consultants since the Government came into office.

I disagree with the noble Baroness in relation to general practitioners. The fact is that the new scheme designating some GPs as having a special interest in dermatology and other clinical conditions is an excellent way of using the skills of GPs in this area and will enable more people to be treated within primary care. If one adds that to increases in the number of specialist registrars and the use of nurse-led clinics, I am confident that we shall be able to meet some of these pressures.

My Lords, the Government's recognition of the need for a major expansion in the consultant establishment is very welcome. But does the Minister accept that what applies to dermatology applies to practically all specialties in medicine. There is a great shortage of consultants across all these specialties. Is the Minister satisfied that sufficient specialist registrars are in training to fill the new consultant vacancies as they arise?

Well, my Lords, we are determined to expand the number of specialist registrars and consultants. We have seen a large increase in the number of consultants. In 1997 we had just over 21,000 consultants in the National Health Service. The number has now risen to 26,350. Of course it takes time to train consultants; it takes many years. That is why we have engaged in a major programme of international recruitment. I accept that the key issue facing the National Health Service is capacity. Our ability to attract more doctors and more nurses and to build more facilities is crucial. But I am confident that we are on the right lines and that we will deliver the NHS Plan.

My Lords, the noble Baroness referred to skin cancer. Its incidence has risen twofold over the past decade. Public awareness of sun protection is extremely important. No doubt the Minister will be aware of the abolition of the sun protection awareness campaign along with the Health Education Authority. The Minister will be aware that there is a proposal in the department for the reinstatement of that campaign. Can he say whether or not it will be reinstated by the department?

My Lords, these are matters which of course are always being considered. I agree that encouraging the public to take proper precautions should always be part of a public health programme. Much can be done locally. We would also expect that as primary care trusts take forward their public health programmes, this is an issue they would consider for local health promotion campaigns.

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that dermatology is a speciality in which telemedicine can be both cheaply and effectively employed to provide speedier diagnosis for patients and support for GPs and others in primary care? Given some of the problems that have been described, will he undertake to ensure that the potential of this technology for assisting in those problems is fully explored by the department?

My Lords, I am keen for telemedicine to be developed in the health service. It: enables us to create networks of care that cross the boundaries between primary, secondary and tertiary care. We have a number of actions on pilots in dermatology that are helping to reorganise and reform services. Telemedicine is certainly one of the factors being considered in some of those pilot programmes.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that simple cuts and abrasions may turn into long-lasting ulcers, especially in the case of elderly people, and that the health service should be prepared for an increase in such skin disorders in an ageing population?

My Lords, the noble Lord is right to suggest that we need carefully to consider trends in particular illnesses to ensure that the National Health Service can meet the demands that will be placed on it. Another action that the Government have taken has been to refer the whole issue of skin disease to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence to produce clinical guidelines for the National Health Service for the next few years. That will help the NHS to ensure that we have proper services at local level.

My Lords, perhaps I may declare an interest as a member of the All-Party Group on Skin. Does the Minister agree that more training at graduate and postgraduate level should encourage more doctors into dermatology? Does he further agree that in rural areas such as north Wales there is a tremendous lack of dermatologists?

My Lords, the latter point reinforces the question raised by my noble friend Lady Hayman about the potential of telemedicine. The use of nurse-led clinics may also be one way to deal with some problems in rural areas. On training, it is tempting to say that medical students' training should be considerably extended to cover many different conditions. In view of the number of consultations that the public bring to general practitioners' surgeries, medical schools should certainly be encouraged to consider the curriculum to decide whether more should be devoted to dermatology. However, the creation of more GPs with a special interest in dermatology is a significant way to deal with the issue.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Before calling Amendment No. 192, I should inform the Committee that, were it to be agreed to, I should not be able to call Amendments Nos. 193 or 194 because of pre-emption.

moved Amendment No. 192:

I follow my noble friend, who has clearly expressed his view on the amendment. The amendments grouped with it reinforce our concern about those words in the Bill. Members of the Committee may remember that when we considered the Bill many months ago, I cast it as the "Animal Death Bill", and the two lines to which my noble friend strongly objects underline the Government's thinking. That is a tremendous shame, because during the summer, as we reflected yesterday, the European Parliament's working group has recommended that vaccination to live should be the first choice option. But as we recommence consideration of the Bill today, that option is not for us to consider; we must consider what is before us, by which I am as appalled as is my noble friend.

While supporting my noble friend so strongly, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 194, 195, 201, 202, 204 and 205—I hope that I am correct about the grouping. Turning to Amendment No. 194, the Minister has the option of deciding whether or not the circumstances are right for an animal to be slaughtered. The object of the amendment is to give a terminal date to that power, so that the owner of the animal does not have perpetually hanging over him the possibility that the Minister may finally decide to slaughter.

Amendment No. 195 addresses the fact that the clause is too widely drafted and tends to give legal justification to all kinds of actions. During the most recent outbreak of foot and mouth disease, we all saw on the television and will remember with horror the chasing of cattle with motorbikes and rifles. Our modification of the clause might not make such action immediately illegal, but would sweep away the chance that a clever lawyer might be able to justify such action under the clause as drafted.

No doubt the Minister will assure us that the department would always act reasonably and in an appropriate manner, but I suggest to the Committee that that did not happen during the 2001 outbreak, and it is the same department to which we are supposed to give even greater, open-ended powers. The amendment would add the requirement to act in a "reasonable" way to the powers under the clause.

There are two issues relating to Amendment No. 201. First, there is the general objection to the Minister empowering himself to pay compensation for an act that he has ordered. Secondly, the Government can take powers to vaccinate animals upon the satisfaction of certain conditions. Then, the Government can decree that all animals—or all animals of a certain type—that have been vaccinated shall be slaughtered. There is no way in which that second action can be laid at the door of the farmer. Moreover, biosecurity is irrelevant, so how can the farmer be penalised?

I understand that, under article 1 of protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the state may deprive a person of his possessions in the public interest only if its actions are provided for by law and are proportionate. I query the validity of the entire section. The report of the European Parliament's working group puts forward a vaccination to live policy. If that proposal is adopted, where would it leave the new section? Our amendment is supported strongly by the National Farmers Union.

Amendment No. 202 outlines the most fair form of compensation. Although it should not happen, the vaccination of an animal against foot and mouth disease may cause a fall in its market value. For example, a cow may be valued at £700 before it is vaccinated but, once vaccinated, be worth only £400. The Minister may decide later to slaughter the animal, forcing the owner to forgo the possibility that the animal's market value may have recovered.

I turn to Amendment No. 204. We wait to see what legislation the Government propose to bring in to secure full implementation of the new EU directives and of the findings of the inquiries, particularly the Royal Society inquiry. We have had the reports, but we have not received a response from the Government. I understand from the Government that that will not appear before the end of this month and that our wait may go on into next month. By that time, the Bill will have left the House. In the absence of new government legislation, we do not want to see the Government exercise such powers without referring to Parliament.

Amendment No. 205, which is our last amendment in the group, presupposes either that the Government have accepted the amendment to subsection (1) or that they have accepted that compensation should be at market value. Certainly, if the Minister decides to pay less than market value and empowers himself to do that, his action should be subject automatically to parliamentary scrutiny.

I speak to Amendments Nos. 197, 198 and 199 and also to Amendment No. 205, which we tabled jointly with the Official Opposition. With the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, we are discussing the slaughter of vaccinated animals. We agree with the noble Lord's amendment, and I will not comment further on it, as the noble Lord has made clear the case for it.

Amendment No. 197 would strengthen subsection (3)(b) to read:

"which is otherwise reasonably required in connection with the slaughter".

That test must be put in place to allow the vets and inspectors who are making the decisions to stop and think precisely about what they are doing. They should think, "Is it reasonable to slaughter this animal in these circumstances?"

Subsection (4) of new Section 16A says that the Government must pay,

"compensation of such an amount as may be prescribed by order of the Minister".

We want 100 per cent compensation, and, in that respect, the effect of Amendments Nos. 198 and 199 is similar to Amendments Nos. 201 and 202, tabled by the Conservative Front Bench. Amendment No. 201 stipulates that compensation should be,

"the value of the animal immediately before it was slaughtered".

Amendment No. 202 says that compensation should be,

"the market value of the animal before it was vaccinated".

One way or another, the compensation must be 100 per cent, if the slaughter is ordered by government officers. Amendment No. 199 would enact that provision.

We have added our names to Amendment No. 205, tabled by the Conservatives. It refers to enforcement, an issue that has been covered by speakers on the Conservative Front Bench.

We are dealing with the issue of the slaughter of vaccinated animals. I hope that, before the Bill completes its passage through the House, the Minister will update us on progress towards the conditions necessary to make possible emergency vaccination as an alternative to extensive culling, in line with the Royal Society report. I attach great importance to that report, which signposts the way to the handling of any future outbreak by proposing the culling of infected animals or dangerous contacts, along with the use of vaccination-to-live as an appropriate alternative to extensive culling.

The Minister will recall that the report indicated that there were some issues to be solved—validation of marker vaccines, tests to distinguish between vaccinated and vaccinated-infected animals—and concluded that,

"With significant effort by DEFRA, this should be possible by the end of 2003".

We are now being asked to legislate, but we would like to be assured that we are making progress towards what is set out in the report or, if we are not, that we intend to make such progress. The issues go together. It is likely that there will be a change in policy in the next few years, and we must move forward along that line, if we are to support what is in the Bill.

Throughout the passage of the Bill—earlier this year and yesterday—I have been bewildered by the attitude of the Opposition and of some other noble Lords. For example, there were some unusually intemperate remarks from the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, who spoke about what the Government were saying. It is not the Government who are saying it; it is the Anderson and Follett reports. The Anderson report says:

"The animal health legislative framework should be robust, unambiguous and fit for purpose. This was not the case during the 2001 epidemic".

That supports the central proposition that the extra powers that the Government are now taking in the Bill are required. They were required even before the reports. The Government introduced the Bill knowing that we needed extra powers. The central proposition advanced in the Bill—that the powers are required—was borne out by Anderson and Follett.

I have one simple question. As a result of a decision of the House, with which I disagreed, we had to wait for the reports. Are noble Lords now saying that we should ignore them? They have already supported the central proposition that the Bill is required. Silly remarks about the "Animal Death Bill" do not help.

I object to the noble Lord's inference: the Bill is about the killing of animals.

It is about slaughter; the noble Baroness is correct. That is blindingly obvious. The Bill was drafted because the Government realised during the 2001 epidemic that extra powers were needed. It was held up because this House said that we should wait to see the two reports before proceeding. We waited. The reports supported the Bill's central proposition that the extra powers were required. The Government have reacted to the recommendations in the reports and are tabling some detailed amendments on Report to deal with them.

Should we now ignore those reports and, as was suggested yesterday, drop the Bill, even though the extra powers are required? If—God forbid—there were a further outbreak of foot and mouth disease we would need emergency legislation within 24 hours to give the Government the powers in the Bill.

I turn to vaccination. I said yesterday that unless I am misreading the Bill, the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, is wrong about vaccination. She said that the Bill is about slaughter, which it is. It is also about vaccination. Clause 4, which is headed, "Slaughter of vaccinated animals", states:

"(1) This section applies to any animal which has been treated with vaccine for the purpose of preventing the spread of foot-and-mouth disease or such other disease as the Minister may by order specify".

That means vaccination can be used either as a pre-emptive strike to protect the animals or as a prophylactic for a whole herd or whatever.

The crucial subsection is (2), which states:

"(2) The Minister may cause to be slaughtered any animal to which this section applies".

If it said "shall cause", that would be vaccination to kill, but the Minister "may cause to be slaughtered"; that is, he has a choice. That therefore provides the option of vaccination to live. However well intentioned, the noble Baroness does not understand the Bill. It already contains a provision for vaccination to live.

This House has to make up its mind. If it wants to kill the Bill and take responsibility for doing so, it should do so, but it should not criticise the Government continually for producing a Bill specifying extra powers recommended by two independent inquiries. The Government will be amending the Bill to take further account of the recommendations in the reports. That is the proper and responsible way for the Government to behave. To do otherwise, as some Members are suggesting, would be extremely irresponsible.

I am not at all bewildered. I suspect that the likelihood of the Government accepting the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, to insert "reasonably", is non-existent. But they are happy to make sure that it is immaterial as to whether the animals are diseased or anything else. They can go around shooting what they like. They are offended when I say that, but that is what the Bill says.

This is typical of the Government, who ride roughshod over our liberties. That is seen in the Bill. It has also been suggested that the Government made a Horlicks—if that is a parliamentary term—of the foot and mouth outbreak because they did not have the right powers. That was not the reason. They made a Horlicks because they did not ban movement for five days; because they did not call in the Army quickly enough; and because of their administration in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—at that time the Queen had not changed its name—which kept alive the animals awaiting slaughter. That was nothing to do with a lack of power. It was administrative incompetence, not reading the Northumberland report and general shambolic misbehaviour.

For the Government to say, "We now need powers that we may use unreasonably if we wish"—

It is not the Government who are saying so; it is the Anderson report:

"The animal health legislative framework should be robust, unambiguous, and fit for purpose. This was not the case during the 2001 epidemic".

is the Government's Bill, not Anderson's Bill.

I do not see Dr Anderson on the Front Bench. I see Ministers of the Crown on the Front Bench, introducing a Bill full of tyrannical and unreasonable ways of behaving. It is the same Government who would like to try to remove rights to trial by jury and who are contemplating the abolition of the double jeopardy rule. They are also contemplating various other illiberal alterations to our criminal justice system. They say that the Government know best and they can do what they like without let or hindrance, immaterial and unreasonable though that may be.

The Government should think again about the Bill. I think that everyone accepts the need for a new Bill. We accept that the Anderson report must be taken into account in legislation, but on this side we are not bewildered. We happen to believe—at least, I do—that liberties of the subject are extremely important and should not be overridden by an arrogant executive.

At the risk of incurring the wrath of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, and even the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, perhaps I may say that I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Carter, is saying. I suspect that the problem is that the language of this part of the Bill dates back to a previous era before we were taking the prospect of vaccination to live into account. Clearly, in some cases there may be good reason for a Minister to call for the slaughter of an animal that has been vaccinated.

I suggest to the Minister that it would be helpful if on Report Clause 4(2) could be expanded to read:

"The Minister may cause to be slaughtered any animal to which this section applies, if good reason can be shown why the animal should not go into the food chain".

If we are trying to improve the Bill, we want to introduce the assumption that vaccination will normally be vaccination to live. There still has to be the possibility of vaccination for slaughter, but we want to change the emphasis and the tone of the Bill, as I said yesterday.

I support Amendment No. 202. It is the only just form of compensation as matters stand. The present likelihood is that if an animal is vaccinated its value would be reduced. I hope that we will reach the point where its value is enhanced. That may come to be the case, but it is not at the moment. I strongly support Amendment No. 202 rather than Amendment No. 201, because it safeguards adequate levels of compensation at this stage. The problem is that circumstances are changing as we go through the Bill, which is taking a long time. I hope that the Minister will understand what I am trying to say about vaccinated animals being slaughtered. We need to explain why in exceptional circumstances it may still be necessary to slaughter a vaccinated animal.

I forgot to make a point about compensation for vaccination. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, made a good point about 100 per cent compensation. She should remember that she supported a government who for BSE paid only 50 per cent of the animal's value because it was worthless as it had the disease. Eventually they had to change that to 100 per cent, because the 50 per cent policy almost certainly led to the spread of the disease. But I leave that matter on one side.

When my noble friend responds, I hope she will make it clear that the value that will be placed on the animal will be the 100 per cent value of the unvaccinated animal.

I would like to speak briefly in support of the amendment and to make some more equivocal remarks than the rather polarised remarks that we have been hearing. I am broadly sympathetic to the Bill's aims, which respond to a need to make clearer the powers that one has if one wishes to enter farms. For understandable reasons the Bill has been overtaken by events; by subsequent excellent and insightful reports and probably by actions in the EU.

We are debating only a part of a larger picture. I am in favour of the amendment because I should like the word "reasonable" to appear wherever possible, and more. I much appreciate the letters that have been put around by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and the sensible things that have been promised in regard to addressing some of the unanswered questions, but I wish the powers over what is euphemistically called "preventive slaughter" to be similarly spelled out for "vaccination to live".

In particular, I support the recommendations of the Royal Society report—with which I am considerably familiar, understandably—that contingency plans should be brought before Parliament for debate and approval. The Government should bring before Parliament a framework for the contingency plans which covers the principles that will be involved in handling outbreaks of such diseases in future and which looks across the broad spectrum, rather than the understandable but, by virtue of its history, imbalanced Bill that is before us. Hence my approval of "reasonable".

The noble Lord, Lord Carter, is being unfair in his criticism of the Opposition in regard to this extremely disappointing Bill. He does not seem to realise that we are in favour of good legislation and that we are trying to make this Bill better. It is a bad Bill. We are trying to make it better and to translate the reports, which are so significant, into legislation. That does not mean to say that the Government have got it right each time they have translated the reports into legislation. Under his Amendment No. 192, my noble friend Lord Peyton criticises the draconian powers contained in Clause 4, and we have every right to ask whether it is necessary to have such strong wording in the Bill.

The noble Lord, Lord Carter, should take his mind back to the time of the foot and mouth epidemic and remember how we on this side of the House, week in and week out, were calling on the Government to use the powers they had to get on and make decisions, and not to drag the matter out much longer than in fact turned out to be necessary. He should remember how local authorities and the Army wanted to act, and yet were prevented by the Government from getting on with stamping out the epidemic as quickly possible.

So it is quite wrong for the noble Lord, Lord Carter, to indicate that we are not entirely in support of measures required to stamp out foot and mouth should it ever—one hopes not—recur. It is sometimes right for the Opposition to criticise the language in the Bill—for example, the draconian wording that we are trying to remove under Amendment No. 192. It is notable that there is no appeal against the procedure contained in those two lines, unlike in other clauses of the Bill where at least officials have to go to a justice of the peace for approval to enter a farm.

My noble friend Lady Byford is right to raise again the issue of compensation and market value. She has explained carefully to the Committee, both yesterday and today, that, once a beast is vaccinated, at the present time it suffers a serious drop in value. We are trying to make the Government understand that. Until the food chain has accepted that vaccination is quite safe and that there is no worry at all to the consumer, there is bound to be a significant drop.

In any event, I wish we could get away from the word "compensation". The issue relative to a farmer is the loss of market value. As I have explained, I lost my sheep flock last year under the contiguous cull, and in one day I saw 45 years of bringing up a sheep flock of reasonable quality fly out of the window. One gets no compensation for the value of the herd or the flock that day, or for the next four or five years that the ewes would have been in production; one gets no compensation for loss of profit over the years. One gets only the market value on the day the stock is slaughtered. We should put into the Bill "market value" rather than "compensation", because that is where the true impact lies.

I support my noble friend Lord Onslow in his criticism of the Government in regard to the Bill. We want to see a much better Bill and we have every right to indicate, through the many amendments that we have tabled, how we think the Bill can be improved. I am very disappointed with the progress we have made in improving a Bill which is most disappointing for the farming community and, directly, for the public at large.

One accepts—or I do at any rate—that when Ministers come to this House and say that they require an additional power which they may have to use in the event of a future outbreak, we should listen to what they say and give them that power. But I should say to my noble friend Lord Carter that criticism of the way the Bill is currently drafted does not come solely from the Opposition; it comes from some of us on his own Benches who have paid close attention to the progress of the Bill.

In urging that legislation should be robust, unambiguous and fit for the purpose, Dr Anderson did not specify legislation which should be blanket and unfettered by reason. All we are asking is that the Bill be drafted in such a way that any future Minister who comes to exercise these powers is bound to pause and ask himself what is the basis of the use of that power. As presently drafted, the Bill is blanket, unfettered and, potentially, in the hands of a Minister—and we do not know who it may be at some stage in the future—capable of being misused.

The criticism is not unreasonable. It should not disappoint my noble friend Lord Carter, who is, as we all know, a very fair man. It is something that noble Lords on all sides of the Committee should want to see incorporated into the Bill now.

I totally support everything the noble Baroness said. I would have said the same but I could not have said it as well.

My noble friend Lord Peyton was totally right to bring this clause as it stands to the attention of the Committee because we cannot seek Royal Assent for the Bill in this form. That would be a monstrous imposition. The Committee will be indebted to my noble friend Lord Peyton for having raised this point.

I agree with the contribution of the right reverend Prelate. This clause has to be qualified. I, at least, would wish it to be qualified with the words "subject to the provisions of this Act". That would qualify the powers of entry provisions with which I propose to deal later on.

Perhaps I may ask for clarification in relation to Clause 4, which deals with proposed new Section 16A and the slaughter of vaccinated animals. There is a large difference between those animals which go into the food chain for meat and those animals which are used for breeding purposes. In the definition contained in the clause, there is no clarification of the difference between breeding stock and animals going for meat. I believe that there should be. If the breeding stock is vaccinated, why should there be a drop in value? I do not understand it. If vaccination works, why should there be a risk of animals being slaughtered?

We saw in the last outbreak the real problem of people querying the value of valuable breeding stock. They simply did not understand. The problem is that many people do not understand what goes into the breeding of the good, valuable stock that is part of our heritage. I should like to see a definition in the Bill to distinguish between animals used for breeding and animals used for meat.

Perhaps it would help if I set the amendments in context. The Government's foot and mouth disease control strategy is to eradicate FMD quickly. Nevertheless, one of the objectives of any disease control strategy is also to minimise the number of animals slaughtered consistent with eradication and control of the disease.

Use of emergency vaccination in future outbreaks will be a key option as part of the disease control strategy. As the Secretary of State's Statement to another place on the FMD inquiries made clear, the Government would ideally use a vaccinate to live strategy if emergency vaccination were used. Future scientific advances may allow vaccination a larger role but it could still be used only in conjunction with slaughter, movement restrictions and biosecurity.

The Government have not yet formally responded to the inquiry reports but the Secretary of State's Statement to another place on 22nd July included the following:

"Another key issue that has drawn much comment is the contentious issue of vaccination, on which both inquiries made recommendations. We can immediately accept two specific recommendations: that, as in 2001, we should ensure that the option of vaccination forms part of any future strategy for the control of FMD; and that any emergency vaccination policy should in future be not 'vaccinate to kill' but, ideally, 'vaccinate to live"".—[Official Report, Commons, 22/7/02; col. 672].

The Lessons to be Learned Inquiry and the Royal Society report recommend that future outbreaks of FMD should be dealt with primarily by "stamping out"', but that emergency vaccination should be an important adjunct to this primary strategy. And the Royal Society report recommends that a vaccination policy should be on a "vaccinate to live" basis. However, we should not wish to rule out the use of a "vaccinate to slaughter" policy as there may be situations when that is appropriate.

Any development or change to UK policy on FMD vaccination has to take place within the framework of European regulations and agreed international disease control and trading standards. As noble Lords taking part in debate on the Bill are fully aware, vaccination is a complex issue. Any steps to use it would require full consideration of all the implications for the disease, the handling and control of vaccinated animals and products, and wider implications for the EU's FMD-free without vaccination status. Use of foot and mouth vaccines is prohibited unless specifically authorised by a European Commission decision following confirmation of the disease. I hope that that helps to set some of this in context.

In the general context, the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, raised the issue of human rights and EU law. The powers in the Bill are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. Clause 4 compensation will be payable for animals slaughtered in accordance with the convention rights. A further issue was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, to which I shall come shortly.

The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, raised a point about the report and about Dr Anderson not being on the Front Bench today. That is self-evident. It is for the Government to place before Parliament recommendations which flow from the Anderson report, and that is what we are seeking to do in the Bill.

The noble Baroness has been converted to my point of view. That is exactly what I was saying: it is a government Bill. That is all I was saying. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, was saying that it was an Anderson Bill. The sinner in heaven repenteth—lovely!

I should be in danger of getting totally lost in these matters. We have had a large number of references to Pen-y-ghent and Pen-y-fan. Following the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, can occasionally lead those on the Government Front Bench into a blind alley.

There is a further important general point. There were cases where delay in action was partly due to the absence of certain powers which are now set out in the Bill. The question was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton—as it was by the noble Lord, Lord Monro—of whether the Government needed more powers to be able to act quickly. I can assure the noble Lord on that point and shall write to him on the detail.

Turning to specific amendments, Amendment No. 192 would remove the power to slaughter vaccinated animals. This power is necessary for the conduct of a vaccination campaign, whether vaccinate to live or vaccinate to slaughter. Where vaccinated animals are subsequently shown by distinguishing tests to have been infected with the virus, they will need to be slaughtered. Such a policy is in keeping with the recommendations of the Royal Society report, as I hope the noble Lord, Lord May, will accept. I am delighted that he has joined us on this issue.

The noble Baroness made an important point. She said that an animal which has been vaccinated and which has been subsequently shown to have had the disease has to be killed. Am I right or wrong? Without meaning to be rude to the noble Baroness, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord May, will be able to answer the point better than either she or I can. Presumably the animal is cured of the disease and is now immune, if it has had it, and therefore cannot pass it on. Is that the case? I am a seeker after information.

I used the term "have" in relation to the disease, not "have had". If an animal is shown to have the disease, or, I believe, to be a carrier of the disease—I shall write to the noble Earl if I am wrong—

It may be helpful if I intervene. If the infection is acquired at around the same time as the vaccination, that can happen. If I may lapse into pedagogic mode, that is partly why we do not vaccinate small children against measles too soon: the vaccine will not take, as they are protected against the disease by maternal antibodies, which are fading. It is quite a complex matter and there is a window in which that can happen.

I see that the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, is grateful. However, I assure him that he is not as grateful as I am for the noble Lord's intervention.

Therefore, for those reasons, it is essential that we are able to retain the option of slaughtering vaccinated animals, but any decision on the slaughter of vaccinates would be made in the light of consultation with interested parties. The exit strategy of the vaccination campaign would depend on why we were vaccinating—for example, to prevent the disease from spreading—and would also take into account a cost-benefit analysis of the different strategies.

These provisions in the Bill fill a gap in the existing legislation and make no presumption about the time at which slaughter of vaccinates would, if at all, be necessary. I therefore hope that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, will not press his Amendment No. 192. Should he require further information after Committee stage, I shall be delighted to provide it.

Amendment No. 194 would unnecessarily restrict the Minister's ability to slaughter vaccinates. The three-month cut-off point is arbitrary to a degree. It is difficult to be certain. The provisions make no presumption about the time at which slaughter of vaccinates would, if at all, be necessary.

There may be situations in which vaccinates may need to be slaughtered over three months after vaccination. For example, we could find that animals are infected beyond that period and need to be slaughtered as part of a problem of the associated herds and flocks.

Therefore, we would be in difficulty. However, we recognise the underlying point as regards accepting an absolute limit.

Amendment No. 195 would require any action taken under the powers in this section relating to the slaughter of vaccinated animals to be reasonable. My noble friend Lady Mallalieu, the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, and others, made that point. We strongly support the principle on which the amendment is based. All our actions should be reasonable, and I hope that I can reassure noble Lords that we would always act reasonably. Indeed, Ministers have a public obligation to do so in the exercise of their duties. However, noble Lords may unwittingly be suggesting an amendment that could limit that obligation. In addition to acting reasonably, Ministers also have a public law obligation to act proportionately. If for the purposes of this legislation we were to restrict the term to "reasonable" and not include "proportionate" it could limit Ministers' obligations. I assure noble Lords that there is a legal requirement to be both reasonable and proportionate.

Amendment No. 196 would have little real effect. "Otherwise" adds clarity in this context, and it separates subsections 3(a) and 3(b), making both parts complementary and comprehensive. If "otherwise" is removed, there would be an overlap between Section 16A(3)(a) and Section 16A(3)(b), rather than the linkage of the two distinct activities.

Action may be required to enable an animal to be slaughtered and it could include entering premises, rounding up animals, verifying their identity and completing paperwork. Action that is otherwise required in connection with slaughter could include the removal of animals or carcasses from premises, and their disposal. Those lists are not exhaustive. The wording of the Bill is consistent with provisions in the 1981 Act. For example, Section 16(2)(b) deals with permitted action for treatment after exposure to infection or,

"action which is otherwise required in connection with that treatment".

It would therefore be inappropriate to accept Amendment No. 196.

Amendment No. 197 would specify on the face of the Bill that any action taken in connection with the slaughter of vaccinated animals under the new powers would have to be reasonable. The tasks concerned could include bringing machinery on to the premises, identification, valuation or disposal. I hope that I have reassured the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford that Ministers are required and are under an obligation to act reasonably and proportionately at all times. I assure noble Lords that guidance to the field on action that can be taken in connection with the slaughter of vaccinates—such as identification, bringing machinery on to farms, valuation or disposal—will specify that such action must not stray beyond what is reasonable.

Amendment No. 198 would remove the provision requiring Ministers to pay compensation for slaughtered vaccinates of such an amount as to be prescribed by order. We recognise that setting compensation at market value would significantly increase the likelihood of any future vaccination programme achieving full uptake. On that principle, and without prejudice to any future compensation policy in respect of healthy animals, the Government have decided to specify on the face of the Bill that slaughtered FMD vaccinates will be compensated at their market value as if they had not been vaccinated. Amendment No. 198 is therefore unnecessary. I hope that noble Lords are satisfied with my reply.

In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, the power contained in the Bill is to slaughter to prevent the spread of disease regardless of the intended use of the animal. However, I feel that I have not given her as comprehensive an answer as she would have liked, so I will write to her as soon as possible.

Amendment No. 199 would specify that compensation for animals slaughtered under the powers in the Bill would be 100 per cent. Although the amendment does not specify what the 100 per cent relates to, I presume that it refers to the market value of the animal. As I have just said, the Government have decided to specify on the face of the Bill that slaughtered FMD vaccinates will be compensated at their market value as if they had not been vaccinated. In those circumstances, I hope that noble Lords will agree that Amendment No. 199 is not necessary.

Amendments Nos. 201 and 202 would specify that compensation for all compulsorily slaughtered animals would be 100 per cent of market value before slaughter or vaccination. I have already referred to that point and I hope therefore that those amendments will not be pressed.

Amendments Nos. 204 and 205 would convert the order-making power to specify what level of compensation should be paid for compulsorily slaughtered vaccinates from a negative resolution procedure to an affirmative one. The Government have decided to specify on the face of the Bill that slaughtered FMD vaccinates will be compensated at their market value as if they had not been vaccinated. I hope, therefore, that noble Lords will not feel it necessary to pursue these amendments.

I apologise for the length of time that I have taken to reply. I have sought to cover all the points made, and I would be grateful if any member whose point I have not covered would tell me now or later, and I will write to them as soon as possible.

I wish to make two points. First, it is clear from the contributions of the noble Lord, Lord May, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford, which relate in part to my Amendment No. 197, that the use, wherever possible, of the word "reasonably" would improve the language of the Bill. If the Government wish also to include the word "proportionate" it would make the Bill a friendlier piece of legislation. The Minister should not merely inform us that the requirement of reasonableness is implicit; it needs to be spelt out.

Secondly, the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, may want to comment on compensation. An important issue is the time of valuation, that is to say, whether it takes place just before vaccination, or at the beginning of the outbreak. This is a very important issue. We obviously welcome the fact that compensation at market value would be given, but it is important that the time at which valuation takes place is specified.

I have a question on which the Minister might wish to pray in aid the noble Lord, Lord May. She said that slaughter after the three-month limit might be slightly artificial. For how long does the vaccination last? If a disease is contracted, does it persist? I presume that those factors would affect the decision on whether a limit should be applied to slaughter policy.

I fear that the noble Lord, Lord May, indicated that he did not wish to speak again. Often, I have looked hopefully towards the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, but I received no response from him either. It would be wiser for me to write on the subject of how long vaccination lasts.

I shall write to the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, about the timing and the process of determining the value—of which the Government are committed to paying 100 per cent—and I shall send copies of the letter to other noble Lords.

I am always nervous about answering at the Dispatch Box on a question to do with legal advice on whether laws depend implicitly or explicitly on the use of particular words. I understand the point that the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, makes. If the legal advice is that it would not present any problems, I undertake to look at whether we could come back to "reasonable" and "proportionate", but if there is going to be a battle between the noble Lord and the lawyers, I fear, speaking from the Dispatch Box, that I may fall slightly towards the lawyers.

The noble Baroness has adopted a most accommodating bedside manner. She has been very unprovoking and has given us no reason to complain on that account. However, I fear that in the content of her speech she has said very little to ease my anxieties. Throughout her remarks she has given no sign of her awareness of the feelings that underlie the amendment and that have been provoked by the clause. The noble Baroness looks puzzled. If she wishes me to expand on that I shall gladly do so.

I fear that I gave the noble Lord the wrong impression. I understand the strength of feeling and I shall read carefully everything that has been said. I appreciate that some very strong views have been expressed.

That is some relief to me. I am obliged to the noble Baroness for her undertaking to read what has been said. I, too, shall read her speech with the utmost care to make sure that I have not missed some nugget that would cheer me up, but I fear that that is not the case. The noble Baroness started by saying that she was going to put the matter in context. To continue with my reference to her bedside manner, that was a good way of smoothing the sheets down so that the patient could be comfortable. However, it does not make me entirely at ease with what is left.

I, too, should like to put the matter in context. The noble Baroness has to accept that, even before the epidemic, the reputation of MAFF was not perfect. It did not enjoy a reputation of reliability, integrity and all the rest of it with the farming community. That was the start. The handling of the epidemic was far from immaculate. Even the Government have from time to time admitted that mistakes were made—and they certainly were.

Much has been made of the Anderson report, which called for a requirement that powers be clear and unambiguous. That does not mean that anything that is both clear and unambiguous is unobjectionable. There is no doubt that the clause is very clear and unambiguous, but that is not all that Anderson said. He did not say that anything that met the requirement of being clear and unambiguous would be all right by him—very far from it.

I remind the noble Baroness that the Bill and my amendment were drafted before the Anderson report was visible and long before the Royal Society report. The point that I wish to labour is that the feeling generated in the past is still there and very much alive. The subsection that I should like to delete says:

"The Minister may cause to be slaughtered any animal to which this section applies".

There is no mention of "reasonable". Putting the word in would not necessarily make the provision unclear or unambiguous. The Government and any authority wielding such powers must make some concession to the unease that is felt about somebody getting it wrong. No government, let alone this one, are in a position to say that Ministers never make mistakes. Most Ministers' careers are dotted with mistakes. A Minister coming clean and saying, "Yes, I am sorry, I made a mistake" is rather rare, although that does not mean that it does not happen.

I apologise for making one further point. I should like to be absolutely clear that the noble Baroness is not inhibited by any shortcomings of mine and fully realises the widespread depth of feeling about such provisions. I may have fallen short in my description of it. I hope that she will fully understand what she is really up against. Some gesture should be forthcoming from the Government at a later stage of the Bill.

I do not want to prolong my remarks, but I must apologise to the noble Baroness for the fact that in my zeal on my first amendment I omitted to mention Amendment No. 196, which is also in my name. Subsection (3)(b) contains the words,

"which is otherwise required in connection with the slaughter".

What is the value and meaning of "otherwise"? Is it a weasel word, or is it merely for decoration? If the latter, it could conveniently be omitted. If, on the other hand, it is a weasel word, perhaps the noble Baroness can explain its inward meaning.

I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, for not having made clear that I had spoken to Amendment No. 196, as it was grouped with the others, although the noble Lord did not speak to it. If, as I fear, he finds my answers slightly short of satisfactory, I shall of course write to him on the subject and try to sort it out.

I accept the strength of feeling in the Committee on the issue of reasonableness. That is why I told the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, that if I am able to have due regard to that and to respond to the feeling of the Committee I shall do so. I shall take that issue away. I hope that the Committee will accept that I am making that statement in good faith.

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 193:

moved Amendment No. 194:

I give that undertaking. I failed to deal with the point earlier not because the officials in the Box failed to supply an answer but because it arose while I was on my feet and I did not have time to consult. Had I known that the noble Baroness would return to the point, I would have consulted the Box while the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, was speaking. I shall of course take up the issue.

moved Amendment No. 199:

I give an undertaking to write to noble Lords who have shown an interest in the issue.

moved Amendment No. 200:

moved Amendment No. 203:

moved Amendment No. 206:

After Clause 4, insert the following new clause—

I support Amendment No. 206 and its proposal for a national contingency plan. In the interest of brevity, I should point out that many of these points were debated yesterday in relation to our Amendment No. 99 and Amendment No. 103A. In those debates Ministers told us that a national contingency plan was an integral part of their plans and would be outlined in due course. I support the amendment and trust that the Government will keep their word in relation to yesterday's assurances.

I, too, support the amendment. However, I ask the Minister whether it is not a European Union requirement for the British Government to have a contingency plan for foot and mouth disease that must be periodically revised and approved by the European Union? Was that not done with the July 2000 version? I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, whether the contingency plan applies to all animal diseases or only to foot and mouth disease, as does the current contingency plan?

I should first apologise for not being present for the beginning of the debate. As I indicated yesterday, the Government intend to table an amendment that is not dissimilar to Amendment No. 206. Although I should like to finalise this with my legal advisers, the intent of our amendment will be in line with the requirements of Amendment No. 206.

An interim foot and mouth contingency plan is currently available and will shortly be not so much finalised as continually updated. In answer to the noble Countess, Lady Mar, the foot and mouth contingency plan will serve as a template for the control of other diseases. In addition, however, specific contingency elements will be developed to deal with other diseases. That point would presumably be covered by Amendment No. 206, and it will certainly be covered by the amendment that we shall table.

In principle, therefore, I am at one with the noble Baroness, Lady Byford. With the leave of the House, I shall table an appropriate amendment on Report.

I thank the Minister for that clarification. The noble Countess, Lady Mar, was right to raise a point which I have specifically dealt with in my amendment. Under "National contingency plan", the amendment states that,

"In the 1981 Act the following section is inserted after section 36."

Designated as Section 36A, it states that,

"The Government shall prepare and regularly maintain, in consultation with interested public and private bodies, a national contingency plan for foot-and-mouth disease and other specified diseases, which shall be laid before Parliament."

I am satisfied with the Minister's reply and look forward to his tabling of the government amendment. I am also extremely grateful. Ministers have appreciated the weight of our argument and are moving forward on this occasion. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 207:

After Clause 4, insert the following new clause—

I add my weight to the question that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has raised. I believe that we all agree that we are in some difficulty as regards debating this Bill at this time. I too should be grateful if the Minister would clarify the Government's thinking on that aspect of the Bill and on the sunset clause that is proposed. I look forward with interest to hearing what the Minister has to say.

I pick up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. Presumably, as far as the Government are concerned, the deliberations of the Anderson and Follett reports are of a voluntary nature. They can interpret those reports as they wish and they can introduce legislation accordingly. However, I refer also to the deliberations of the European Parliament. As I understand the position, those recommendations will be compulsory and the Government will have to introduce legislation accordingly. Whichever way one looks at the matter one can assume only that further legislation will be needed to finish the business with regard to foot and mouth.

The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, asked a number of questions, not all of which I can answer. However, I shall try to put the matter in perspective. When the Bill first appeared—some time ago now—it was still, as I said yesterday, under the shadow of the disease. It was considered to be needed urgently in order to cover the situation should an outbreak recur. In the event, Members of this Chamber delayed the Bill until after the reports we are discussing had been received.

The comments I made at an earlier stage of the Bill, to which the noble Lord referred, were made without knowledge of the detailed recommendations of the reports. However, the reports endorse the central provisions of the Bill. The reports also cover some other aspects, either directly or implicitly, which are not in the Bill. There are a number of problems with animal health legislation, some of them alluded to yesterday, which the Government will have to take into account in developing our animal health strategy over the next few months. Until that strategy has been developed we shall not be clearer as to what type of additional legislation will be required and whether that legislation will be additional to the Bill—or the Act, as I hope it will become—or whether it will be consolidating legislation which will incorporate the Bill and other legislation. That decision has yet to be taken.

The clause we are discussing is clearly a sunset clause, and a fairly short-shrift sunset clause at that. It presumes that we shall have legislation on the statute book in the parliamentary Session after next. Given the history of animal health legislation and the difficulties that have arisen in that regard, it would be unwise of any government to commit themselves to such a sunset clause. As the main provisions of the Bill are endorsed by Anderson and the Royal Society, I do not wish to call it interim legislation. It may be incomplete legislation but I suspect that the long-term legislation will either keep the Bill in place or broadly incorporate its powers. Therefore, I do not believe that it is appropriate to include a sunset clause. I certainly do not believe that it is appropriate to include a short-term sunset clause, as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves.

Clearly, the position will have to be reviewed in the light of the development of the animal health strategy taking into account all the points made in the reports, our experience and, indeed, as the noble Earl indicated, the European developments which will emerge in a few months' time. As of now, I believe that the main provisions of the Bill will be fairly longstanding. However, as regards the exact nature of the subsequent legislation, I cannot give any clearer an answer than I have just attempted to provide. Therefore, I resist any attempt to insert a sunset clause into the Bill.

I am grateful to the Minister for giving an interesting clarification of his and the Government's thoughts, which has been useful. That was main purpose of the amendment.

In reply to the noble Earl, Lord Peel, I believe that the conclusions of the European Parliament's committee of inquiry, if that is what it is, will not be binding on anybody. It is simply a committee of inquiry, as I understand it, which is producing a report. If the result is future directives or legislation from the European Parliament or otherwise in Europe, that would be binding. The noble Lord, Lord Plumb, knows more about these things than I do and he agrees with me. He is nodding. I am grateful to the noble Lord.

It was an interesting clarification, but I am not sure that it was what many of us wished to hear. Nevertheless, on the basis of that clarification I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 209:

This is a formulation which we have used elsewhere in the Bill and therefore I defend its consistency. It alters the provisions of the 1981 Act. The effect of the amendment would be to revert to that Act which states that the officer may take with him any such other persons, if any, which he considers requisite. Apart from the arcane language, I believe that the matter is better expressed by what we have in this Bill, that the inspector may take with him or her such other persons as he thinks necessary to give him assistance as he thinks necessary. In other words, what is requisite or not is related to giving the inspector assistance and not necessarily to anybody for any other purpose which the inspector may feel inclined to bring along with him.

In effect it restricts what was previously the situation, but it does so in a very specific way. The noble Lord may say that it is a relatively minor change and why bother, but it is consistent with what we have said elsewhere in the Bill and I would rather leave it that way.

I thank the Minister for his response. As amended, the provision is slightly abrupt. I certainly welcome the clarification of what is meant. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 210:

I cannot oblige the noble Lord, Lord Peyton. The whole point of the new provision in the Bill is that we get swift decisions. The stipulation that there should be three justices of the peace rather than one will inevitably lead to delay in convening such a court in certain circumstances. It would go well beyond the normal case where one justice of the peace is sufficient in an application for a warrant in other circumstances. It would be unprecedented to apply that to these circumstances.

Having said that and having recognised the noble Lord's anxieties, we have tabled amendments which clarify the range of conditions on which a warrant may be granted. They should ensure that the powers are subject to a clear, transparent and rigorous test of reasonableness and that the overall balance, such as the public interest, is taken into account with the private interests and those of the farmer or stockholder. We are clarifying the issues which the justice of the peace will have to take into account. Adding two further JPs to a situation where one is trying to overcome the disease would slow down the process. It would therefore be contrary to what is intended by these changes in the procedure.

I believed that I was very reasonable in that I admitted that I was asking for a full choir. I realise that was being a little optimistic. I sensibly and modestly said that I would not insist on that. I hoped very much that the noble Lord would be moved by my accommodating attitude and do likewise. I am a little disappointed. Other people are likely to be affected by this procedure and they are not going to be represented. They will have no chance to object. I wonder whether it would not be wise for the noble Lord, for the sake of appearances, to look at this matter again. As I said, I am not asking for the full choir, but for somebody to be there to see that things are done as they should be. One justice of the peace is minimal.

Presumably, the degree of the noble Lord's "reasonableness", which I am always willing to acknowledge, is to move from requesting three justices of the peace to requiring just two JPs. Admittedly, that would make it slightly more likely that they could convene such proceedings, but it would still slow down the process. In all other warrant proceedings, one justice of the peace is sufficient. Therefore, because speed is of the essence in this particular case—and provided that the JP is required to observe "reasonableness" in the way that our amendment will provide for—I believe that one JP is sufficient in these circumstances. I regret that I cannot be as reasonable as the noble Lord suggests; indeed, even compromising at one-and-a-half would be beyond me.

In these very sad circumstances I beg leave at this stage to withdraw the amendment. I cannot make the usual observation that I shall, of course, read most carefully everything that the Minister said. The noble Lord said so little that it would not be worth reading.

moved Amendment No. 211:

I was going to say a few words in support of Amendment No. 212, which appears in the name of my noble friend Lady Byford, but, having listened to my noble friend Lord Campbell—I have every sympathy with the very persuasive argument that he put forward—I have to point out that if we supported Amendment No. 212, by which an occupier would be entitled to present sworn information in person or in writing to a justice of the peace, he or she would not be able to do so unless he or she had had access to that information beforehand. That is covered by the amendment of my noble friend. The two amendments, as I see them, are symbiotic.

I return to the letter of 25th September, which the Minister kindly sent to those of us who are interested in the Bill. He gave, or implied, certain assurances, some of which have clearly not materialised in the government amendments. For example—I have already referred to these two instances—there is no obligation, under the government amendments, on inspectors to serve copies of written evidence that is put before the magistrates to the occupiers. Secondly, occupiers have no right to put their case to the magistrate; that matter is covered by my noble friend's amendment.

Without wishing to put too fine a point on it, there is no doubting the fact that a great deal of friction has built up during the course of the foot and mouth crisis between the inspectors and the Government and the rural community and farmers. Suspicion prevails; some of it is justified and some of it is clearly not justified. However, that is the case.

I realise—the noble Lord, Lord Carter, was absolutely right to make this point—that the Bill's primary aim is to give the Government the necessary powers to carry out their responsibilities when dealing with a crisis such as the foot and mouth outbreak. Of course its contents should be based on lessons learnt and the recommendations that flow from the expert inquiries. However—I stress this point—it should also be seen as a chance to build bridges and to restore confidence between the farming community and the new department. MAFF has gone and we now have DEFRA. I see the Bill as a real opportunity to give rural communities confidence in DEFRA.

It is totally unreasonable to deny an occupier the opportunity of having access to the evidence that has been submitted to the magistrate. Such evidence will, in many cases, completely change the lifestyle of an individual; we have seen so many cases in which farmers have become totally distraught as a result of foot and mouth. A consequence that flows from that is that natural justice demands that the same occupier should have the chance to respond—that is suggested in the amendment of my noble friend Lady Byford—and therefore the opportunity to put his or her case to that magistrate.

I really do not believe that that is an unreasonable request. This is a perfect opportunity for the Government to demonstrate that they wish to work closely with rural communities. Both amendments are essential and would send the right message. I sincerely hope that the Minister will consider them very seriously.

The amendment and the following two groups of amendments are very important parts of the Committee's discussion. The amendments are about what happens when a decision is made, or when a potential decision is made, by magistrates to issue a warrant to a person acting on behalf of DEFRA to go on to a farm or land and slaughter or do other things to the livestock there. Slaughter is the most important issue—people are most concerned about it.

Although an improvement on what exists in the Bill and despite going some of the way to meet what is required, I do not believe that any of these amendments, including the government amendments which we shall discuss later, are adequate. I hope that we can return to the matter on Report.

As I understand it, the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, suggests that people should be given the information or sworn statement on which the magistrate makes the decision at the point when the warrant is exercised and people enter the land. That, it seems to me, is too late. The crucial issue is that addressed by the next group of amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford; that is, people should be entitled to make representations to the magistrate before the decision is made. I believe that that can occur without causing a huge delay in the whole process—a matter which clearly concerns the Minister.

However, in order for that to happen, surely the details of any other information provided to the magistrate should be made available to the owner of the livestock before, or when, he makes his own submissions. I believe that under the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, the information would be provided too late so far as concerns that process. I still believe that the information should—

I did it on purpose. I envisaged the emergency situation. Things have to move quickly in a national emergency. I may have been wrong but that is how I saw it. I believed that the minimum safeguard was that, if the information was made available then, one could say, "No, it's wrong. I'm going to seek emergence". But I quite agree—if one wants to play it the other way round, that is a matter for the Committee. But if one does that, one detracts from the emergency aspect.

I am grateful to the noble Lord. I was going on to say that, if it were impossible for the information to be provided at an earlier stage, then, as the noble Lord said, as the minimum requirement it should be absolutely necessary for it to be provided at the time the warrant was served. If people want to take further action, they must know on what basis a decision has been made. Without such a provision, I do not believe that the rules of natural justice are being applied.

I support what the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said. Of all the areas of the Bill which trouble me, this one troubles me most. I am perhaps trespassing into subsequent groups of amendments with which we are about to deal. However, whatever the method and at whatever stage it is done, it seems to me that some way must be found to provide that the farmer or owner of the animals who is on the receiving end of such an order at some stage has all the evidence that is placed before those who make the decision and that at some stage he is given an opportunity to be heard. Perhaps the stage at which that happens is not so important, although ideally it should happen at the earliest possible opportunity. I hope that, in considering this and later groups of amendments, there will come a point at which the Government can say that there are ways in which that can be achieved.

I believe that on the whole in this country we are governed by consent. That consent involves acceptance of the law. One of the big problems experienced during the recent outbreak of foot and mouth disease was that people were "jackbooting" their way on to people's premises and killing the animals without the consent of the owners.

Contrary to the belief of some noble Lords whom I have heard speaking in this House, most farmers do not regard their animals as goods to be exchanged for money. They build up affection for them. When one has had a herd of Friesian cattle, for example, for 30, 40 or 50 years, one knows every single animal in the herd, one knows all their personalities and one talks to them. To be told overnight that one's animals will all be killed is an extremely shocking experience. We know that that shock still runs through the farming communities where foot and mouth disease spread.

The Bill as currently drafted and, indeed, the new amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, do not necessarily invoke consent in the farming community. I ask the noble Lord to think very carefully about the amendments both in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, and in that of the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, before he rejects them outright.

I disagree with the fundamental proposition of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, that there is a distinction between emergency and other situations. In my view, if foot and mouth disease breaks out in this country, we have an emergency situation. It does not matter whether it involves 60 premises or one. We need to act quickly and we need to stamp it out quickly by whatever method—slaughter or vaccination—is considered appropriate. Therefore, I do not believe that that distinction applies.

The purpose of the procedure that we have adopted here is to speed up the process whereby, where there is conflict between the stockholder or farmer and the authorities, the authorities can apply to a justice of the peace. Clearly this is a conflict situation and, clearly, in such a situation there is not consent. That is why we must deal with it. In the vast majority of cases, reluctantly and with great trauma in many cases, farmers recognised that we needed to act quickly and therefore entry was granted. However, in a few cases, some of which threatened to hold up effective disease control, entry was not granted. That is a conflict situation.

However, speed is still of the essence. The provisions that I am tabling, first, require the authorities to inform the occupier what is required of him and the reasons for it and, secondly, if he refuses entry, then the justice of the peace must be convinced of the inspector's or the authority's claim.

I do not believe that representations are provided for in any other warrant procedure. Many warrant procedures are subject to far less time pressure than exists when one is trying to stamp out a grotesque disease. Therefore, I believe that building in sworn statements, representation—I know that that comes under a separate group of amendments—or other potential delays is not a sensible way in which to approach the matter.

In our own amendments we have indicated what needs to be conveyed to the occupier and what the justice must take into account when making a decision as to whether or not to grant a warrant. However, I do not consider it necessary to build in a process which would slow down that procedure. As I said, no other warrant procedure requires copies of the information to be provided and, in essence, there is no difference in principle. The justice of the peace must consider all the relevant factors.

It is also the case that the powers provided here have precedence in other enforcement regimes, in particular, in the Food Safety Act 1990, which may be regarded as equivalent to this situation but possibly less fraught in terms of how rapidly one would need to act and the consequences of not acting. Therefore, I believe that precedence, logic and the need for speed rule out the type of provisions which the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, indicate he would like to see.

The Joint Committee on Human Rights concluded that, provided those safeguards were built in, it did not believe there was a serious risk that the provisions of the Bill would be incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, either in theory or in practice. The committee suggested one particular way of ameliorating the situation; we have suggested others in terms of what the justice must take into account. The central conclusion of the committee was that, given all the circumstance, those powers are compatible.

In terms of Amendment No. 267 and requiring assistance, we have tabled an amendment to restrict a person from whom assistance is required in those circumstances to those who are keeper of the stock or their employees. The requirement would have to be reasonable.

We have built in many safeguards, but to have another legal turn of the loop, as is required by these amendments, would not be appropriate. It is not required for the procedure to comply with the European convention and could be detrimental to the process of controlling the disease.

Before the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, replies perhaps I may ask the Minister about the warrants. Thank goodness I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that generally warrants are for purposes such as search or investigation or for seizing property or for arrest or for such purposes that are not as terminal or as permanent as going on to land and slaughtering livestock. The nature of the action to be taken leads some noble Lords to question whether a normal warrant procedure needs further safeguards built around it in this case. If I am wrong, perhaps the Minister can take advice and tell me of circumstances where warrants are issued that are analogous to entering a farmer's land and slaughtering all the sheep or cattle.

I notice that Section 16 of the Act relates only to vaccination. Therefore I do not feel as strongly about these amendments because the animals will not be killed instantly. In relation to later amendments, where there are slaughter powers, I shall be more concerned. It seems that there can be slightly different requirements for vaccination-only purposes as opposed to slaughter requirements.

I take that point. It was within my concept of the flexibility of the code of practice, the code of procedure or form of amendment. I quite agree that there has to be flexibility as to how the matter is operated. I am grateful for the contribution on warrants which is absolutely right. There is a fundamental distinction between a warrant for the slaughter of a herd of animals and an ordinary warrant. I must not take the time of the Committee because it is totally apparent from the speech of the Minister that he will not budge an inch. He is going to stand by his attitude, which has been typical in relation to this Bill, and tough it out. I shall not take the time of the Committee today, but I shall test the opinion of the House on another occasion if I am given leave, for which I ask, to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 212:

As I indicated, this amendment, along with the provisions proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, would slow down the process. I do not believe that a sufficiently strong case has been made in this situation, as distinct from all other warrant-granting situations, for providing for representations to be made. Reverting to the previous debate, the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said that no other warrant proceedings are quite the same as this. I suspect that that is true in the sense that animals are not slaughtered, although I would need to make a thorough assessment of all previous law, much of which goes back many centuries. However, in the economic sense there are equally draconian measures that can be carried out in terms of warrants. Businesses can be closed down as a result of the grant of a warrant under the legislation to which I referred—the Food Safety Act 1990. One can take measures that would close down a business just as much as one would close down a livestock farmer by slaughtering his flock or herd. So I do not believe that the precedent is made.

Reverting again to the previous debate, my noble friend Lady Mallalieu asked for representations to be allowable at some point. Representations are allowable; they are allowed not to a judicial body but to the district veterinary manager and that would be at the point where the initial decision was being queried. The stockholder is not entirely without the ability to make representations under our procedures. The whole situation will be governed, when the Committee adopts, as I hope that it will, the amendments that we have tabled on the issues to be taken into account by the justice, on the procedure for issuing the initial notice and, when I lay the amendments, on the protocol governing slaughter. There are all those restraints on the way in which we carry out the measures. To override those and to build in another legal diversion that would slow down the process when all those safeguards will be built in could not only be detrimental to disease control but would also undermine the real interests of the farming sector.

We are not dealing with animals that are infected or that are dangerous contacts, but animals in the firebreak situation. What delay does the Minister envisage being caused by providing a copy of the evidence that will be presented to the magistrate and telling the farmer at what time the application is to be made? How much time will be lost by putting that safeguard into the process?

In this context we are not dealing with the sworn evidence, but with representation. Representation and the legal right to representation brings with it the right to have time to take legal advice on the representations and to have a reasonable time to draw up the facts. That in itself is a potentially delaying process and it could be argued that failure to provide adequate time for those representations would be a delaying process. It is wrong to say that that does not lead to delay. One cannot instantaneously provide for an effective means of representation without envisaging the possibility of delay. Therefore, any legal rights to representation would potentially bring that danger.

I am sorry that the noble Lord seems unable to grasp the thread that has run through every single objection to the Bill; that is, that the animals whom human beings love and have bred for years are not the same as, for example, a cheese store. The noble Lord prays in aid the Food Safety Act. I have been directly concerned—not personally—with two cheese businesses which have been closed down under the Food Safety Act by these very provisions.

A farmer losing his stock is very different from a cheesemonger losing his cheese stock, which can be replaced quite easily and to which there is no sentiment attached. It is the emotional connection between the farmer and his animals which requires the Bill to be much softer than the harsh terms of, for example, the Food Safety Act. Will the Minister take on board that the problems with the foot and mouth outbreak arose because people were jack booting into farms, upsetting the farmers and not understanding their concern for their animals? That is why we have objected so strongly to the Bill.

I shall of course read Hansard carefully. I am shocked. I think that the Minister is saying that the situation is such that there is no time to have any regard to the rules of natural justice under the law. I have never heard such a proposition in any sense. But I shall read Hansard carefully. If that is the attitude of the Government on this issue, it will be a very serious matter. I have never heard it suggested, even in these circumstances, that there just is not time to give anyone the information or the chance of an emergency hearing. I cannot accept that a Bill in that form could pass through this House.

Perhaps I may refer the Minister back to the letter he wrote on 25th September. He has been dogmatic in his response. As my noble friend said, he has clearly given the impression to the Committee that he has no intention of giving at all on these amendments. Yet, within the annex of that letter, there was an indication from the Minister that the two specific: problems that we are discussing would be considered by the Government. At that time he was being a little more pragmatic. Clearly, something has happened between the writing of the letter and his addressing the House; I wonder what it is.

The letter indicates a number of safeguards we propose to build in plus—referred to in the annex—the proposition that we should have a protocol on the procedure for slaughter. That is different from giving a right to representation in every case where proceedings are adopted. To return to the point made by the noble Countess, clearly no one who was involved with this disease could walk away from it without recognising the extreme trauma that many farmers and others went through in the eradication of it. It is also regrettably true that the failure to control the disease at various points during the epidemic, both in this and in other countries, led to far more problems and animal owners suffering by the consequent slaughter of their animals than would have been the case had disease control measures been effectively carried out. That is why we seek to speed up the process. It is to protect the large number of farmers who potentially might be affected.

The provision requiring sworn statements was dealt with in the previous group of amendments. That would be a delaying factor. The provision that we should have a legal right to representation, which we are dealing with in this group, could be an additional delaying factor. One can see the consequences of that, in terms of the slowness in controlling the disease, would be much more trauma, distress, animal disease and economic damage. That is why we propose these changes. We are not suspending natural justice; we are trying to build in reasonable requirements on how both the officer and the magistrate carry out their roles. But we are trying to avoid the possibility of building in delay and thereby undermining the whole disease control effort.

In order to get matters into perspective, can the noble Lord remind the Committee in how many cases where court proceedings were either threatened or invoked during the recent foot and mouth disease did the animal owners concerned have animals which were eventually infected by foot and mouth disease?

I have given that figure several times and the noble Countess has queried it several times. It was not the number of cases that ended up in court, but the number that were delayed by people thinking that they had the ability eventually to go to court. In most cases people either eventually complied or the local vets looked at the situation again as is provided by the representations to the DBM and changed their minds. In some cases changing their mind was the wrong thing to do because some of their farms also ended up being infected.

I am perfectly prepared to write to the noble Countess and give her those figures again. But the issue is not how many ended up in court but how much of a delay was built in because people thought they could eventually go to court and avoid the culling of these animals.

I have to say that I think that is a thoroughly unsatisfactory answer to a very genuine debate on these two amendments. Members of the Committee will understand why I was very concerned that at this stage we would not be looking to put them to a vote. The Minister in his response said that he did not think there was—I cannot remember his exact expression—enough emotional weight to it. For goodness sake, we can all raise our voices and speak a little louder. I ask the Minister not to be under any illusion that we in this Chamber—and I suspect many outside—feel bitterly disappointed with the debate that has just taken place. At this stage I do not intend to push the matter to a vote. However, I strongly urge the Government to reconsider their responses in the light of what has been said in the Chamber today. I cannot give the noble Lord a stronger warning than that. I am very serious. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Before calling Amendment No. 212A I have to inform the Committee that if this amendment be agreed, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 213 to 222 under the pre-emption rules.

moved Amendment No. 212A:

I am sorry again to be unhappy with the proposed words; I accept the Minister's genuineness in trying to table an amendment that we all find satisfactory. I have three comments to make about the amendment. I object to the third condition in new subsection (6). It refers to,

"notice of intention to apply for the warrant has been left in a conspicuous place on the premises".

I find that totally unsatisfactory. Who defines what is a conspicuous place? Someone may enter the premises and unwittingly move the notice. The Government must table a much better worded provision. Other amendments suggest that the notice should be given to the person whose property it is or the person who looks after the animals. The wording of the amendment is most unsatisfactory.

Will the Minister explain further the choice of words in proposed new paragraph (b):

"object of entering the premises"?

Premises can be anything. As the Minister will be aware, many farmers have had to diversify to keep their heads above water. So in properties, other businesses will operate freely and independently that are nothing to do with the farmer concerned, but there is no definition of what premises the Government seek to include.

Before I move on, Amendment No. 235A states:

"A warrant issued under subsection (3) must be executed only at a reasonable hour".

We have discussed hours and tabled many different amendments about them, but here again we have an amendment that states, "a reasonable hour". It would help the Committee enormously if the Minister would respond to those three queries. I am most unhappy about the first.

I share the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Byford. Clause 6(6)(a) and (b) are of most concern. Paragraph (a) states:

"the premises are unoccupied or the occupier is absent".

What does that mean? Does it mean that the person does not live on the premises concerned? Perhaps he owns two farms at either end of the village but everyone knows where he is—he has not absconded and is not an absentee in a real sense but is simply not present on the premises concerned. It requires much tighter wording to allow for the case in which people reasonably know where the person is although he is not actually present. Otherwise, in circumstances of panic, chaos and, in many cases, a desire to get on with the job—as happened during the recent foot and mouth outbreak—it is easy for people to go by the words written on paper, not the spirit behind them. So the provision must be written more tightly so that people cannot abuse it simply because someone who is present in the village or area of the land is not on the premises. That is one concern.

Our second concern relates to new paragraph (b), which states:

"an application for admission to the premises or the giving of notice of intention to apply…would defeat the object of entering the premises".

Obviously, if a raid is conducted on premises where it is suspected that drugs are being kept, people do not give notice or go to a magistrate to return later because the suspects will have gone and will have taken the stuff away. Everyone knows that under most circumstances in which warrants are issued, people go to hammer on the door—or, more likely, they take one of those fancy new machines that hammer the door down.

We are not discussing such circumstances. It may be that it is suspected that people may remove their stock—that appears to be what the provision covers. They may have a dozen sheep, put them in a van and drive them away, so that they are lost. I cannot imagine that that will happen often, but it may in some circumstances. In that case, the paragraph should spell out rather more clearly what is covered. Otherwise, what does the provision mean and in what circumstances does the Minister think that it may be invoked?

Having said that, and sharing the concern of the noble Baroness about those two paragraphs, which need to be reconsidered, we welcome the movement that has been made in the wording of the earlier new subsection in the amendment and the subsequent amendments linked to it in the group, in which the wording is better than that proposed before. It is improved, clearer and fairer. A little progress has been made and it would be churlish not to thank the Minister for achieving that. But paragraphs (a) and (b) still give rise to great concern. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, we ask the Minister to reconsider them to try to achieve an improved wording between now and Report.

I am also worried by new subsection (6)(b), in which we look into a black hole of ministerial subjectivity. I share the understanding articulated by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, that the provision is presumably to be written into the Bill in case the occupier absconds with the stock, barricades the place or takes some other action that would impede the visit of the inspector. But if that is possible in any case, it may be possible in every case. The clause could perfectly well be invoked to say, "We shall never give notice because it is always a possibility that the chap will have made off with the stock or will barricade the place so that we cannot get in."

The chances of exploiting new subsection (6)(b) are enormous and potentially dangerous. Of course, a few rogues may behave like that, but the provision should not be written into the Bill. It is extremely dangerous to allow it to be invoked by anyone at any time. Perhaps I am being pessimistic; but I have learnt from the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, that I must not be optimistic.

Perhaps I may return the compliment to the right reverend Prelate. I was just wondering what was happening to me when he suddenly came out with that wonderful phrase, "a black hole of ministerial subjectivity." Then I understood: I had a sense of falling, falling and never coming to a stop. I am most grateful to the right reverend Prelate.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, I appreciate the Minister's attempt to soften the provision; I have been critical of the Minister on other provisions. But I, too, am concerned about new paragraphs (a) and (b). For example, what happens if the person is out shopping or working? We discussed in relation to the part of the Bill covering scrapie the question of premises being unoccupied.

Perhaps the Minister can help us by telling us what sort of situations he envisages falling under new paragraph (b). The police already have powers to prosecute anyone who moves animals during an outbreak of foot and mouth disease. If it is already known that animals are on the premises—which presumably it will be if a warrant is applied for—and inspectors turn up at the premises and no animals are present, the owner or keeper can be prosecuted for moving them. So what other situations does the Minister envisage? I should be grateful if he would tell the Committee.

Could my noble friend the Minister deal with the interesting point made by the right reverend Prelate in his response? I heard the phrase "black hole of ministerial subjectivity". I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil—and others, too, perhaps—thinks that every Minister spends all his time in a black hole of ministerial subjectivity. I can assure him that that is not the case—in this Government, at least.

It would be helpful if my noble friend could confirm that all Ministers are subject at all times to a public law requirement to behave with reasonableness and proportion. That is an important point. If they do not behave in that way, they are subject to judicial review. So, it is not feasible that Ministers would exploit the proposed subsection (6)(b) in the way suggested by the right reverend Prelate. If they did, they would be in breach of their obligations under public law.

That tempts me to intervene. I had the impression that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, had been earning point after point of merit from the Government during the passage of the Bill for the marvellous and gallant way in which he has saved them from almost impossibly bad argument. Now, he has said something that runs contrary to the spirit—if that is the right word—of the Bill. The words, which will be inscribed in Hansard, will also be inscribed in my memory; I shall be tempted to use them again and again.

If I have behaved in that way, it was certainly not in the hope of promotion.

My noble friend Lord Carter makes a point that is an essential qualification to all the concerns that have been expressed about paragraphs (a) and (b). In general, the rest of the amendments have been welcomed.

Not only is the Minister obliged to behave reasonably and not descend into the black hole into which the right reverend Prelate tempted us, but his officers are also required to do so in the circumstances. They must reasonably ensure that, if there is nobody there, they have made every effort to find the most conspicuous place to leave the notice and ensure that they arrive at a time at which it could reasonably be expected that the occupier would be there. That goes back to the other point, in the later amendment, about reasonableness. At an earlier stage of the Bill's passage, we discussed whether it was correct to identify certain hours as reasonable for office workers and for farmers. We take that point about reasonableness, and that is why it must apply to farming practice and to the hours thought likely to be kept by the occupier. Throughout, we must behave reasonably.

That also applies to the definition of premises. There is no point in having access to premises that have nothing to do with the carrying out of the vaccination, culling or blood testing covered by the powers included at various points in the Bill. Reasonableness runs through it all. Despite the deep suspicion that several noble Lords expressed about the motives and behaviour of departmental staff, we are all subject to the reasonableness criterion.

Most concern expressed related to the proposed new subsection (6)(b). Regrettably, there will, as the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said, be a few rogues about. Some will try, if they get too much notice of the matter, to use the notice of application for warrant to avoid the implications. That might mean moving the animals around, or it might mean some other means of preventing the application of disease control measures. We must provide for that in the Bill, but, again, reasonableness applies. We could not, as the right reverend Prelate suggested, treat every farmer as being likely to use the notice of application for warrant as a reason for trying not to comply with the law. That is not the normal behaviour of the farming community. However, for a particular case, for which there was prior intelligence or previous behaviour that indicated that it might happen, it would be reasonable for an officer to vary the procedure to avoid that result.

I am happy to say to the Committee that we will consider the precise wording of the amendment to see whether there are ways in which we could avoid raising anxieties of the type mentioned by the right reverend Prelate. However, we need a power to vary procedure for cases in which intelligence suggests that a farmer or stockholder might take evasive action, were he to receive early notice of an application for warrant. That is why proposed subsection (6)(b) is there. However, as with all the other provisions, it is, as my noble friend Lord Carter said, subject to the requirement to behave reasonably.

I ask the Minister to pay particular regard to proposed subsection (6)(a) and to how officials will notify people. I am unhappy with the phrase "conspicuous place on the premises". As I said, there are, sometimes, 10 or 15 businesses in one highly developed area. What if somebody left a message for somebody else in the wrong building or left a message for the wrong person? Of all things, that provision should be tightened up. I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind.

The Minister said that an officer or inspector—I cannot remember which—could vary the power. Those were his words. That goes almost to the heart of the problem, as it relates to the exercise of the power. I do not object to the creation of the power; we need it for a national emergency. It is the exercise of that power that worries me. Can the Minister consider how that relates to flexibility and the way in which it is administered? It is not a difficult concept, but it is difficult to draft.

It seems to me that, if the Minister's amendment is accepted, several amendments later on the list will fall. One of those is Amendment No. 216, which stands in my name. In it, I have suggested that it might be sensible for details of the time and place at which a magistrate will deal with an application to be given to the occupier so that he might have the opportunity to make representations at that time. The law should not run its course behind closed doors.

Will the Minister consider amending his amendment on Report, so that it incorporates something on the lines of Amendment No. 216 that will give the occupier of premises the opportunity to know where and when the application is to be made? Surely, it is only fair that someone whose premises are to be taken over should have the opportunity to hear the case before the magistrate and to make representations if he feels that it is unfair. This is my only opportunity at this stage to raise that matter. I realise that my amendment—or something like it—cannot be made, if the amendment that we are debating now is agreed to. It would be helpful if the Minister could tell us whether on Report he would give a fair wind to a similar amendment to his amendment.

Although I had thought that the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, was ever present at this debate, he was probably not in the Committee when we previously discussed representation. I would not be prepared to accede to an amendment such as his Amendment No. 216—which, as he rightly said and the Deputy Chairman of Committees indicated, would fall were this group of amendments to pass—for the reasons I have spelt out before.

Any right of representation runs a risk of slowing down the process and is unprecedented in other forms of warrant application. There is no good reason—indeed, there are good reasons in the opposite direction in terms of the need for speed and the effective carrying out of disease control measures—why normal warrant procedures should be varied in this case. I would therefore not be inclined to accept the noble Lord's amendment were we not to pass Amendment No. 212A and go on to debate it. I regret to say that neither am I prepared to table a further amendment in that respect. The other safeguards I have built in, plus the protocol we propose, in my view provide adequate safeguard.

I am grateful to the Minister. I am sorry that I was not in my place when the issue was discussed earlier. I had to attend a Select Committee upstairs.

Will the Minister indicate how many amendments will not be taken if we accept the amendment currently under discussion?

It is not entirely a matter for me. The Deputy Chairman of Committees read out the amendments that could not be taken were this one to be passed. They are Amendments Nos. 213 to 222. I beg to move.

moved Amendment No. 223:

Before the noble Baroness speaks to her amendment, surely we have worked out everything up to the end of line 37 in the Bill? Amendment No. 223 refers to line 37. Should we not be on Amendment No. 225, which refers to page 4, line 4? I am sorry to correct the Deputy Chairman of Committees.

I hope that I am technically correct in continuing because I am trying to make an insertion. With the increasing sophistication of testing methods and the fact that a great deal of livestock will probably be dealt with by on-farm testing, the chances for error other than human error will be greatly reduced.

It is a widely accepted rule that anyone who suffers due to negligence or mistake of another must receive adequate compensation. Even this formula would hardly cover in this case the value of the animals and the loss of production. The Government obviously believe that fanners have to be goaded into behaving in the way the state wishes. I am sure that the Minister does not really believe that, but that is the feel outside the Committee.

It appears that the Government wish to believe that their servants are always perfect and behave impeccably. I am sure that most of them try to do so, but the truth is that few farmers have to be goaded and a few state servants have to be restrained. That is why the amendment has been tabled. I beg to move.

We wish to support the amendment. If animals are mistakenly slaughtered, which has occurred in the past, farmers should receive compensation to the level of 100 per cent of the full market value under the amendment's conditions. There is nothing worse to learn from farmers and their families than that their stock has been mistakenly slaughtered: it is a feeling of absolute despair. The amendment can never mitigate that feeling but it at least provides some redress. It is essential to this legislation.

While I appreciate that we have strayed into slaughter, vaccinations, and everything else in previous debates, this amendment relates specifically to slaughter. Clause 6 is about vaccination. Whatever the merits of the argument, the amendment is in the wrong place. I hope I need say no more to the noble Baroness for her to withdraw it and perhaps resubmit it in the right place.

I apologise to the Committee if it is in the wrong place, and particularly to the noble Countess; she was right and I am wrong. I will come back at another stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 226:

Before calling Amendment No. 227 I have to inform the Committee that if it is agreed to, I will not under the pre-emption rules be able to call Amendments Nos. 228 to 232.

moved Amendment No. 229:

Before proceeding further with the amendment, I should inform the Committee that if it is agreed to I shall not be able to call Amendments Nos. 230 to 232.

The only reason I am not prepared to accept the noble Lord's amendment—which is clearly based on the rather open-ended implications of the clause as it stands—is that the amendments to which the Deputy Chairman referred are my amendments and will do the job better. They restrict the kind of person from whom an inspector can require assistance to an owner or occupier, the person in charge of the stock or a person employed by the stockholder or the person in charge of the stock. That limits considerably the clause as it stands and builds in the fact that, because of the way they are employed, such people would be capable of rendering some assistance to an inspector. We believe that that is a better way of dealing with the matter than the method proposed in the noble Lord's amendment.

I am so sorry. I had not been sufficiently optimistic as to read the noble Lord's amendments. Now that he has told me what they contain, I have the utmost pleasure in asking leave to withdraw the amendment.

Before the noble Lord sits down, the Committee should consider one point. Of course one accepts what the Minister has said in relation to an owner and employees, but I know of a case which occurred during the previous outbreak of foot and mouth disease where the medical condition of a farmer meant that he was unable to assist in such a situation. As someone who has spent long hours toiling in the fields, I have back trouble, as do other people in the farming industry. Sometimes farmers are physically unable to assist, whether or not they would like to. This is perhaps without, in that sense, the description given by the Minister.

With the noble Lord's permission, I now beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

moved Amendment No. 230:

Before calling Amendment No. 231, I should inform the Committee that if the amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 232.

moved Amendment No. 231:

While not dissenting from much of what the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, said, again I believe that my Amendment No. 232 is better. Whereas the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, seeks to insert the wording "personal assistance as is reasonably necessary", my Amendment No. 232 seeks to insert the words "may reasonably require". There may be some doubt about the meaning of "personal" in such circumstances and I believe that my wording is better. Taken together with my subsequent amendments, it deals with the issue more effectively. So while I accept the argument, I do not accept the amendment.

It is at least something that the Minister accepts the argument on an occasion such as this. I have a sense of relief that the first time I stand up my argument is accepted. The Minister claims that he would like fewer words than the ones I have suggested. I disagree with him—I have that privilege—in the same way as he disagreed with me over my wording. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 232:

moved Amendments Nos. 233 and 233A:

moved Amendment No. 234:

Although it may be desirable to carry out most of the actions the ministry is being empowered to carry out within a week, at the height of an epidemic it may well not be able to do so. The amendment would mean an additional delay in terms of reapplying for a warrant after seven days.

The one-month validity of the warrant procedure is standard in all other warrant arrangements. For the reasons I have stated, I do not see an overwhelming reason to vary that—although I agree that the objective must be to carry out the action in significantly less than a week if we possibly can.

I thank the Minister for that reply. It would depend on how effectively the authorities carried out what was desired in the warrant during that time period. The legislation should be tightened up to ensure that effective speed is of the essence. I note what the Minister says. I know the protocol in relation to normal warrants lying there for one month. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 235:

I totally agree with the amendment. It is entirely logical—indeed essential. If a warrant is not dated, it will make it extremely difficult to administer.

Can the Minister confirm the legal situation in regard to magistrates signing warrants? In a different context, I have seen a warrant signed by a magistrate where the details were left for whomsoever was concerned to fill in. I was frankly appalled. So, even if the normal practice is for a magistrate to sign and date a warrant—which I imagine it is—there should be a reference on the face of the Bill.

The amendment proposed by my noble friend has broad support on all sides of the Committee. The noble Lord on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench has supported it, and we have heard support from the Cross Benches.

I hate to say this to my noble friend, but I do not think that the wording of her amendment follows her argument. She said that a magistrate should date a warrant when he signs it. The amendment does not state that. As I read it, it leaves it open for a magistrate to sign the warrant and date it at a different time.

I hope that the Government will accept the amendment. It seems eminently sensible. Perhaps we can return to it on Report. If the amendment could be changed to the effect that the warrant should be dated by the justice of the peace at the time of signing, that would seem to fulfil the words that my noble friend used. I hate to argue with her because my admiration for her is unbounded; however, I believe that that would be an improvement. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, agrees.

I strongly agree that this type of rider should apply in this case. After all, in relation to a previous amendment the Minister spelt out the desirability of a warrant lying for a one-month period. It would make the situation far more precise if the magistrate not only signed the warrant but dated it as well.

My advice is that this amendment or any similar provision is unnecessary. It is already general practice. It is not specified on the face of other Acts containing references to warrants that the magistrate shall date the warrant, or that anyone shall date it, at the point at which it is granted. That is the practice.

I hear what Members of the Committee say about the matter. I shall re-examine it. I do not think that the wording of the amendment would cover all circumstances in any case. I need to double-check the legal advice—which is normally: if a provision is unnecessary, do not include it. If that is indeed the case, I shall need to report back. I take some of the arguments that clarity as regards the length of time and the date from which a warrant should run could be quite important. I shall examine the matter again.

I am grateful to the Minister. I am grateful also to my noble friend Lord Jopling. He rightly points out something that we missed. I indicated our intention and I apologise that we have not defined the amendment tightly enough. I thank the Minister for his response and look forward to his proposal.

He referred to current practice, but the feeling on all sides of the Committee is that we are dealing with something slightly different from a commodity or whatever else a warrant may concern. Any help that the Minister can give to reassure those who are likely to have their animals killed would be of great benefit. It would be a great addition to the Bill. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 235A:

We must remember that the amendment refers to vaccination. I therefore question the first subsection:

"A warrant issued under subsection (3) must be executed only at a reasonable hour unless the inspector thinks that the case is one of urgency".

In relation to vaccination, surely issuing the warrant "at a reasonable hour" is enough. I cannot foresee any situation in which such a warrant should be issued in the middle of the night. I ask the Minister to reconsider this provision in the light of the whole Bill. I cannot see that a state of urgency would arise requiring a warrant relating to vaccination to be issued at some unearthly hour.

If we are to adopt pre-emptive vaccination as a key disease control measure, I envisage circumstances in which failure to gain access could jeopardise the whole vaccination strategy in a firebreak situation. For example, during the last outbreak, we contemplated vaccination when the disease appeared to be moving in the direction of the pig population of the East Riding. Had we engaged in a firebreak vaccination, the plan could have been undermined if we had missed significant premises because a person was not available at a particular hour. Admittedly, in most circumstances, vaccination would not be quite as urgent as culling. However, in some circumstances it might be, which is why the emergency override is included.

moved Amendment No. 236:

I support the noble Baroness's amendment. It goes to the heart of what the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, was talking about earlier.

I think immediately of my neighbour, who is now well into her 90s, but, when she was well into her 80s she and her sister, who is a year younger, kept a flock of sheep. Both were crippled with arthritis and unable to go out and about. People in the village helped them with their sheep whenever they needed it. My neighbour and her sister were able to keep an eye on the animals, but, when they needed help with them, they had to ring someone else. Although they were the keepers of the animals, they would have been unable to help with them. Those and other circumstances that the noble Baroness mentioned need to be taken into account, and it is not reasonable to expect elderly people to tend a flock of sheep. I urge the Minister to take that into account.

Even a few hours ago, I would have hoped that the Minister would accept this reasonable and modest amendment, which was so charmingly moved. The Minister said earlier that reasonableness runs through all of this. I hope that his dictum is of general application. Am I misquoting him? I thought that I heard him say that just now—I woke up, so great was the shock. I hope that his wonderful statement was not so narrow in its focus as to be almost meaningless. I cherish the hope that it has a broad application. I cannot believe that the Minister would be so obstinate—I almost said pig-headed—as to refuse the amendment.

I am afraid that the noble Lord has overlooked the fact that a few moments ago we accepted an amendment to include in the Bill "assistance as he may reasonably require". It is already included in the Bill, so the noble Lord should be very happy indeed.

I support the amendment. Six miles from where I live in North Yorkshire, during the last foot and mouth disease outbreak, a farmer's son-in-law, in his 40s, died from a heart attack while rounding up a flock of sheep. He should not have been rounding up the sheep. That example shows that in some cases people should not carry out certain activities. I hope that the Minister accepts this reasonable amendment.

I strongly support this amendment. Subsection (12)(a) states that a person commits an offence if he is required to give assistance under subsection (9). We have included in subsection (9), through Amendment No. 233, which we have already agreed, the occupiers of the premises.

Modern agriculture involves far fewer people working on the land, so many farmhouses are occupied by people who have nothing to do with farming. If an inspector asks for assistance from someone who is the occupier of a farm but who has nothing to do with the farm, he falls under this provision. If an inspector asks a farmhouse occupier who is disconnected from agriculture for help with cattle or sheep, under the Bill as it now stands, that person would be committing an offence if he refused. It would be a perfectly fair mitigating circumstance if that person said, "I am only the tenant of the farmhouse; I have nothing to do with the farm; I have never had anything to do with cattle, sheep or pigs, and I am sorry, but go and find someone else to help, because this has nothing to do with me".

The same might apply to premises formerly used as farm workers' houses on a farm holding, of which there are many. It is important to include a provision to let a person off committing an offence if there are mitigating circumstances. I hope that the Minister will accept that.

Perhaps the noble Lord has not looked over the page at the rest of Amendment No. 233. Paragraphs (b) and (c) meet his point. There is reference to,

"a person appearing to the inspector to have charge of animals on the premises".

There are alternatives to the occupier. Paragraph (a) is not the only provision in the amendment. Paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) need to be considered together.

I am very sorry to say to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, that the amendment says:

"The following persons fall within this subsection—

(a) the occupier of the premises".

That is what I have been talking about. I was not referring to paragraphs (b) or (c). I was applying my argument entirely to paragraph (a) under Amendment No. 233, I am trying to exempt those who may have no connection to the animals on the premises. I therefore support my noble friend's amendment.

Amendment No. 233 refers to "the following persons", so each of them is caught: the occupier, the person in charge of the animals or a person under the direction or control of the occupier or the person in charge.

That is where the noble Lord has made a mistake. He used that little word "or", which does not appear in the Bill.

I support the amendment. I shall speak from a small amount of private experience. I have a few sheep at home. Because we live in Surrey, I also have some stables, which are rented. Those stables are part of my premises. Is the inspector entitled to ask a 14 or 15 year-old girl to round up sheep for slaughter? If she says no, will she be committing a criminal offence? That is what the Bill appears to say. I think that such a young lady—or her parent or guardian or somebody left in local charge—would have mitigating circumstances for saying no. As the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, said, there are many occupiers of agricultural premises who are only indirectly associated with agriculture, or even not associated at all. What about somebody who is staying in a farmhouse on a B&B basis? There are a lot of those, particularly in the Yorkshire Dales, where the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, lives. The Government plead reasonableness to avoid their own affairs being put into the Bill. I do not understand why they will not allow others to use reasonable excuse. That is double standards. It is a great pity and does not do credit to Her Majesty's present advisers, but I suppose there is nothing I can do about that.

I should have thought that the Government would jump at the opportunity of an escape clause. We do not want to make people commit offences when there is a perfectly good reason why they should not be involved. The amendment sensibly suggests that there could be mitigating circumstances. The prosecuting authority would not prosecute if there were mitigating circumstances. They would say that it would be a waste of court time, police time and everybody else's time. The amendment would be a valuable addition to the Bill on the issue of alleged offences.

The comments of my noble friends Lord Jopling and Lord Onslow about people on the land who may have nothing to do with the farm should be followed up. People should not be walking about farms during a foot and mouth epidemic, but nowadays, when there is so much encouragement for people to walk on farms or wherever they want to go, they could be walking across a farm and then be eligible to assist in rounding up cattle under the Bill. It would be ridiculous for them to be involved.

This simple amendment would surely be a valuable escape route for those who are not involved in the farm and should not be prosecuted under the Bill.