My Lords, before business begins, I take the opportunity to inform the House that I will be making the Keynote Address at the Records Management in Government Conference, in Bristol, on Thursday 24th October, when the House will sit. Accordingly, I trust that the House will grant me leave of absence.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, I can confirm that the supply of specialist information technology practitioners is forecast to meet foreseeable demand. The specialist ICT labour market, however, is dynamic and subject to fluctuation. We continue to monitor it closely and to work with our partners in education and industry to maintain the long-term supply of skills needed to meet the demands of the modern economy.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, is he aware that the key skills shortages in the industry are at level 3 and level 4 and that we are currently totally failing to meet that demand? It is estimated that, next year, for example, there will be 280,000 unfilled vacancies in the industry. We desperately need to train people up to that level. In schemes such as Learn Direct, the Government have been addressing only the need at level 2, which is the GCSE equivalent, rather than the need at level 3 which is the A-level equivalent. How do the Government propose to meet this very serious and critical skills shortage?

My Lords, the noble Baroness has identified an area of some concern, but I have some good news for her. In 2001, just under 70,000 further education students in the United Kingdom completed a level 3 or higher ICT course, which is a 230 per cent increase on the 1998 figure. Although I recognise that we need to increase performance and the numbers coming through in this field, there is a clear indication that the number of students enrolling and succeeding in these courses is increasing.

My Lords, can the Minister enlighten us about what is happening in the regions? It is very difficult to receive broadband in some of the regions. How can schools, local postmasters and farming communities readapt to a new world if they do not have access to broadband or anyone to teach them how to use it?

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for identifying another crucial issue. There is no doubt at all that access to broadband is absolutely crucial for regional development, regional economies and, as he rightly identified, relatively small-scale organisations such as SMEs, all of which require access to these opportunities. I therefore assure the noble Lord that the Government are taking the issue very seriously. He has rightly identified an issue of crucial concern in the development of regional policy and regional economies.

My Lords, does the Minister accept that many good, bona fide IT providers were let down by the failure of the Individual Learning Account scheme? Will there be a replacement scheme? If so, will it include higher-level technology as referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp?

My Lords, the noble Baroness is right that withdrawal of the ILA scheme created a gap. We are working to replace the scheme, and considerable efforts are being made to ensure that people are able to engage in this training. We seek to develop relationships with the private sector whereby those who provide the systems also provide the training at a reasonably low cost. IT learning opportunities are increasing very significantly. There has, for example, been an encouraging increase in the number of people enrolled on part-time and full-time courses developed over the past few years. We therefore accept that we must replace the ILA. I hope that the noble Baroness will recognise that the Government are taking steps on the supply side to ensure that such courses are provided.

My Lords, what provision have the Government made for broadband in rural areas where cable provision is obviously impossible? What is the Government's attitude to bringing broadband to those remote rural areas?

My Lords, as I indicated a few moments ago, this is a challenging and testing problem. We all know the difficulties of providing these resources in areas where it is exceedingly difficult to install cable. Indeed, we recognised that fact a few years ago when we addressed the issue of television channels. We also recognise that, in terms of the private market, there are limited returns on provision in certain parts of the country. I assure the noble Lord that the overall thrust of our policy on devolution and the regions obliges us to pay serious attention to opportunities in rural areas and the regions. I assure him that the Government regard that as an important priority.

My Lords, will the Minister consider whether people in their fifties with IT skills who have been made redundant in various parts of the country—IT skills are not always the preserve of young people—could become trainers or consultants to small and medium-sized enterprises and to clusters of farms? That could be a wonderful outcome both for those who have the relevant skills and for the people they would train.

My Lords, the House will recognise that that is a most constructive suggestion against the background of the problems in certain parts of industry which have resulted in a substantial number of well-qualified people dropping out of employment over the past 18 months or so. We should ensure not only that those skills are not lost but also that they are used to the public good. We are considering ways of providing a strategy developed through local LSCs whereby those skills are employed to the benefit of the community.

My Lords, given the thrust of the noble Baroness's original Question, can the Minister tell us whether the National Hi-Tech Crime Unit is now fully staffed?

My Lords, I am straying a little out of area if I refer to that unit, but as I understand the position, serious attempts have been made to increase the numbers employed in the unit. However, I shall have to write to the noble Earl with regard to whether the unit is fully staffed.

My Lords, does the Minister see a correlation between the shortage of level 4 quality graduate specialists in this area and the difficulty of providing, recruiting and retaining enough competent information technology and computer scientists in the university sector as salaries outside the university sector are exceptionally high? There is a real problem here which may well not apply across all areas of academic discipline. Will the Minister consider discussing the matter with Universities UK?

My Lords, the noble Lord has rightly identified a particular problem in higher education which relates to the number of students coming through. I emphasise that the number of computer science graduates has increased substantially in recent years. However, I recognise the point that the noble Lord makes; that is, that university salaries for the particular skills we are discussing are not always competitive with those offered elsewhere. I am sure that the Minister would be only too pleased to discuss the matter with higher education institutions.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, there has been no suggestion emerging from the investigation that there is any similar activity in the Palace of Westminster. There are arrangements in place in the Palace to prevent breaches of security. The House authorities rightly never discuss the details of such security arrangements. If there was fear of a security breach in the Palace, it would be the responsibility of Scotland Yard in conjunction with the House authorities to investigate that matter.

My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that comprehensive Answer. However, does he not agree with me that Sinn Fein has seriously abused the democratic process and that the surest way to ensure that the Palace of Westminster is not contaminated by Sinn Fein spy rings is to withdraw all privileges, including access to the Palace, from Sinn Fein until it has met the Prime Minister's demand made last week to disband PIRA and become true democrats?

My Lords, we need to bear in mind that a police investigation is going on. As I advised your Lordships a few days ago, whether we like or despise the proposed defendants, they still have their democratic rights. Your Lordships recently discussed the question of privileges in the Palace of Sinn Fein Members of Parliament. That is a matter, of course, for the relevant House committee in the usual way, subject to the endorsement of the House.

My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that the Northern Ireland Executive had to be suspended because the terrorists with whom Sinn Fein is associated refused to forswear violence? In those circumstances what possible justification can there be for Sinn Fein members, who have disqualified themselves from serving in government in Northern Ireland and who refuse to take their seats and do their work as MPs in the other place, to be rewarded with accommodation and lavish expenses to the tune of £100,000 each a year at the expense of the British taxpayer?

My Lords, the noble Lord knows, as we have been over this matter on many occasions, that the decisions to which he refers are essentially, in the overwhelming majority of cases, questions for the House of Commons. I personally believe—I think that the House would agree—that the decision taken by Dr Reid to suspend the Assembly was absolutely right. It was supported by the United States administration and the Government of the Irish Republic. It is an extremely important step. However, I cannot give answers to the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, on matters which are essentially within the jurisdiction of the House of Commons.

My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord assure the House that all the systems of electronic messaging are as secure as they can be?

My Lords, the Security Service has been asked to carry out a thorough root and branch scrutiny of the arrangements in the Northern Ireland Office. That is under way at the moment. I shall not, of course, be able to announce the results of that inquiry for obvious reasons.

My Lords, the discovery of the alleged republican spy ring at Stormont has raised fears that such activities are taking place right across government both in Northern Ireland and here on the mainland. Not all of your Lordships might be aware that the Home Civil Service and the Northern Ireland Civil Service are quite separate entities. Can the noble and learned Lord assure me that the security requirements for entry to the ranks of the Northern Ireland Civil Service are as stringent as those to comparable ranks of the Home Civil Service and, if not, why not?

My Lords, I can give that assurance, but, nevertheless, it is important that we take every additional step which is why I answered the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, in the way that I did. There is a security assessment being carried out at the moment.

My Lords, can the Minister tell us whether the Government have any longer any doubt that Mr Gerry Adams is a member of the IRA's Army Council?

My Lords, that is not an answer that I am capable of giving.

My Lords, the newspapers report that the three IRA men who are held in Colombia have given as their reasons for being there that they wanted to get to know the people, admire the natural beauty and study the peace process as practised in Colombia. Does the noble and learned Lord believe that any of those three reasons apply to the gentlemen—I have to call them that—who are now here representing Sinn Fein and could he tell me what is the point of them being here? What are they doing for the peace process?

My Lords, I do not know the nature of the defence of the defendants in Colombia. A trial is about to start. However, I can say, having defended many people in criminal trials on many occasions, that the ingenuity of the human mind knows few limits.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, the Health and Safety Commission has identified work-related stress as a priority programme in achieving its PSA targets. The commission has commissioned considerable research—for example, on the impact on work performance—and the HSE has published new guidance and last week launched a new website that gives practical information and which will help to share best practice on measures that work. It is a 10-year programme and it is designed to change workplace culture and to ensure that all aspects; of employees' welfare are taken seriously.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that helpful reply. Is she aware that last week, which was the European health and safety week, the Andrea Adams Trust (of which I am president), Amicus (of which I am a member) and the Work Foundation launched a new initiative on bullying at work? Does she agree that bullying is one of the great concerns affecting working people and that it causes stress for them?

Yes, my Lords, I am indeed aware of and welcome that initiative. Bullying and harassment have no place in today s work environment and are unacceptable wherever they occur. Employees should be able to work without fear of bullying from employers—or, indeed, from anyone else. As noble Lords will be aware, the Government take that seriously. We made a manifesto commitment in 2001 to work with managers and employees to tackle the problem. As a result, the Health and Safety Executive is constructing management standards and is in the process of forming an advisory committee to feed into that work, which we hope will be in place by 2004–05.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that what some people call stress others describe: as stimulation? There is a gradient between the two. Will she give an assurance that before the Health and Safety Executive makes any fresh regulations, in this or other fields, it will undertake a cost-benefit analysis of what the regulations will cost and what burdens will be placed on employers?

My Lords, I certainly accept that the response to stress may very well vary with the personality of individuals; that is obviously assumed. Stress may range from violence at work from clients and bullying and harassment to physical problems associated with noise and vibration, unfortunate and inadequate supervision and inappropriate prioritising of work. Those are real issues that can and often do translate into physical illness. For example, we know from the 1990s Finnish study on cardiovascular mortality—the figures date from 1973 onwards—that those who experience work-related stress are twice as likely to die of heart disease. It can also lead to stomach upsets, fatigue and headaches as well as to serious mental health problems. While the noble Lord is right to suggest that people's capacity to cope with stress may vary, none the less employers have a responsibility to ensure that the workplace does not make employees ill.

My Lords—

My Lords—

My Lords, does my noble friend agree—

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. Having listened with rapt attention to the Minister, does she agree that it appears that we shall have to try to define stress before we start a regulation?

My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right. That is why the Health and Safety Executive has defined stress as an adverse reaction to excessive pressures. In its recent literature to employers it spelt out what those pressures might include, such as increased workload, lack of management support and some of the issues that I identified in response to the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, including bullying, the lack of a proper job description and unmanaged change. We are trying not to place burdens on business or to introduce excessive regulation but to change a workplace culture in order to improve performance, job satisfaction and therefore productivity.

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that apart from the areas that she has already outlined in relation to stress, a key factor must be increasing national competitiveness and welfare at work, when one considers that the cost to the British economy is more than £3 billion a year?

My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. Coming new to this field, I was startled by the figures. The latest statistics that I have are for 1995, when 19.5 million days were lost to sickness from work, and one-third of them—6.5 million days—were lost to stress-related complaints and illnesses. I emphasise that one-third of all days taken for sickness from work were related to stress. The cost to employers, as my noble friend said, is in the order of one-third of a billion pounds and to society nearly £4 billion a year.

My Lords—

My Lords—

Cross Bench!

My Lords, I appreciate the Minister's definition of stress but I refer her to the paper that defines stress as a sense of lack of control over one's own destiny; she referred to that paper, which showed higher mortality. Will she explain how the Health and Safety Executive might change attitudes not only in the workplace but across the whole of society to ensure that people have a greater sense of control over their own destiny? Much stress occurs not only in employment—it relates to a sense of a lack of control outside employment.

My Lords, the noble Baroness is right in so far as she goes, but the lack of control over one's working conditions is only one component of stress. Some people may prefer a structured environment with clear directions about what to do. I believe that stress is an interplay between the pressures of the workplace and the personality that someone brings to it. Good employers can help to produce a culture that is beneficial not only to the individual but also to the business because it increases productivity, reduces absenteeism, improves turnover and reduces sickness. I am sure that we are all looking for that outcome.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that yesterday I went to have a medical check-up, which is now available to noble Lords as well as to Members of the Commons? One of the points that was accentuated was whether one suffered stress in your Lordships' House!

My Lords, I believe that that would depend on which political party one belongs to.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that, as a result of the Government's many initiatives to get people who have been excluded from work back into work—many of those people are disabled—stress will occur in new areas? Are the Government seeking to ensure that those people will be able to talk to their employers about stress and that employers will be given guidance on how to understand those new areas of stress?

My Lords, I am sure that that is right. When employers ask the HSE how best to reduce stress in the workplace, one of its recommendations—apart from having proper grievance procedures and so on—is to interview people on a one-to-one basis when they return from sickness-related absence to establish how stress can be reduced in future. I am glad that the noble Lord emphasised that mental illness can be created by stress and that the physical conditions that may follow can be as much of an impairment or disability as a physical illness.

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the Health and Safety Commission required that when the new line between Stirling and Alloway opens, the operating procedures will be to have two signalmen on one shift to process five trains because one signalman cannot pull the levers and deal with the computer? Surely the only stress that those people will suffer will be boredom.

My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend will understand if I pass on the specifics of that question. I agree with noble Lords who suggested that if there is one thing worse than over-pressure at work; it is the absence of work altogether.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, United Kingdom gross domestic product expanded by 0.6 per cent in the second quarter of 2002, compared with 0.3 per cent in the second quarter of 2001. The United Kingdom economy has performed relatively well during the current global slowdown. Growth last year was the fastest in the G7 and, unlike many of our major competitors, the United Kingdom economy has avoided any declines in output since the beginning of 2001.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that reply. Nevertheless, knowing that he will not wish to anticipate the Chancellor's autumn Statement, will he confirm that the Government are facing a shortfall in revenues at a time of increased public expenditure? Does he agree that, if the shortfall is dealt with by further taxation on top of the April increases in national insurance yet to come, then the chances of the economic run-down continuing are very likely, whereas, if the Government cover the shortfall with increased borrowing, at least the Chancellor's golden rule will be maintained?

Too right, my Lords! I shall certainly not anticipate the Pre-Budget Report, which will be made by the Chancellor next month. However, I am a little surprised by what the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, said about an economic run-down. I gave the figures for the first two quarters. Our general experience is that there is a greater increase in gross domestic product in the second half of the year than in the first half. However, none of that affects the fact that the public finances are in an exceptionally good state. In 1997, net debt as a proportion of gross domestic product was 44 per cent; it is now 31 per cent. In fiscal terms, we are in very good shape.

My Lords, does the Minister accept that over the past three years our share of total EU inward investment has halved and that the level of trade in goods with other EU countries as a percentage of GDP has fallen? Does he further accept that those factors are now adversely affecting our growth rate and will continue to do so until we join the euro-zone?

My Lords, we are moving a long way from the Question, but we are used to that in this House, are we not? The answer is: no. In the time that has elapsed since the establishment of the euro, it would be far too early to say what our share will be. There are reports of a great increase in trading between different countries within the euro-zone. However, our position still remains to be seen.

My Lords, is it not the case that, due to changes in our economic growth rate, it may not be possible to avoid mirroring what is happening in many other industrial countries? However, the difference is that we have built up a considerable surplus year by year. The proper way to manage that surplus is to ensure that it is available for contra-cyclical changes over the next year or two. Is that not the proper way to manage an economy?

My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. It is because of the hard decisions that we took in the years immediately following 1997 that public finances are now in a healthy state. Because of that, it is possible for us to maintain our position under the golden rule and under our rules on sustainable investment. We are succeeding in doing both those things.

My Lords, following the first part of the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Sheldon, will the Minister say whether he believes that the euro is helping or hindering Germany?

My Lords, the noble Lord asks whether the euro is helping or hindering Germany. That follows from a Question about our economic growth rate. I do not think so.

My Lords, in view of the poor progress of the economy so far this year, does the Minister believe that the Chancellor's forecast of economic growth for this year and the next is hopelessly optimistic and, if not, why not?

My Lords, we make forecasts of economic growth at two-yearly intervals, in contrast with previous governments, who made them less frequently. The next forecast will be made at the time of the Pre-Budget Report.

My Lords, could not anyone with a bank account tell the Government why they will have to admit in a few weeks' time that their figures are wrong? Is that not because in each month this year they have had five times more money going out than they have had coming in?

My Lords, that is a very nice way of expressing the situation, I must say. Only an advertising man could do that. But the truth is that our fiscal situation is as I described it in my earlier answers. We now have a net debt of just over 30 per cent compared with 40 per cent when we came into office. Under those circumstances, the monthly figures to which the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, refers have to be seen in perspective.

My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that he agrees with my noble friend Lord Sheldon? When, because of world forces, an economy moves ahead rather less rapidly than was the case, it would be foolhardy beyond belief to raise taxes and cut public expenditure. What matters is that my right honourable friend the Chancellor has adopted the correct policy. That policy involves considering the situation over the cycle and over the medium term. This is the first time in a great many years that that has happened in the economy. He should not in any circumstances be deflected from that very sensible policy.

My Lords, I thought I had agreed with my noble friend Lord Sheldon. I certainly agree with my noble friend Lord Peston. A feature of our present levels and of our plans for government consumption and investment is that not only are they valid in their own right—in other words, they are directed at producing better public services for the people in this country—but, in cyclical terms, they are the right thing to do from an economic policy point of view.

My Lords, at a convenient time after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend Lord Rooker will repeat a Statement being made in another place on the fire dispute.

moved Amendment No. 1:

My Lords, perhaps the noble Countess will forgive me. I hope that noble Lords will allow us to hear what the noble Countess is saying.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I have tabled Amendments Nos. 1 and 9 in an attempt to persuade the Minister that it would be politic to begin with a statement that does not give the impression that the Bill gives a permit to kill every animal in sight.

At the time of the epidemic, there was a hot debate on the pros and cons of vaccination. Was it effective? Would the meat be affected? Indeed, would the meat be saleable? Would not vaccinated animals still be infected? Would they not be carriers? Some of those questions are red herrings; most have now been answered. Both the science and the technology in this field are moving forward at a rapid pace. In the awful event that we should have another serious outbreak of foot and mouth disease, we should be better equipped scientifically, technically and practically to cope with controlling its spread. It could well be that vaccination will not provide the complete answer, but it should be given priority.

Experts giving evidence to the European Parliament's temporary committee on foot and mouth disease as well as to the UK-based inquiries have demonstrated their indecisiveness as to what part a vaccination policy should play in the event of a future outbreak of the disease. I quote from the European Parliament's temporary committee working document dated 16th September 2002. At paragraph 52 the rapporteur states:

"Mass culling of livestock and the subsequent destruction of meat can be ethically justified only by special socio-economic grounds. Decisions must be taken in a transparent manner: otherwise, it would be difficult to persuade those sections of the population who suffer most from a non-vaccination policy to provide the necessary co-operation during a future FMD outbreak".

In Committee, I said that we were governed by consent. If a government are to govern effectively in this country, the laws that they make must be reasonable and enforceable. In recent years, there have been several occasions on which a lack of consent has made enforcement difficult, if not impossible. I think instantly of the poll tax legislation enacted by the Conservative government. There is plenty of anecdotal evidence that the 20-day standstill rule is being flouted, simply because it is unreasonable, unworkable and unenforceable.

Difficult as it may be for the so-called "man on the Clapham omnibus" to understand, most livestock keepers have a bond with their animals that is almost as strong as the bond that they have with their family. They are also hard-headed realists. They know that, when an animal has been exposed to a disease, it must be dealt with appropriately. They find it tough to accept that a healthy animal that has had no contact with any infection must die, when there might be a means of protecting it from disease.

Equally, I recognise that farming has rotten apples, generally known as rogues. They are the wheeler-dealers of this world who own or rent numerous small parcels of land over a large area. They pay scant regard to biosecurity or animal welfare, and they trade animals as stockbrokers trade shares. Family farmers are still the major keepers of livestock in the UK. Most have a long association with the land and with their animals. It is painful and insulting for them to find themselves bracketed with the rogues by others who have little knowledge of farming or farming practices and who get their information from the exaggerated literature produced by some animal welfare organisations. I acknowledge and accept the need for strict controls, but there is room for a little humanity. Even the law can have a sympathetic face.

In Amendment No. 9, I ask the Secretary to State to ensure that an animal must be shown to be infected by foot and mouth disease before she can have it slaughtered. I understand that it is possible to differentiate between animals that are carrying antibodies as a result of vaccination and those with antibodies resulting from infection. If the animals have not been infected and have been vaccinated, they present no infective risk. It is the same as our measles vaccination: once we are vaccinated, we are not infective.

The Minister assured us on a number of occasions that the Secretary of State would take into account a vaccinate-to-live policy. For reasons of openness and humanity, I ask noble Lords to ensure that that policy appears in the Bill. I beg to move.

My Lords, despite our best efforts this morning, the groupings have gone slightly awry. With the noble Countess, Lady Mar, we intended that Amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 9 would be grouped. I am not sure how Amendment No. 2 dropped out at the last minute, but, with the leave of the House, I shall re-group the amendments. It might save a little time, which is something of which the Minister will approve. I shall speak in support of the amendment that the noble Countess so ably moved, and I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 2 and 9.

It is interesting that it has taken until this stage in the Bill's passage for the issue of vaccination to come before your Lordships' House. One of the reasons is that we were waiting hopefully for the Government to make their own proposals to write vaccination as an option—a preferred option—into the Bill. There are several reasons why that is necessary. One is simply to change the balance of the Bill. The issue has been discussed in detail, and I remember the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford speaking eloquently about it in Committee.

At the moment, the Bill is widely seen as a slaughter Bill. The Minister denies that, but the way in which the Bill is written means that the emphasis is on slaughter, rather than vaccination. We have now seen the Anderson and Follett reports and the public's reaction to the appalling scenes that took place during the epidemic, as people desperately tried to fight it. I shall read to the House what the Minister said on the Bill's second day in Committee. Our amendments are merely a statement of what the Minister now says is government policy. The Minister said:

"The Government's preference, as my right honourable friend the Secretary of State made clear in July, is that a vaccinate-to-live policy should be used wherever possible, in line with the Royal Society report. However, there will be scenarios where vaccinate-to-slaughter may be appropriate".—[Official Report, 7/10/02; col. 23.]

The implication is that there will be scenarios where slaughter on its own will be appropriate.

The Minister has said on several occasions that the Government's preferred first option in a future outbreak would be vaccination and that vaccinate-to-live should be used wherever possible. It could not be clearer than that, but the Bill still launches straight into slaughter. We support the noble Countess's amendment and we tabled Amendment No. 2 because we want to see vaccination-to-live written into the Bill as a strategy for dealing with a future outbreak.

Amendment No. 2 stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Livsey of Talgarth. There are two parts to the amendment. The first part sets out a sequential test that the Secretary of State should apply in the case of a future outbreak and in planning for such an outbreak. The test would require the Secretary of State to consider, first, biosecurity measures, secondly, vaccination-to-live, thirdly, vaccination for possible later slaughter and—only finally—slaughter. It sounds like a long and complicated procedure, but it is not necessarily so. Decisions could, if necessary, be made quickly. It is important that decisions are made in that order in the case of future outbreaks and that that sequence should underlie planning for future outbreaks.

The Minister may say that planning for future outbreaks is not for the Bill but for the protocol that he will produce, which will be welcome, or for his contingency plan, which will also be welcome. However, we tabled the amendment because we wanted the Minister to tell us where such a system for making decisions would be set out. So far, the information provided by the Minister, including a letter to the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, suggests that the protocol will, yet again, be all about slaughter, rather than giving fair, objective and balanced consideration to the alternatives.

The second part of the amendment probes the Government to see how they believe that they have the legal power to carry out an extensive compulsory vaccination programme to create a firebreak or as a ring vaccination or vaccination of an area—Yorkshire, for example. Where do they believe that they have those powers under existing legislation? I am no expert on existing legislation, but I read the 1981 Act and cannot find those powers. I can find the powers for compulsory vaccination, which appear in Section 16(1), but they do not appear to cover preventive vaccination of such a kind on a large scale. So mine is a probing amendment to discover where the Government believe that they have those powers and, if they do not have them or if, as they say in relation to the slaughter powers, they are ambiguous, why they do not propose to use the Bill to write them into legislation.

My Lords, I rise to support both the amendment tabled by the noble Countess, Lady Mar, and that tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. I share the noble Lord's view that it is astonishing that it is only now that we are to consider vaccination. I was not present for the Committee stage but I read the Official Report. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said consistently that he still needs the powers for contiguous cull. His argument for that relies on the Lessons to be Learned report, but seems to glide over some of the strongest recommendations of the Royal Society of London, the Royal Society of Edinburgh and earlier reports from Devon, all of which roundly condemn the cull policy and strongly recommend vaccination as a prior tool of future policy. That does not appear anywhere in the Bill, other than in amendments such as that moved by the noble Countess.

I hope that the House will support the amendments. Otherwise, we shall be left with a Bill that has been roundly condemned by everyone who was a victim of the contiguous cull—which, as we all know, was hugely costly in both human and financial terms. This is largely the same Bill as before, with some changes proposed on the fringes by the Government. It does not address the central point—whether we are doing the right thing—but gives the Government more powers to cull contiguously. In other words, it continues the same bankrupt policy that was perpetrated on the country last year. We should respond to the reports. The Government have not formally responded to any of the reports that they commissioned; yet here is a Bill that purports to deal with some of their recommendations.

We should take the amendments seriously. I do not know whether there will be a Division on them, but if there is I shall certainly support them.

My Lords, I hope that the Government will take seriously the amendments tabled by the noble Countess, Lady Mar. During the passage of the Bill, the Government have not taken sufficiently into account the view held by many farmers and others closely concerned with the farming industry. The Government have never really looked at themselves from that other point of view and realised how much they are mistrusted and hated. It is no exaggeration to say that many people believe that there is a culture in what used to be the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food that has not seriously changed as a result of its change of name: a culture of addiction to slaughter, belief in slaughter and preferment of slaughter, rather than the consideration of any other means.

I was telephoned today by a land agent in Devonshire who told me what happened on two farms there in June during the last outbreak. He was present on one of the farms and had been talking to a policeman. When his back was turned, the policeman jumped on his back, brought him to the ground, handcuffed him and he was subsequently charged. The Crown Prosecution Service admitted that there was absolutely no case and said that the arrest had been unlawful. There is case after case such as that, and the Government have not yet done anything to eradicate the deep suspicion and dislike of the department.

Clause 2 is entitled, "Extension of power to slaughter"; and Clause 3 is entitled, "Slaughter of vaccinated animals". There, in two headings, we have the counsel of despair or, to put it another way, the record of the department's addiction to the policy of slaughter. I hope that the Government will not be in too much of a hurry to reject the amendments.

My Lords, I am not sure that the amendment is a classic piece of drafting, but I support it because of the importance that I attach to the completion of preparations for a vaccinate-to-live policy to be applied, if appropriate, in any future outbreak of foot and mouth disease. I have made that point several times but, for me, it is the most important point in our decisions on future policy on foot and mouth disease. It is essential that we do not neglect it but write it into the Bill.

I once again recall that the Royal Society report identified several important issues to be resolved and considered that,

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

That is what we are aiming at and we need to achieve it. The issues identified in the report were: the clear acceptance that meat and meat products from vaccinated animals could enter the food chain; the validation of marker vaccines; the trade implications; the precise vaccination strategy; and all of the practical issues concerning storage, and so on.

The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, kindly sent me a copy of his letter to the noble Earl, Lord Peel, which states that DEFRA is considering two types of test for the presence of the foot and mouth disease virus: the simple, so-called 15-minute test; and the longer, at present laboratory test called the RT-PCR test. I shall not weary your Lordships with the translation of those initials into scientific wording, although I know it. Those are clear priorities. We must ensure that that is carried forward. That is why it would be useful to write that into the Bill to show that we are, in a sense, strengthening the possibilities for slaughter but that our objective is to arrive at a vaccinate-to-live policy, which 99.9 per cent of the British population will support.

My Lords, I am surprised by the amendments because we discussed the matter in Committee at some length. Those who support the "vaccinate to live" approach, with which we all agree, refuse to read the Bill as drafted. We know what lies behind the Bill. Although the tests are extremely encouraging, there is still no satisfactory scientific proof that we can distinguish between an animal that has been vaccinated and an animal that is carrying the disease.

My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but we must be correct. There is a test that will distinguish between them.

Yes, my Lords, but it has not been subject to peer review or accepted by the Government and the veterinary authorities.

The Government will grasp with both hands any opportunity to prevent the mass culling of animals. In moving her amendment, the noble Countess, Lady Mar, said that it may well be that vaccination is not the complete answer. That summarises the case. Vaccination may well not be the complete answer—at present, it is not. As soon as it is, any Government in their right mind would grasp it. After the experience of last year, no Government will go in for mass culling if there is any opportunity of an alternative such as vaccinate-to-live. However, it is in the Bill already, as I pointed out a number of times in Committee. Noble Lords come to the debate with preconceived ideas—I did myself when I was in Opposition—and they will not read the Bill.

New Section 16A proposed in Clause 3 states:

"This section applies to any animal which has been treated with vaccine for the purpose of preventing the spread of foot and mouth disease".

That is all animals that have been vaccinated. Subsection (2) states:

"The Secretary of State may cause to be slaughtered any animal to which this section applies".

If that clause read, "shall cause to be slaughtered", I would support the amendment. It does not say that. It gives the Government the option of slaughter or vaccinate-to-live. I am arguing that the option of vaccinate-to-live is in the Bill.

In Amendment No. 2 subsection (1)(b) says:

"vaccination of animals without the requirement of subsequent slaughter".

It is in the Bill already. I have just read it. I urge noble Lords to understand that the Government will accept any alternative to mass slaughter if possible. However, that would be extremely irresponsible before scientific proof is available. There are some encouraging tests. We all hope that they will be successful and that the Government will grasp at them. I am sure that they will.

However, until there is satisfactory scientific proof to distinguish between an animal that has been vaccinated or one that is within the 21 days of incubation of the disease, the Government must have the option of slaughter. The Government will not slaughter if it can be avoided. That is my understanding.

However, I ask noble Lords to read the Bill as drafted. It allows the option of vaccination-to-live, which I am sure the Government will grasp, when possible.

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, will he say where in the present Bill is the priority that is included in the present amendment?

My Lords, how can the Government allow a priority for an untested test? Giving that priority in advance of being assured scientifically, and without veterinary advice that that test is acceptable, would be extremely irresponsible. I ask noble Lords to be realistic about that. We know the agony that everybody went through last year. Does anybody believe that any government in their right mind will slaughter animals when there is an alternative? Until there is acceptable, scientific proof that can distinguish between an animal that has been vaccinated and an animal that is incubating the disease, it is extremely irresponsible to give priority to vaccination-to-live.

My Lords, surely the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and to the Government generally is the application of the simple age-long principle that prevention is better than cure. By prescribing that there shall be vaccination, the amendment of the noble Countess, Lady Mar, applies that principle.

My Lords, the Bill states:

"The Secretary of State may cause to be slaughtered".

Therefore, the animals can be vaccinated. I am sure we shall hear from the Minister that that will be the Government's first priority, but at this stage they cannot accept that vaccination-to-live should be the priority.

My Lords, I am not suggesting that there should never be slaughter. Vaccination may sometimes fail. However, that is the application of the principle. I believe that we should support it.

My Lords, I, too, would like to support my noble friend and the amendments. Despite what the noble Lord, Lord Carter, says, I feel that they are a vital safeguard. Having been sandwiched in at home with outbreaks of foot and mouth literally at the top and the bottom of the garden, every single animal at home was slaughtered. Needless to say, all the tests proved negative. To my dying day I shall be haunted by the sight of the executioners waiting at the bottom of the road to move into my neighbours' farms. Again, all their animal tests proved negative.

My noble friend's amendment makes such good common sense and we must not forget the vast experience that she has in animal health husbandry. It must be virtually second to none. I urge the Minister most strongly to consider the amendments.

My Lords, it is generally agreed that there are now two options for dealing with the problem of uninfected animals which are near an outbreak: either slaughtering them, as last time, or vaccinating them to live. It is generally accepted that one or other option may be appropriate in different circumstances. However, I believe that the balance is wrong because the emphasis is entirely on slaughter. I make no apology for reminding your Lordships of my comments on 7th October (col. 29) when I quoted a speech by Commissioner Byrne. I repeat what the Commissioner said because I do not believe that the Government have taken any notice of it:

"It is no longer acceptable to the public that large numbers of animals can be slaughtered and destroyed now that new diagnostic tests have been developed and are available which differentiate between infected and vaccinated animals".

The noble Lord, Lord Carter, will note that the commissioner takes that seriously. He continued:

"the Commission is of the view that emergency vaccination should be moved to the forefront of the response mechanism in the event of future outbreaks…vaccination had been viewed as a weapon of last resort. It is now time to break with this approach".

I believe that is the motive behind my noble friend's amendment, which I support. I support much of what has been said by subsequent speakers. Amendment No. 7 proposes a new clause headed "Disease control (slaughter) protocol". There is nothing about vaccination. It seems that the whole wording reflects a policy of killing uninfected animals, instead of giving emergency vaccination. Both possibilities should exist. There should be more in the Bill reflecting the possibility of emergency vaccination because that is clearly a valid possibility.

I hope that the Minister can give us reassurance and will seek to correct the balance—the wording, more than the actual provision—to ensure that the matter is reflected in a fair way. That would be reassuring to many fanners and to many of your Lordships.

My Lords, I support what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Moran. I also support both those amendments. At the risk of repeating what I said in Committee, it is a matter of presentation, style and perception. If a dispassionate observer were to write a critique of what has happened with this legislation during the past year, it would be clear that there has been a process of evolution and development. In the wake of foot and mouth, when slaughter was the only known policy—or the policy that was agreed and imposed, which even the NFU wanted to maintain in the face of those who were advocating vaccination—it was natural that the Government were conscious that some culls had been frustrated. Therefore, a Bill was needed to make it possible to act quickly in cases where frustration might occur again in a future outbreak.

That was understandable. That was the genesis of the Bill. The whole issue has changed enormously from a year ago. The Government have made many concessions. I am grateful to the Minister for withdrawing the word "immaterial". There is a possibility that I might give your Lordships a rendition of the Te Deum in thanksgiving for that change. However, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for whom I have a lot of sympathy, seems to be creating an unnecessary problem. He says that vaccination is on the face of the Bill. That is true, but it is secretly tucked away in Clause 3. It is there by implication. It is actually on the face of the Bill, but one has to read rather a lot before one comes to it.

My Lords, if the right reverend Prelate will give way—

Order! Order! My Lords, perhaps I may remind the noble Lord that we are at the Report stage.

My Lords, I am allowed to respond. I can tell the noble Countess that I know the rules. I can respond to an intervention which mentions me and asks me a question. I am saying that the provision is on the face of the Bill:

"This section applies to any animal which has been treated with vaccine".

It is not hidden away—it is there!

My Lords, I acknowledge that the provision is printed in Clause 3, but it is not at the front of the Bill. It is not what the Bill appears to be about. The two amendments that we are discussing try to put it at the front and make it prominent and clear that this is what we want to see happening. In Committee, the Minister said—the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, quoted his words—that we want to put the provision on the face of the Bill before we get into the slaughter procedures, which are the fall-back position. I believe that all of your Lordships are agreed that now slaughter should be the fall-back position and the last resort.

That is why the sequential test, set out in Amendment No. 2, is helpful. Perhaps the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Carter, will consider the wording of that amendment. It says:

"the Secretary of State must have regard to a sequential test".

That is not to say that he must do certain things if in a particular circumstance the test is found to be unreliable. There is genuine disagreement about the matter. Commissioner Byrne has claimed that there is a reliable test, but the noble Lord, Lord Carter, says that it is not yet reliable enough. If there is a sequential series of tests and if there is any doubt about the reliability of the tests, the possibility of slaughter remains as a last resort.

These amendments are important to the farming community because they put at the front of the Bill our present position and the ideal to which we aspire. It is conceivable that if we were to pass Amendment No. 1 in the name of the noble Countess, Lady Mar, which inserts the words "shall give priority", the Government will say, "Well, actually we are still not quite sure enough to be willing to accept that". I would support that amendment and I believe that the European Parliament report is strong and authoritative enough to enable us to do that with conviction. I would also support Amendment No. 2 because it sets out the sequential test.

However, I am puzzled that the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Carter, still cannot understand why the presentation of the Bill matters so much to the perception of the farming community. I fervently hope that the Government will accept the amendments. I believe they are desperately needed by farmers who are still deeply resentful about the tone of the Bill and the hangover from the time when it originated. We have moved on from there and we need to recognise that in the wording of the Bill.

My Lords, I shall be brief. I support both amendments tabled by the noble Countess, Lady Mar. I shall return to the matter when I deal with my Amendment No. 19, particularly subsection (4), dealing with the exercise of powers. That is relevant to the speeches which were made by the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Moran. I shall not deal with the matter now, but it is crucial to balance vaccination as against slaughter.

My Lords, the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Moran, hit the nail on the head by raising the issue of the presentation and tone of the Bill. During the last session of the Committee stage we began to think that the Minister was coming to realise that its wording could not be more unsympathetic to the farming industry. It is time that the clauses were softened in the interest of presentation.

I began to feel that the Minister had learnt that when he kindly sent everyone involved in the Committee stage detailed letters of changes that were to be made, generally showing concern about our debates. However, when one read no fewer than four separate articles in today's edition of The Times showing the draconian measures that the Government were likely to bring in primary legislation to deal with foot and mouth, one began to wonder whether we were going to go through all this again.

In addition, after the Secretary of State's incredible mistake in Paris yesterday, farming came through a bad day according to what one read in the newspapers. As a Minister, I have been once or twice to the food fair in Paris and I realise how important publicity is, whatever one's view of the food that is put before one. To feel that the best British roast beef was being spurned at that critical moment was a serious lapse.

The amendment put forward by the noble Countess is most valuable because it puts a requirement on the Government to think for a moment or two before beginning a slaughter procedure. Clause 1 is all about slaughter, slaughter, slaughter, slaughter! There is not a word about vaccination. After all, the first clause is supposed to be the most important clause in a Bill. Acceptance of the amendment will show to the agricultural industry, the veterinary profession and the general public that before slaughter the Government will spend a few minutes considering whether vaccination is the right policy.

I cannot see what is wrong with that. Why on earth cannot we do it? Whatever the noble Lord, Lord Carter, says about there being umpteen opportunities later in the Bill, Clause 1 is the first which comes to everyone's mind. It is right that the Government should have to pause before they take action to consider whether they should vaccinate or slaughter.

The agricultural industry wants the Government to think for just a moment before taking action. Once they have taken action, nothing can redeem the poor animals which have been slaughtered. Later we will deal with the problems raised in today's newspaper about the valuation, which sounds draconian. So let us have a more sympathetic approach to a most fearful moment in a farmer's life; seeing his stock being slaughtered. I have seen it and believe that we must assure the agricultural industry that the Government will not take that step without thinking about vaccination.

My Lords, I support my noble friend's amendment. During Question Time today we discussed stress. Stress among fanners is a huge problem and the stress of having lost their stock will remain with many of them for the rest of their lives.

Our breeding stock and milking cows are special. I hope that the Minister can put priority on some of the animals as regards vaccination. Much more research needs to be done into various vaccinations and I hope that the amendment will be carried so that priority will be given to vaccination.

There are more dangerous diseases in our community than foot and mouth. Foot and mouth is not a real killer to humans and not enough work is being done on various infectious diseases. Therefore, I believe that the amendments should be supported by your Lordships.

My Lords, first, I want to thank the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for his consistent courtesy in keeping us abreast of the various amendments, many of which are tabled in response to earlier debates. I want to speak in support of Amendment No. 1 because, unfortunatelv, I continue to be unhappy with the asymmetry which remains in the Bill, reflecting its drafting at a time long before there had been considered appraisal in the light of experience. In particular, the amendment addresses what we ought to be considering. I agree that we should be giving clearer powers for preventive slaughter, but they should be symmetric and perhaps deferential to reactive vaccination.

Furthermore, the amendment gives the Government a priority to come through. Overlying all the provisions should be clear, inescapable legislation that requires preparations to have been thought through in advance and annually rehearsed. That, too, remains hinted at but not spelled out in anything like the draconian detail that the slaughtering powers are spelled out in the Bill. Until those asymmetries are remedied, I will support amendments such as this and all kindred amendments.

My Lords, the Minister can surely be in no doubt about the strength of feeling around the Chamber today on the three opening amendments.

As my name is linked with that of the noble Countess, Lady Mar, on Amendment No. 1, it is natural that I refer to it first. The amendment calls for the Government to give priority to a vaccination-to-live policy. The number 13 is considered unlucky. Our thirteenth speaker, the very well respected noble Lord, Lord May, certainly is not unlucky in any way. He has served with great distinction. The words that he has added to those of the 12 previous speakers are an enormous contribution to the weight of argument in the Chamber today.

Noble Lords in the Chamber are not asking that vaccination should be the only policy. Let us make that clear before we go further. If an animal is infected the animal should be slaughtered, whether or not it has had to be vaccinated first. If it has become infected, slaughter is the only option.

The noble Lord, Lord May, touched on the fact that we started considering the Bill back in November last year, nearly a whole year ago. Since then things have moved on enormously. We have had the various reports. The noble Lord, Lord May, served on one of the bodies. I hope that we have learned something from them. Some noble Lords may place greater importance on different aspects. Amendment No. 1, standing in my name and that of the noble Countess, does not state that this should be the only way that we should deal with the matter, but asks that the Secretary of State should give priority to a "vaccinate-to-live" policy.

In Committee we had a long debate, as we have had again today, on strategy. I find it disappointing that the Government have not accepted the weight of argument behind my amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, says that there is reference to vaccination in the 1981 Bill. I do not think that "may" give consideration to it is the same as Amendment No. 1, which raises the profile further and states, "shall give priority" to it. The two are not the same.

Other noble Lords have raised extremely important points. I do not want to go over those again. Perhaps I may pick up on what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford said and remind the House that when we considered the question of vaccination last year, when the outbreak was at its height, the National Farmers Union was asked for its opinion on a vaccination policy. Those noble Lords who were involved at the time will remember that they circulated a 20-question questionnaire. They did that because at that stage there were no answers to some of the questions with regard to a vaccination-to-live policy—as to whether the science was there and whether it was possible to implement it. That was back in March or April last year. The reports have been issued since then. We have had time to consider the matter. More importantly, there has been the European report. They have all moved us along. It would be great folly to resist an amendment of this kind, which gives a steer to the Government in saying that we believe that the Government should give priority to a 'vaccinate-to-live' policy.

I should like to comment on all the other contributions. That would not be right at this stage. The case has been well made by each noble Lord who has spoken. Obviously my name is attached to Amendment No. 1, but I very much support the amendments tabled by noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches. I hope that the Government listen to the weight of argument that has been put forward again today on this matter.

My Lords, the right reverend Prelate and others have rightly explained the genesis of the Bill. It was brought forward in the first place because the Government found in the course of the disease that there were certain powers which they lacked or which needed clarifying. This House, in its wisdom, declined to pursue the Bill and to look at the powers that were lacking until it had the advice of the various committees of inquiry that were looking into the conduct of the disease and the way forward.

We now have the results of those committees of inquiry. Their recommendations are reflected in the clause as it stands and in the Government's general approach. The reason why vaccination in this form is not in this clause is because we already have that power under Section 16 of the Animal Health Act 1981. That option already exists. We do not need an additional clause to provide for that option in the Bill. The Bill addresses gaps in the powers of the Government. It might be tidier and presentationally more desirable, and softer and more acceptable, to put in something which is already in law. However, your Lordships will know that that is not the normal procedure of the legislative process. We are dealing here with powers that we do not currently have.

One such power is the power of preventative slaughter. There is an explicit recommendation in the Anderson report that the power needs to be clarified. It should be clear that we have a power of preventative slaughter. That is what the clause is about. It is not intended to explain the total strategy in relation to any future outbreak. It is intended to give us that power which we lacked and which we would need in a future outbreak.

That is not in any sense incompatible with the recommendations of the Royal Society and the comments by Commissioner Byrne that in future we must give greater weight to the option of vaccination. And if we go down the vaccination road we should give preference to vaccination-to-live rather than the vaccination-to-kill, which was the option that we considered but did not pursue during the course of the epidemic, and which the Netherlands did pursue during the course of the epidemic.

We have accepted the recommendations of the Royal Society that greater weight in first resort priority should be given to a vaccinate-to-live policy. That however is not what these clauses seek. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, was the first person in the debate to refer to what is obvious; that whatever policy one takes to prevent the spread of the disease, stamping out the disease in the first place does require, and will continue to require, the destruction of diseased stock. The Royal Society and the Anderson report also indicate that that requires the destruction of other animals on the premises where the disease is present. That would be prevented by both Amendments Nos. 2 and 9, which restrict the exemption from the vaccination requirement to animals which have been infected.

In dealing with the disease, we would also deal with the situation of direct contact, whether between animals or between human beings, which may or may not be on the same premises. That again would be dealt with by the stamping out process in the Follett recommendations, in the Anderson recommendations and indeed what is being contemplated in Europe. So if the House wants to go along with what we have been recommended to follow by the inquiries, then we do not go along with any of the proposals before us in this group of amendments.

Although Amendment No. 1 is slightly less restrictive, it would still prevent the slaughter of—

My Lords, can the noble Lord explain to the House why he asserts that these amendments are restrictive. Is it because there is an absolute discretion by the Secretary of State that is being restricted? Or, if it is not that, and we come to that later, what is it?

My Lords, the point I am making is that the Royal Society report recommends not that we should adopt vaccination in all circumstances, but that the option of vaccination should be given primary weight at the point extending beyond the diseased premises and direct contact. These amendments suggest that we do so before that. Where a contiguous cull, a three-kilometre cull, a preventive firebreak, or whatever, is being contemplated, the Royal Society suggests that at that point the option of first resort should be to vaccinate-to-live. Whether or not we would put it precisely in those terms, the Government recognise that that is a shift of approach and one that we broadly accept.

These amendments require that vaccination shall be the option of first resort at a "closer to the disease" stage. That is not in line with what Follett recommends; it is not in line with what Anderson recommends—which is, in effect, the clause as it stands—nor is it in line with what Commissioner Byrne said is the direction in which Europe is likely to move.

Another consideration is that the Royal Society also recognised—the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, referred to this point—that we are not yet in a position, should the disease break-out, God help us, tomorrow, immediately to resort to vaccinate-to-live in the way in which ideally we would move in line with the Royal Society report. That report suggests that we need to look at issues of diagnostics and their validation; issues of logistics; and issues relating to the acceptability of vaccinated meat and milk from vaccinated animals. Those issues have to be resolved, as do certain European issues, before we can fully implement the Royal Society report in regard to the first resort of vaccinate-to-live.

It is to be hoped that that can be done fairly rapidly, certainly within the next two years, but, as of now, it is not an available option. Therefore requiring us to give priority to vaccinate-to-live, as these amendments do, not only relates to a situation beyond that recommended in the Royal Society report but would not be deliverable for at least the next 18 months to two years, even if everything went well.

It is important that we have on the statute book all the powers that the committees of inquiry have suggested we should have. This clause is about giving us one of those powers; others of those powers are spread throughout the remainder of the Bill; others already exist.

I indicated in one of my communications to noble Lords that government Amendment No. 8 requires the Secretary of State to give reasons for adopting one strategy as against another in the course of any epidemic. That is spelt out in some detail. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has tabled an amendment to that amendment which requires that, if vaccinate-to-live is not adopted, part of the Secretary of State's explanation should indicate why. Although I do not entirely agree with the wording of the amendment, I agree in principle that that should be part of the Bill.

That, surely, is where we should require the Secretary of State to explain why we have gone for a policy other than vaccination. But it is not in this area because this is not the area where priority for vaccination-to-live is recommended by the Royal Society.

Those who advocate this policy should recognise two things. First, that what they are advocating in these clauses is not recommended by the committees of inquiry. Secondly, I should point out to those who purport to speak for the farming industry that, by and large, the provisions now in the Bill are supported by representatives of the farming community. It is wrong to say that they are resented or opposed by British farming in general; they are not. For obvious reasons, British farmers are as anxious as anyone that the Government should have a full armoury of weapons with which to contain any future outbreak of this terrible disease, or any equivalent disease.

I recognise the passion and concern of those who advocate these amendments that we should clearly shift to giving a greater priority to vaccination—which the Government accept—but the way suggested in the three amendments is not appropriate. It is not in line with what has been recommended.

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his offering. That is about all I can say for it. I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have supported me, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Moran, for repeating what he said in Committee and for reminding us what the Commissioner thinks about the Bill and our activities. I am also grateful to the right reverend Prelate, who reminded us of the human aspects of the Bill, and to the noble Lord, Lord May, for promoting a balance in the Bill.

The noble Lord, Lord Carter, was somewhat disingenuous. I said that vaccination was not the whole answer. I accept that viruses—belonging, as they do, to Mother Nature—can change very quickly and that a vaccine might not be available for a particular strain of virus when it hits this country. So I accept that vaccination may not be the whole answer. My amendment does not propose that vaccination should be the whole answer. It merely seeks that the Secretary of State should give priority to vaccination.

The Minister appears to be under an illusion. I go on to state in my amendment:

"prior to causing to be slaughtered animals on premises where no infection has been detected".

That is very important. Obviously I accept that infected animals need to be killed and that animals on the same premises, which are very likely to have been in contact with infected animals but are not yet showing signs of disease, should be killed. I have no problem with that whatever. However, I do have a problem in accepting that animals which have had no contact with any other diseased animal and which are showing no signs of infection—and which, if they are vaccinated, will be of no danger whatever to any other animal—must be killed. That is all I am saying.

My Lords, does the noble Countess accept that Amendments Nos. 2 and 9 relate only to infected animals and that Amendment No. 1 would restrict anything beyond infected animals to the same premise? Does she accept that direct contact can take place between animals which are kept at a premise different from the one in which the original disease was detected?

My Lords, I accept that also. But it is quite likely that such animals would be vaccinated. I understand that the vaccination takes only two or three days to work.

The noble Lord, Lord Carter, referred to the fact that tests to distinguish between an animal that has been infected and an animal that has been vaccinated have not yet been validated. These tests were validated quite a long time ago and deal with the RNA. I believe the noble Lord was referring to field diagnostic kits not being validated. There is a difference between the two. The field diagnostic kits are intended to cut down the time it takes to diagnose a sick animal.

I cannot accept the Minister's explanations. I must test the feeling of the House.

My Lords, with permission, I shall repeat a Statement made by the Deputy Prime Minister in another place. The Statement is as follows:

"With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a Statement on the Fire Service pay dispute.

"I am sure that Members from all sides would agree that firefighters do a magnificent job. We greatly appreciate the contribution that they and staff in the other emergency services make to public protection. They are rightly held in high regard for their professionalism and dedication. As a previous Secretary of State for Transport, I have visited some terrible scenes of disaster and you cannot but admire what the firefighters do.

"Fire Service pay is the responsibility of their employers, the local fire authorities, and the Fire Brigades Union. The negotiating process started earlier this year and the FBU lodged its claim on 28th May. The Fire Brigades Union demanded a 40 per cent no strings attached pay increase for firefighters, a 50 per cent increase for control room staff and a review of the 1978 formula that governed their wages. That formula has done a good job over the years. Since 1997 firefighters' pay has increased by 20 per cent. Over the same period pay for police and teachers has increased by 19 per cent.

"Only two years ago Andy Gilchrist, the General Secretary of the Fire Brigades Union said:

"Our wages remain ahead of other essential public sector workers precisely because we have maintained the formula".

The old formula solved the last pay dispute and has kept the peace for 25 years. The employers responded to the FBU's claim by indicating that any significant pay increase had to be matched by modernisation. But little progress was made in negotiations over the summer because the FBU refused to consider the employers' modernisation proposals.

"I want to be particularly clear on one point about the negotiations over the summer. At no point did the Government intervene in the negotiating process. Sir Jeremy Beecham, the leader of the Local Government Association, has made that clear on numerous occasions. And I made it absolutely clear that we had played no part in the negotiations when I met Andy Gilchrist on 8th August. Andy Gilchrist accepted that position, but made it clear that the FBU wanted a 40 per cent increase and no inquiry.

"On 2nd September the employers offered the FBU a 4 per cent increase, plus an agreement to establish a new formula that would link increases in firefighter pay to increases in the economy in general. The employers also invited the FBU to join with them in asking for an independent review to be established. And they gave an undertaking that any increase in pay agreed by the review would be backdated to the 7th November pay settlement date. By any standards that was a reasonable offer. None the less, the FBU rejected the offer.

"It was then clear that there was no prospect of a solution being found through the normal negotiating process. The employers made it clear that the negotiations had broken down, and made a request for a Government review. In those circumstances the House will recognise that the Government could not stand to one side.

"Fire disputes are different from most disputes. People's lives are put at risk. Government have a responsibility to secure people's safety. So we acted quickly and decisively. On 5th September, just three days after negotiations broke down, we set up an independent review. All sides, including the Fire Brigades Union, were asked for their input on the terms of reference. We secured the services of Professor Sir George Bain to conduct the review. Sir George is widely respected and has enormous experience of industrial relations. He is a former principal of the London Business School and a member of the ACAS panel of arbitrators. He was chair of the Low Pay Commission. The TUC and the employers nominated one member each to support him. The TUC nominated Sir Tony Young and the employers nominated Sir Michael Lyons.

"This is an exceptional team. It is a team with the right expertise and the right background to provide a fair and balanced assessment of the way ahead. Every relevant body, with the exception of the FBU, has submitted evidence to the review. The review is making excellent progress and will produce a report by mid-December. Yet still the FBU refuses to take part in the review. Still it has announced a programme of strikes covering 36 days before Christmas. It will not even suspend its industrial action until the review has reported. This is despite an offer from the employers to extend the mandate period in which the FBU strike ballot result is valid for another four weeks. If the FBU accepted that offer they could take industrial action without another ballot if, having seen the Bain report, they still felt it necessary. So industrial action is completely unnecessary and completely unjustified. The FBU's position is simply indefensible.

"I turn now to the plans that the Government have put in place to secure public safety in the event of industrial action by the Fire Brigades Union. Following the FBU claim and the initial response by the employers, the Government undertook prudent planning on the basis of the FBU's threat to initiate a national strike. The Fire Service is a large and complex operation. It involves some 47,000 firefighters in England and Wales and over 3,000 appliances operating from 1,600 fire stations. Our focus has been on taking what steps we can to safeguard life, and so far as possible protect property, when the normal fire cover is not available. Detailed planning began in August, and training started on the 28th of that month—before the pay negotiations had broken down.

"The plans are based on support from the Armed Services, and the acceptance by the police of additional responsibilities during industrial action. There are three main elements to the plans. First, on the assumption that fire control centres will not be operating during the strike, arrangements have been made for Fire Service 999 calls to be redirected. Every call will be answered. Secondly, emergency cover will be provided by a range of appliances staffed by Army, RAF and Naval crews. Nationwide, there will be 827 Green Goddesses, which will be able to provide only a basic firefighting capability. There will also be 331 specialist breathing apparatus rescue teams and 59 rescue equipment support teams which will offer specialist skills. Thirdly, on Friday, immediately after the FBU's announcement of their programme of strikes, the Government made available basic safety guidance and information to the public and to business. This is being supplemented by a range of other measures including a public information campaign on radio and television; a mail drop to some 4 million households; and a letter to the 15,000 largest businesses giving specific advice on fire safety and general health and safety issues. I can assure the House that the contingency arrangements are now in place.

"If the Fire Brigades Union goes ahead with its strike on Tuesday, 29th October, the military and police, assisted by those firefighters and fire officers who choose to continue to work, will be in a position to provide a basic emergency service. Members of the public should continue to call 999 in case of emergency and each call will receive a response. However, the military will not be able to respond to emergency calls as quickly as the normal Fire Service. The emergency crews will have fewer specialised capabilities than the normal Fire Service. And they are likely to be unfamiliar with the incident site and the local geography.

"In this situation, I have messages for the public, business, and the Fire Brigades Union. To the public, I urge you to take sensible precautions in your homes to prevent a fire occurring in the first place. To managers, safety representatives and others in industry and commerce, my message is to work on the basis that your normal activities continue during the strikes. However, the single most important step that you should take is to check that all existing fire safety provisions are in place and fully effective. My message to the FBU is—think again.

"Despite the wide range of measures that we have put in place, there is no doubt that the risk of loss of life and property will be higher when Fire Brigades Union members are refusing to work.

"My right honourable friend the Member for Greenwich therefore met Andy Gilchrist yesterday to urge him to clarify the extent to which the union would continue to provide a response to life-threatening incidents, whether house fires, major transport incidents or terrorist attacks. Mr Gilchrist agreed to consider this with his executive tomorrow and to let the Government have a quick response. I hope that that response will be constructive.

"Mr Speaker, we face a very serious situation. The House can be assured that I will keep the House fully informed at every opportunity".

My Lords, that completes the Statement.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Deputy Prime Minister's Statement. Everyone in this country depends on firemen, who give a highly efficient and professional service, for which we pay them tribute. As a resident of Kensington, I know the skill with which they dealt with the terrible Paddington rail disaster, and the fact that their skills in releasing trapped passengers were greatly needed. However, the current threat cannot be justified, and we do not condone the action that is being taken in support of an unrealistic wage claim.

The seriousness of the situation cannot be underestimated. The country faces having no professional fire service on 36 days between now and Christmas, when the 5th November will be celebrated—for the whole of that month—when there is renewed concern about terrorist activity, and during the darkest time of the year, when fires and accidents are bound to occur.

Of course the Army and other armed forces have been called in to provide backup using the Green Goddess fire engines, which are a far cry from the specialist vehicles used by the Fire Service. My first question to the Minister is: why has the Army not been trained to use proper fire engines, and why does there not appear to be a contingency plan to enable it to do so? If firemen are intent on withdrawing their service, they should not be able to make fire engines unavailable for emergencies, as they do not own them. I appreciate that arrangements would have to be made to stop the need to cross a picket line daily, but I would be grateful for the Minister's views on the matter. That provision would equip the Army and put them in a much better position to deal with the situation. Our soldiers are intelligent enough given training to operate these machines. What action has been taken to free these publicly owned vehicles for emergency services, or what thoughts have there been on the matter? One life lost as a result of these engines sitting idly in their sheds would be one life too many wasted.

I make no comment on the demands of fire-fighters. Although I heard what the Deputy Prime Minister said about the Government not intervening in negotiations, I understand that the employers organisation was going to make an offer in early July. Will the Minister confirm whether that offer—I appreciate that it had been achieved at that stage—was delayed by the prospect of the setting up of an independent inquiry by the Deputy Prime Minister? If that is correct, why was it delayed until early September?

Is it also correct that the Fire Brigades Union is not giving evidence to the inquiry? Even though the inquiry was only recently implemented, it will not report for a further six weeks. Can it not be hurried up, particularly since the report has now been pre-empted by the proposed action? If it could report sooner, it would be in everyone's interest, including that of the fire-fighters, who at some stage will have to reach a settlement with their employers, who are not the Government but the local authorities. In reality they will have to reach a settlement that will not match their highest demands, but it should be reached as soon as possible and it should be informed by the inquiry.

I agree with the Minister that the tribunal that has been set up consists of people who are appropriate to deal with the complexities of this pay demand. In the interests of hastening the result, will the Government make available any resources necessary to speed the conclusion of the deliberations to bring some prospect of an early resolution to this calamitous dispute? In his Statement, the Deputy Prime Minister properly drew attention to the need for everyone to be extra vigilant to prevent fire and accidents and to have fire prevention and fire-fighting equipment to hand. However, we already have the threat of the withdrawal of tube trains on the deep lines, as a result of action proposed by Mr Crow. What other major services could be subject to such proposed action? Who will decide whether they are in danger—union leaders, Ministers, employers? There must be considerable concern about health and safety, including that of the workforce, but follow-on action could make the situation even worse. I note that this matter is not referred to in the Minister's Statement.

There is one further matter to which I should like a reply. That is the question relating to insurance liability. To whom can victims of strike action turn in the case of a fire, serious action or major disaster that the Fire Service would normally have dealt with? Are their insurance policies invalidated by the strike action? If so, who will help them out of their dilemma? The public should be given an answer to that.

This is a terrible day. I hope that good sense will yet prevail, that the inquiry can be speeded up and that the union will wait for the outcome before taking action. If not, we must rely, as in the past, on our valiant forces, and they deserve our support.

My Lords, does the Minister accept that there is considerable sympathy and support for a fair and just pay settlement for fire-fighters? Does he also accept that over recent years the whole trade union movement has done much to modernise and adapt to the 21st-century needs of its members, and that this dispute therefore takes place against considerable public good will? Yet, that good will becomes fractured by a tendency on the part of certain trade unions to target the vulnerable and the public as leverage in disputes, which cannot be tolerated. Does the Minister recall his noble friend Lord Macdonald of Tradeston, on the subject of public service disputes, telling this House on 18th April 2002:

"It is not a question of ending the right to strike but a matter of ending the need to strike".—[Official Report, 22/5/02; col. 1162.]

Is it not true that the Government have been somewhat complacent about the public service while the storm clouds have gathered? On the 22nd May, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, told this House:

"I must ask the question: what is the problem being identified of industrial disputes in the public sector? Clearly, there are threats of disputes. There are new leaders of public sector trade unions who have been elected on the basis of threatening greater militancy. But the facts do not bear out the claim that there is a new problem of industrial disputes in the public sector".—[Official Report, 22/5/02; cols. 871–72.]

I doubt that the noble Lord would repeat that statement today, yet the Government were warned of gathering disputes and different attitudes. Have the Government done too little too late to address grievances building up in the public sectors, including problems related to housing costs and others? Those problems have created what my old friend Joe Gormley used to call, "platforms for malcontents to stand on".

In such circumstances, will the Minister not agree that it would be better if No. 10 desisted from over-macho press briefings? Those around No. 10 may feel that a good industrial dispute should be added to the Prime Minister's battle honours, but that would be a mistake. What examination are the Government making of the broader problems of public sector pay? Do we face a series of guerrilla disputes in the public sector, with each settlement feeding off the previous one? In that case, will not the Government simply see their much-vaunted increase in public expenditure seep away in inflationary wage demands?

In the light of this dispute and others pending, does the Minister see a need to review the Employment Relations Act 1999? What has happened to the review of that Act, which was supposedly under way?

On the specifics of the dispute, the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, has already asked what access the military will have to firefighting equipment other than the Green Goddesses. Will they have no access or limited access? How is the issue being handled? I also echo the noble Baroness's request for the Bain inquiry to be brought forward.

What discussions have taken place with Mr John Monks of the TUC on its code of conduct about disputes? Is the TUC being asked to produce guidance on intimidatory picketing of those who are continuing to work?

The Minister mentioned the 1978 formula. Is it dead? What offer would have been on the table under that formula? Are the Government prepared to fund a Bain settlement?

Finally, safety is very important. The Deputy Prime Minister called on everyone to examine the safety issue. If that issue is now going to be used as a guise for secondary picketing, the range of the dispute will be extended.

I hope that recent weeks have blown away the last complacency from the Government. For probably the first time in the 30 years that I have known him, I am on the same side as the Deputy Prime Minister in calling for the FBU to think again.

My Lords, I am grateful for the response from the two Front Benches. I shall do my best to answer the points raised. The Army is not trained to use the equipment. I do not know how many noble Lords have been on a modern appliance. They are like the Starship Enterprise. They are way beyond the appliances that existed in 1977. The advance in technology has been enormous. It takes the best part of three months to do the training. With the best will in the world, it would not have been prudent or justified on political, economic or industrial relations grounds to say just after the claim was lodged in May or during the negotiations in June or July, before they broke down, "By the way, boys in the fire brigade, can we just send the Army into the odd fire station one day a week to train on your equipment for when you go on dispute?". Just posing the question shows how unrealistic that would be.

The strikes are not going to be like in 1977, but will come in several-day periods. In those circumstances, it would be impractical and counter-productive to ask that the equipment be used for training purposes on the days when the FBU members are not on strike, because they will be on standby to deal with emergency services. Taking equipment out of a station and using it somewhere else could cause it to malfunction or it could be sent back in the wrong working mode. That would be asking for real trouble and it is not a runner. Everyone will appreciate that that is a serious practical consideration.

There is no evidence of government interference in the negotiations. I know that rumours and allegations have circulated about who said what at various meetings and who gave nods and winks, but we have at no time interfered with the stance of the employers on what they were going to offer or when they were going to offer it, in either private or public meetings.

The Fire Brigades Union would help to speed up the inquiry if it were to make its case. As has been said elsewhere, during disputes in the 1970s, the National Union of Mineworkers never failed to turn up at the Wilberforce inquiry and others to make what it regarded as a powerful case and to have it listened to in the inquiry that was to come up with a solution as well as in the court of public opinion.

At the end of the day, there will have to be a solution, just as in 1977. The issue was hotly contended, but everybody knew that there would have to be a settlement. The formula was the solution to the 1977 dispute. That formula has stood the test of time, but the employers accepted that it would have to be reviewed. Looking at another formula was part of the employers' offer. The top quartile of the median manual industrial earnings does not have the same rank as in 1977. That was on offer to be discussed, but the offer was not accepted. As I said in the Statement that I repeated, the FBU could suspend the strike for four weeks, remain fully legal with the strike, wait for the result of the Bain inquiry, regardless of whether it gave evidence, and then decide what to do. That seems a wholly reasonable course of action for the union.

I have no evidence that the tribunal is short of resources. I am grateful for the contributions about the make-up of the tribunal. Sir George Bain, Sir Michael Lyons and Sir Tony Young are all people of experience and balance who can be trusted to come up with an independent assessment of the situation. However, their job would be a lot easier if the FBU gave evidence. I cannot for the life of me understand why the FBU is not prepared to put its case.

The decision on whether the activity of another employer is safe is the legal responsibility of that employer, acting on the advice of the health and safety authorities. It is not for trade union leaders—or for Ministers—to say whether an activity is safe for the public. The relevant employer must make that decision, acting on the advice of the health and safety authorities, which also operate under statutory independence when giving their advice.

The question about insurance is not an unimportant matter. I cannot give a detailed answer, but discussions are ongoing with leaders in the insurance industry. We shall make a statement at the appropriate time, as soon as possible.

A point was raised about the dispute taking place against a background of public good will. We accept that the trade unions have modernised over recent years. There is no going back. There is a different framework of industrial legislation relating to disputes compared with 25 or 30 years ago. The FBU's claim was lodged only on 28th May. The Government cannot be accused—well, we can be accused of anything, but I do not think we are guilty—of complacency. The breakdown occurred on 2nd September. By 5th September we had set up the inquiry. The FBU was told about this and was asked by telephone conversation and by letter on 3rd September whether it wished to be involved in writing the terms of reference for the inquiry and to have an input and representation at the inquiry. We have never received a response to the telephone conversations or the letter. That is most unfortunate for everybody concerned.

I know nothing, as a humble Minister of State, about briefings from No. 10. The Deputy Prime Minister is responsible for the department that deals with the fire service and I have repeated his Statement. That remains the Government's stated position. There is no issue of being gung-ho or otherwise. We want a settlement. We do not want the dispute. We do not think that the Fire Brigades Union wants the dispute. There ought to be a much better way of solving the problem that has generally arisen without having to go on strike. Inquiries are one way of doing that. Sometimes we have had strikes and disputes over whether we should have an inquiry. People have gone on strike in the past to demand an inquiry. In this case the inquiry is up and running, so there is no justification for a dispute. The TUC's guidance, issued after the 1978 difficulties, stands. We hope that everyone concerned will abide by it.

I was asked whether a new formula was on offer. The prospect of a new formula was on offer, but what that formula would be was a matter for discussion. However, the dispute was called and the FBU said that it wanted 40 per cent now with no inquiry on modernisation or anything else and no discussions. I cannot say what the formula would have been, other than what I have said in the Statement.

Finally, I was asked whether the Government would accept what comes out of Professor Bain's inquiry. No government can be committed to responding to the results of an inquiry that has been set up independently and to which a key party to the dispute has not given evidence. Sir George Bain may come up with a package. He may well suggest a sum of money and a formula, but also suggest some changes in working practices to pay for some of it. How can we say yes at this point? We may be talking about a package; one cannot say. The one way to encourage the delivery of a decent package as a result of this inquiry is for the FBU to agree to give evidence to it.

My Lords, notwithstanding the refusal of the FBU to participate in the Bain inquiry, and bearing in mind that it may persist in that unhelpful attitude, can my noble friend the Minister say whether there is any possibility of the Government accepting a suggestion that I believe has been put forward in both Houses; namely, that the conclusion of the Bain inquiry should be significantly advanced from, say, 9th December of this year to a date in November? I recognise that the Government have no locus in this process because it is a matter for the Bain inquiry. However, will my noble friend pass on that suggestion to Sir George Bain at once?

Yes, my Lords; that is naturally the case. I do not know what the response from the Bain inquiry would be. However, it would be much easier to produce a quicker report if all the evidence could be put before the inquiry; for example, evidence from the FBU. There is nothing to suggest that there is a shortage of resources, but we are talking about an independent inquiry consisting of people of good will who are taking evidence from all parties that they can possibly reach. As a result of these statements and other discussions, I simply hope that the FBU will see that it is in its interests to outline its case not to the megaphones of the media and to the tabloid newspapers but to Sir George Bain and his inquiry. The union should also suspend any idea of action until he has reported. That can be done quite legally. Indeed, the employers have said that they would be prepared to increase the mandate of the strike ballot.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the changes made to employment law immediately after 1979 was the outlawing—the removal—of legal immunity for secondary action taken by groups of workers who are not involved in a dispute to bring pressure to bear on the employer who is involved? Is it not correct that the Government have done nothing to reverse that reform, and yet there are already threats by railmen and other workers to the effect that they may withdraw their labour ostensibly on safety grounds? Can the Minister give the House an assurance that the Government will support all those who combat secondary action of that kind, if necessary by invoking the law?

My Lords, we shall support all lawful processes. The noble Lord is quite right to say that we have not changed the issue about legal immunity. Trade union leaders do not own the safety of employees; safety representatives are crucial in that respect. The record of the trade union movement in improving industrial safety in this country is second to none. It is something for which it fought for years. Part of the reason for the start of the trade union movement was to secure better and safer working conditions for its members. However, the latter should not be used as a proxy in another dispute.

All this has come as a result of Royal Commissions, on which trade unions have been represented—for example, the Robbins Commission—and the work of the Health and Safety Commission and the Health and Safety Executive. The independent health and safety authorities are the relevant, lawful people who decide whether or not activities have to be suspended because of lack of safety cover. It is not a matter for trade union leaders to decide. If they do so without the advice of the health and safety authorities, quite clearly they may leave themselves liable.

My Lords, I hope that the Government will not become involved in a debate in this House about the merits of the dispute. I do not like the idea of arguments across the Chamber about the merits of a particular case. As the person who actually invented the formula, I am especially concerned about this issue. It has been stated in newspaper reports that the Government consider that 40 per cent is too much. Can my noble friend the Minister tell the House where the Government got that conclusion from? That is partly what is queering the pitch. The Government have announced that 40 per cent is too much. It was not too much a few months ago when MPs were awarded a 40 per cent increase, but it is too much now. Why? This must mean that the Government now have some kind of norm in their mind. In the old days this was called having an incomes policy. Can my noble friend the Minister say what is a reasonable figure when you know in advance of an investigation and subsequent report that 40 per cent is too much?

Further, if I understand my noble friend correctly, he said that as a result of representations from the employers in this case the Government agreed to set up an independent inquiry. Is that also a movement in policy? Both this Government and the previous government have generally said over the past 20 years that they did not like inquiries, conciliation, or arbitration. And they got rid of the comparability commission. Moreover, we do not allow the Civil Service to go to the Civil Service Arbitration Tribunal. But now local government employers come along and, as a result, the Government establish the Bain inquiry, while repeating that 40 per cent is too much.

Does this mean that another employer, faced with an equally serious dispute, could demand such an inquiry? Indeed, the Government would find themselves in a very difficult position if, after Bain, they did not accede to such a request. And what the Government give to the employers they must surely give to the unions. Let us suppose that another union demands an independent inquiry chaired by Sir George Bain. What would the Government say in response? Are they changing their policy, or not changing their policy? I am not against them changing their policy, but they had better take this matter away and think about what they are doing: are they going for incomes policy, or for arbitration? I do not expect to receive an answer this afternoon. But they should reconsider these matters and make up their minds.

My Lords, with great respect to my noble friend, I should point out that he asked me not to get involved in the merits of the dispute. Therefore, I shall certainly not argue the case about which percentage is the right one. I recognise the analogy made with Members of the other place, but let us just think about it. The Top Salaries Review Body is an independent body to which MPs gave evidence on their case, but they did not, as it were, fix the results of the inquiry. The FBU should follow the line taken by MPs and give evidence to the independent body, make their case, and then await the outcome. That is the analogy that I draw between the two groups. We should not play off one against the other.

I should add that MPs actually deferred their pay increases for many years in the hope that others would follow their example. However, it did not work out quite as they expected.

My Lords, the Minister may be glad to know that I shall not ask him as belligerent a question as was posed a short while ago from the other side of the House. Such disputes are extremely difficult and delicate. One has to be very careful what one says. But when otherwise reasonable and responsible people vote 9:1 in favour of strike action, one is bound to ask what is the underlying cause that leads people to adopt such a position.

Can the Minister outline the Government's view on what has caused reasonable people to vote in this manner? If they have not, as yet, found out anything in that respect, can the Minister confirm that the Government are making every effort to discover what lies behind the dispute? It must be much more than just a simple pay issue.

My Lords, in a way, I accept the thrust of the noble Lord's question when people vote 9:1 in favour of such action. I do not know the exact figures, but I believe I said that the total number of fire service personnel today is 47,000. The vast majority of those members will have joined the service since 1977 in the knowledge that there was a stable tried-and-tested formula for wage increases based on the outcome of the previous dispute. In fact, it was a formula that most trade unions would have given their hind teeth for in the past, even though it stymied free collective bargaining because it was actually a formula that gave the pay increase each year.

When, two years ago, the person who is now the general secretary of the FBU said that the formula had done a good job, that did not ring any warning bells to the effect that there was something wrong with the formula. In just two years out of 25, I do know what has caused Mr Gilchrist to move from saying that the formula had done a good job and given good salaries to saying now that it is an absolute travesty and needs burying. Clearly there is a problem here. But, given the fact that the general secretary made that comment just two years ago, it is not one that has festered over the years as some people might think.

My Lords, I do not think that the Minister has said anything yet about retained fire fighters. As he knows, they are part-time but very efficient and professional fire fighters who provide a tremendous service to the rural areas of this country, particularly in the highlands of Scotland. Retained fire fighters do not strike, but have they been invited to give evidence to the review body?

My Lords, I do not have specific details about that. However, the employers accepted that retained fire fighters' pay should be improved; in fact, one of the accepted claims was that their pay should be improved. As far as I know, Professor Bain and his colleagues are taking evidence from all the relevant parties who wish to provide it. I am sure that retained fire fighters will be invited to give evidence. I pay tribute to the service that they provide. They provide, almost by definition, an incredibly localised community service in our rural areas. We would not be able to fight fires in those areas without them.

My Lords, I declare an interest. I was Home Secretary at the time of the previous dispute and—with Mr Terry Parry, of the Fire Brigades Union—played a part in settling it. I also played a small part in the TUC's development of a code of practice for dealing with safety matters. These two issues are still relevant. What has changed is that, whereas the previous dispute occurred in days of high inflation, we now have low inflation, which has a bearing on pay awards. Does my noble friend believe, as I still do, that the way forward is through the TUC code of practice?

The pay inquiry will not report until December. Meanwhile, inaccuracies about the dispute are reported daily, particularly in relation to the role of the Green Goddesses, written by people who have never seen a Green Goddess or thought about how they can be used. The Green Goddesses are kept at a storage base in the East Midlands. They are looked after carefully and have had limited use. There is not a snowball's chance in hell of their replacing the vehicles of the modern fire service. People who argue that, prove that they know nothing about the matter. We require a period of calm and quiet to settle this dispute, and I hope that we shall have that.

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. I remember the role that he played in the acrimonious 1977 dispute, when I was just a humble Back Bencher in the other place. The fact is that the formula solved that dispute; it was the key. At the time, people always ask why a formula could not have been dreamt up seven or eight weeks earlier. We accept that the formula needs to be re-examined. The way to do that, however, is to sit down round the table. There is plenty of time to do that before going on strike.

My Lords, over the weekend, the Minister's colleague in another place, Mr Nick Raynsford, said that he thought that train operating companies would operate normally. However, surely that is a matter for the companies and for the Health and Safety Executive. Or will the Government be offering advice to the train operating companies? If the Health and Safety Executive tells the train operating companies that it is safe to run their services, but the companies are unable to obtain insurance cover because of the national strike, will the Government stand behind them in relation to cover, as they did for the airlines after September 11th last year?

As I said, my Lords, discussions on insurance are in progress. As I also said, however, it is up to employers, on the advice of the health and safety authorities, to decide whether it is safe to run the service they are providing. If they receive advice from the health and safety authorities that they can run their service, I cannot see why insurance cover should be an issue.

My Lords, does the Minister accept that the saving of life should be the paramount consideration in emergencies? Will the Government therefore consider making cutting equipment available to servicemen? The use of such equipment in car crashes, and even in coach and train crashes, can be a critical factor in saving lives.

My Lords, reverting to the original Statement, Mr Gilchrist was asked yesterday about the FBU's views in relation to life-threatening circumstances. He was also reminded of the TUC code—an aspect of the club to which all the trade unions have signed up. He said that he would discuss the matter with his executive and come back to the Government; I believe that my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister said that the FBU would come back tomorrow. I accept the noble Lord's point that the saving of life is the paramount consideration.

My Lords, this is not a dispute that will be solved through textbooks. The noble Lord, Lord Prior, asked a fundamental question: why did more than 90 per cent of firemen vote to go on strike? I ask my noble friend the Minister to reflect on the fact that the 1977 formula—I shall, if I may, add a little to the history given by my noble friend Lord Merlyn-Rees—was not accepted by firemen; it was imposed on their leadership by the then TUC general council. I know that because I was there. We sent Terry Parry out to tell his massed ranks, who filled Great Russell Street, that the dispute had to be settled on the basis of that formula. I was not entirely surprised by that because, at the time, no one could see the value of the formula. Every general secretary has had a similar situation in his own union at some time.

In a few days, the dispute will have started, and the most difficult thing will be to persuade people to stop. Although I completely accept what my noble friend the Minister said about the Government not interfering, there are reports, which I believe are accurate, that firemen do not believe that. Reports of offers of 15 or 16 per cent have been bandied about, and they are either true or untrue. There are also stories about comments by a member of the Bain committee, and they are either true or untrue. I believe that the first task should be to endeavour to remove that misunderstanding. As the Minister said, it is a misunderstanding.

I believe that it would be a great mistake for the Bain committee to hurry its report. The problems with the fire service go much deeper than the matter of pay. There are also problems with, for example, the fire service pay structure. The fire brigades compare their pay structures with those for the police. The formula broke down because of advances made by those without a formula. Bain needs to have enough time to address all of those issues.

If I am correct about that, and if we are to reach a settlement, will the Minister just consider a way of reaching an interim offer and giving some assurances about the intent of the Bain committee? If we return to some of the thinking I have heard expressed today, we shall be returning almost to 1926. References to the law will not help one jot. This is the most heavily supported dispute for a very long time and it needs to be dealt with in a manner likely to produce a settlement. I believe that that will be possible only with an interim settlement which entails waiting for Bain.

My Lords, I accept my noble friend's warning about the law. However, I think that I have answered the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, to the best of my ability. I do not think that it was a provocative question. The Government have not sought to change the law in respect of immunity for secondary action. I think that that is a straightforward position. As for the other points, however, surely the way of getting answers about what might have been offered on a given day or in various meetings is for the parties to give evidence to the inquiry. Let the independent inquiry decide who said what and the root issues in fire service pay. People have accepted that the formula needs changing but the fact of the matter is that the formula—

My Lords, the firefighters do not believe it is independent.

My Lords, I was about to say to my noble friend that I believe that the formula is based on the higher quartile of top manual industrial earnings. It is not a question of people who are not a party to the formula getting ahead; the industrial structure of this country today is not even remotely like that of 1977. One can therefore appreciate that the formula needs to be reviewed; that point has been conceded. The best body to decide that is the inquiry.

moved Amendment No. 3:

My Lords, I support the amendment. It governs the exercise of powers, which are referred to in Amendment No. 19. I refer to the exercise of powers under Clauses 5 to 7.

The word "thinks" confers an absolute discretion which is not justiciable, whereas the word "decides"—that is, a decision—is justiciable and affords judicial review as to the grounds of the decision. A decision would have to be based on some ground and that ground would be a report from an inspector or a series of inspectors' reports. That could be safeguarded on judicial review and that would afford a reasonable measure of safeguard within the law. As I say, I support the amendment.

My Lords, the group of amendments we are discussing concerns the debate in Committee which became famous for the depth of its philosophical insight as regards whether something was material or immaterial and what "immaterial" meant. No doubt the Government will shortly move their amendment to remove the word "immaterial". However, there were two aspects to the "immaterial" debate. One concerned the question of what the word meant—the Government amendment deals with that matter and makes it starkly clear—the other concerned whether what it meant was or was not a good thing.

It is our view that new Section 1A is badly phrased. The Government are saying in effect that certain things do not matter in any decision whether to slaughter. In other words, anyone who says that an animal cannot be slaughtered because it is not infected, has not been in contact with or exposed to infection or has been vaccinated will be told to go away because those things do not matter. It appears that any animal can be slaughtered which the Secretary of State in his or her wisdom thinks should be slaughtered. We have tabled an amendment to make clear that animals can be slaughtered only under certain circumstances. We believe that animals can be satisfactorily treated with vaccine against foot and mouth disease. We have tabled the amendment to establish the difference in thinking between ourselves and the Government. I do not think that there is a cat in whatever's chance of the Minister accepting the amendment but it is an important statement of principle and illustrates why the fundamental philosophy behind the Bill is wrong.

My Lords, one cannot possibly have someone just thinking something. I give the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, the benefit of the doubt in that I know that he thinks about what he is doing. Whether he thinks correctly or thinks wrongly is a matter of judgment as between my judgment and his, both of which may be wrong. The point is that Ministers must decide, not just think. A decision implies intellectual rigour. For the benefit of those of a less historical frame of mind than myself, it was Abbe Sieves who said, "gouverner, c'est choisir"; in other words, to govern is to make decisions. So governments have to make decisions and be held accountable for those decisions. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has to decide a matter, not just to think in a woolly way. I know that his intellectual processes are rather more rigorous than that, but perhaps those of some of his successors might not be.

My Lords, I was astonished when the noble Lord found it impossible to accept the noble Countess's amendment. Here is one which I should have thought is almost equally easy for the Government to accept. As has been pointed out, the word "thinks" is very subjective. Indeed, one of our problems is that the Government do not seem to have thought enough about the Bill. Perhaps they should rethink it altogether. However, on the face of it, to use "thinks" as opposed to "decides" seems to me to introduce a quite unnecessary piece of vagueness. If the Government do not accept so simple a measure as this amendment, all I can say is that it is just one more instance of the Government being absolutely wedded to a stonewall defence of a very bad Bill.

My Lords, this group of amendments includes some issues of terminology which one can argue about and one of serious principle. As regards the issues of terminology, the Government's Amendment No. 4, which I shall move shortly, recognises that the use of the term "immaterial" in the Bill as currently drafted gives rise to a somewhat negative response. We did not intend to imply that the relevant issues did not matter, rather that they would not determine the matter. They could well be taken into account and they may well be the most important issues but they will not of themselves determine or constrain the relevant decision.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford is no longer present. He promised us a Te Deum with regard to the amendment. That reflects the view of the House that the word "immaterial" is offensive. Therefore, I hope that noble Lords will accept my amendment to remove it.

I should like to be as accommodating with regard to Amendment No. 3. It may appear a little perverse of me not to be. I assure the noble Baroness that I engage in conscious and rational decisions, as I know that she sometimes doubts that. On this occasion, the problem is that the clause is an amendment to the Animal Health Act and consistency with the phraseology of that Act is necessary. Throughout, that Act uses the word "thinks". Whatever weight one may put on the views of the noble Earl and the noble Baroness, my advice is that we should maintain consistency. Therefore, with regret to some extent, I cannot agree to Amendment No. 3.

With Amendment No. 5, we come to an important issue of principle. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, rightly said that the issue is not whether we use the word "immaterial" but what processes are involved. The amendment would reverse the intent of the clause, which is, as I said in relation to the previous group of amendments, to give effect to the clear recommendation of the Anderson inquiry that the Government should unambiguously give themselves powers to carry out preventive slaughter in certain situations. That is what the clause attempts to do. I know that some noble Lords oppose that but if the House believes that we are following the advice of the committees that we commissioned, it should agree to the clause and its intent. Amendment No. 5 would reverse that and constrain the slaughter powers to what they currently are. I know that that is what the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, wants, but it is not what the Anderson committee advised us to do and it is not what the Government advise the House to do. I therefore most strongly resist Amendment No. 5.

I do not know whether I thank the noble Lord for that response to my amendment, which I regard as an important amendment. It would give powers to the Minister to slaughter. Proposed new Clause 1(2) states:

"In sub-paragraph (1)…after paragraph (b) insert—

'(c) any animals the Secretary of State thinks'".

I am not minded to press the amendment to a vote but, in view of the slight encouragement in the Minister's response, I hope that he will ask the department to consider the proposal again. The issue is not about the word "immaterial"—we shall come to that later and I do not want to labour it at this stage. The Bill will give the Secretary of State powers relating to animals that he "thinks"—rather than "decides"—

"should be slaughtered with a view to preventing the spread of foot-and-mouth disease".

That is an important issue, not a minor one. I thank those noble Lords who supported the amendment. I hope that the Minister will seek further advice and return to the issue at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

My Lords, I have to inform noble Lords that if Amendment No. 4 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 5 for reasons of pre-emption.

moved Amendment No. 4:

My Lords, I thank the Minister for having listened to the arguments that were advanced in Committee. We support the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 7:

After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—

moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 7, Amendment No. 7A:

Line 14, leave out "prepare a document" and insert "make an order"

My Lords, I want to ask the Minister a question, of which I had given him notice, relating to the amendment. With regard to this amendment, this new clause and other clauses of the same nature in the Bill, it would be helpful to all noble Lords to know the relation of the Bill to the work on foot and mouth now being carried out in Brussels.

When I spoke in the debate on 7th October, I mentioned that Commissioner Byrne had said that a draft directive was to be put forward, but, of course, at that stage I had not seen it. Now I have, thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, who kindly lent me his copy. I made a copy of the draft for myself and arranged for the Library also to have a copy so that it could make it available to other noble Lords. It is a very long and detailed draft, which no doubt the Minister and his department will consider and discuss.

However, I do not understand how the Bill fits in with the impending directive. In particular, I do not know when it is likely that the directive will come into force. But it seems to me that, if the Bill is passed in the relatively near future, there is a danger that it may become out of date and be superseded by powers that the Commission will propose that the EU as a whole should take in relation to the whole European Union. It is clearly proposing that arrangements should be made to cover the whole Union with regard to foot and mouth and possibly other animal diseases. It would be a great help to me and, I imagine, to other noble Lords to know how the Bill meshes with the impending directive, when the directive is likely to be issued and whether the Bill will be affected or unaffected by it.

My Lords, perhaps I may add one or two points to those made by my noble friend Lord Greaves and also mention one or two issues which the noble Lord, Lord Moran, raised. We feel very strongly that protocols do not have enough force. My experience of protocols in legislation occurred, in the main, during the passage of the Government of Wales Bill in the other place. When the Secretary of State was at a somewhat loose end when asked difficult questions, he said that a protocol on the matter would be introduced, and we had a long list of protocols. I would not say that they amounted to pages and pages but there were certainly large numbers of them. That is why we feel strongly that force should be given to this matter.

The other general point that I want to make is that the title refers to disease control, but then references are made only to slaughter. I do not want to pre-empt anything that the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, will say because he, too, very kindly showed me the draft EU directive. However, I shall mention one item in the directive which concerns control by vaccination in the case of a disease spreading severely.

Clearly, many different tools are used in controlling disease. If one is to have a disease-control slaughter protocol, then perhaps one should consider disease-control in other respects, too. I believe that that is important and it was underlined in the Royal Society report by Sir Brian Follett, who said something similar to what I said in relation to the EU proposal. In view of what the Minister said earlier about testing and matters of that kind—I believe that we shall return to those issues in this debate—perhaps in a year or 18 months we shall be given definitive explanations of these matters. None the less, we believe that the protocol could be cast far more widely, that it should be ordered and, at the same time, have rather more force.

My Lords, I, too, support the amendment in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Greaves and Lord Livsey. The meaning of the word "protocol" is woolly when applied to legislation. It is also far more firm to make an order rather than prepare a document. I believe that this group of amendments should definitely be supported.

My Lords, I want to say a few words about the amendment. First, I should like to hear the Minister's response concerning the difference between a protocol and an order. I believe we all accept that that needs to be clarified. We need to be told where one or the other might fit in and whether the protocol or the regulations are stronger. I suspect that regulations are stronger than a protocol, but my legal language is not very good.

Secondly, following the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Moran, is the Minister in a position to give us an indication as to when a response will be made by our Government to the European Parliament's working group 5A, to which we referred earlier? That would help. Can he also say when the European Parliament is likely to put forward the proposal formally? At present, it is at a working group stage. I know that this is the Report stage of the Bill but it is difficult for us to comment on the matter because we need to hear what the Minister has to say. Therefore, I hope that any questions will be raised before the Minister sits down because we need clarification on those points.

My Lords, this group of amendments seeks, as the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said, to turn the protocol into secondary legislation.

The protocol is designed to explain what needs to be taken into account when these new powers are used. These new powers relate to slaughter. We already have powers which relate to vaccination. The protocol is therefore only used to explain the circumstances in which the new powers would be used. It will not describe or constrain the whole strategy. It may well be that in most circumstances vaccination would be the preferred option. It will describe where we might in present circumstances use these new powers and only these new powers because that is the only part of the legislation that requires this degree of explanation.

Explanation is not the same as secondary legislation. It is more flexible than secondary legislation. Circumstances will change. The nature of the disease and outbreak may change and experience abroad may change. Indeed, to turn to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Moran, there may be developments at the European level which would need to be taken into account in the protocol. It is unlikely that there will be developments in Europe that would give us more powers than we already have on vaccination, or more powers than we need—if we adopt the clause as it stands—on slaughter. The balance may well change as the EU moves more in favour of vaccination than has been the case historically. But it will not alter the fact that we need both powers.

As to the timetable of European consideration, the proposition has just been put on the table and the discussion is ongoing. It could be some time before we get to a position where this is substantively discussed at the political level and a considerable time after that before it has been through the parliamentary and the Council of Ministers processes and actually passes into European legislation.

At that point the protocol may need to reflect that development, but we are not at that stage now. We are unlikely to be at that point for some considerable time. So we must recognise what the protocol is for. It is an explanation, not a legislative tool. If we were to change its nature, it would be a piece of legislation, albeit secondary legislation, subject—as I believe the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, suggested—to the negative procedure, which would need a positive decision in order for it to be debated in the House. Although it would be a relatively low-key piece of legislation, if the circumstances of animal disease control changed we would have to change the provisions.

That is not what we need in this process. For those who may be the recipients of action under the clause we need to explain what are the limits, what things need to be taken into consideration and when were the Government to decide to go down the slaughter road. Turning that protocol into secondary legislation does not seem to be appropriate. I believe that it would be somewhat strange in terms of legislative procedures were we to go down that road. I suspect that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee would have to take a view on the matter. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, will not pursue this and that we shall have the protocol relating to this particular new power and not to the totality of the strategy of disease control.

The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, asked why we have used slaughter rather than vaccination. The protocol is intended to cover the general issue of matters that have to be taken into consideration. The next group of amendments relates to explanation in particular circumstances. The noble Lord's Amendment No. 8A—which I have already indicated I propose in principle to accept—states that the Secretary of State must include an explanation of why he proposes to use slaughter rather than vaccination. It is not appropriate to include that in a provision that sets out what has to be taken account of in the protocol. I hope that with that explanation this group of amendments is not pursued.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that explanation. He has strengthened my view that this should be a document that is placed before Parliament. The protocol, at the moment, would be a document which is published and issued by DEFRA in the name of the Secretary of State, but in which Parliament has no locus whatever.

The Minister said that it would be an explanation of where the slaughter powers may be used and that that is different from secondary legislation. But secondary legislation very often is a matter of clarifying, explaining and setting out in more detail—which surely this will involve—what the primary legislation actually means and how it will be carried out. Secondary legislation is very often of that nature. So it seems to me to be appropriate.

The Minister also said that the legislation may have to change. Of course it may have to change. That is very often why secondary legislation is used in particular cases. To put something in concrete in primary legislation might prevent easy change, whereas secondary legislation is a relatively easy process of changing the details of legislation. There is no question of doing that quickly. Subsection (6) of the Minister's proposed new clause covering the disease control (slaughter) protocol states that if the Secretary of State wishes to change the protocol:

"Subsections (2) to (4) apply to a revision of the protocol as they apply to its preparation".

Those subsections state that the Secretary of State has to prepare a document. He will have to prepare the revision of the document. It must indicate the purposes for which any power to which it applies will be exercised; the principal factors to be taken into account; the procedure to be followed in deciding whether in any circumstances or description of circumstances the power is to be exercised; the procedure to be followed by persons who have functions in relation to the exercise of the power; and the means by which a particular decision may be reviewed. So it is complicated stuff. That has to be published.

Then the Secretary of State has to consult. He must send a copy of the draft to such persons and organisations as he thinks are representative of those having an interest in the exercise of the power; consider those drafts; and amend the draft accordingly. So it will be quite a time-consuming procedure anyhow. Therefore, it is not something that can be done in a matter of days, or two or three weeks.

Turning this into the normal kind of parliamentary order, secondary legislation or statutory instrument—of which we receive great long lists every week, and look at some of them and wonder what they mean—is hardly a major imposition. But it does mean that the protocol, and amendments to the protocol when they occur, are laid before Parliament. We and Members of the other place will have a chance to look at them and, if we feel that they are wrong, to raise that matter. That is a fundamental safeguard. It is not a great imposition on the Government; it is hardly any imposition whatever. What the Minister says strengthens my view that this is what we should do. I therefore beg leave to listen to the Minister for a minute.

My Lords, I have had the advantage of seeing the draft protocol. It is in a form that is intended to explain the use of the new power rather than to give traditional and more precise powers, which is the normal purpose of secondary legislation. Can the noble Lord, with his knowledge of secondary legislation, see how that protocol, which has been generally welcomed, could be turned into secondary legislation? I cannot see that. There are other ways that Parliament might wish to debate it, but as a piece of secondary legislation I do not think that that will work. It would certainly not be normal procedure in this House or in the other place.

My Lords, before the Minister sits down, he has not answered the question that I put to him. I realise that it will inevitably take some time for the process of the draft directive to go towards finality. But, for the purposes of the Bill, is he proposing simply to ignore the work that is going on, or does he envisage a short life for the Bill until that comes through?

No, my Lords. If the approach adopted at European level has legal force, it will come through the normal process for dealing with European legislation. The point I am making is that whatever strategy the European Commission decides in future that we should follow, it will require both powers of slaughter and vaccination. It may shift significantly, as Commissioner Byrne has implied, towards vaccination in the wider sense, even if slaughter is used for the diseased animals and their immediate circle. But it will require both powers, so the clause will not be affected. In all circumstances, we will need the option of those powers; the European Union may direct us to a greater priority for one set of powers than for the other, but we shall need both.

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down—

My Lords, I remind your Lordships that my noble friend the Minister has finished responding and has sat down. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, raised an issue and my noble friend was merely clarifying it. On this occasion, the Minister has long since sat down.

My Lords, I thank your Lordships for those multiple interventions. The Minister may well be right to say that the way in which the protocols are phrased at present is not appropriate for statutory instrument. If the amendment were carried, we might well have to rephrase it in the language appropriate for statutory instrument, but the basic content and substance of the protocol is appropriate for an instrument before Parliament. I seek to test the opinion of the House.

The Question is that Amendment No. 7A shall be agreed to. As many are of that opinion will say, "Content". To the contrary, "Not-Content". I think the Contents have it. Clear the Bar.

Division called.

Tellers for the Contents have not been appointed, pursuant to Standing Order 53. A Division therefore cannot take place, and I declare that the "Not-Contents" have it.

moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 7, Amendment No. 7C:

Line 22, after "exercised" insert ", which shall include the application of such methods of detecting disease in animals as may be available"

My Lords, perhaps the noble Earl would give way for a moment. I hope that noble Lords who need to have conversations will leave the Chamber. We on the Front Bench cannot hear the noble Earl.

My Lords, the noble Baroness seems to have had a miraculous effect on the House. A deathly hush has come upon us.

To repeat, there remains a divergence of opinion about the most effective methods of controlling foot and mouth disease. Even after the recent epidemic with all its horrific consequences, there is still no line on whether slaughter or vaccination is the most effective approach—although earlier we decided that vaccination would clearly be a preferable option.

However, if there is one point on which we can all agree, it must be that every effort has to be made to mitigate the slaughter of uninfected animals. From everyone's perspective, the sight of those mass slaughters must be reduced to a minimum. They had a traumatic effect on rural people, farmers and visitors. The whole country was deeply moved by what it saw. Inevitably, many thousands of animals were slaughtered that were not infected by foot and mouth disease. It is incumbent on all of us to ensure that that does not happen again. Many figures are bandied around, but I read recently that only 1 per cent of slaughtered sheep were actually infected by foot and mouth disease.

Consequently, I am certain that everyone wants a sufficiently rapid diagnostic testing system to be developed that can be used on the farm, thus determining whether foot and mouth disease is present before a wholesale slaughter is undertaken. Such a mechanism would bring enormous confidence to the relationship between the State Veterinary Service and the farming industry and reduce the conflicts and tensions that inevitably build up during such traumatic times.

In his letter of October 14th to me, the Minister kindly confirmed that there were two types of rapid test for the presence of the foot and mouth virus. One of the tests is described by the Minister as,

"a pen-side test that takes 15 minutes and is similar to home pregnancy tests".

That is an interesting turn of phrase; perhaps the Minister has more experience of such matters than I have. The other method is more sophisticated. I shall not describe it to your Lordships; I certainly do not understand it. Although a portable version of that method has now been developed in the USA, it is still relatively difficult to perform in field conditions. Clearly, it is only a question of time before the difficulties are overcome or a company comes forward with an alternative foolproof system. My amendment would include in the Government's amendment, Amendment No. 7—relating to the disease control protocol—the provision that, when such methods become available, their use will be mandatory.

In his letter, the Minister said:

"When validated diagnostic tests for field use become available, DEFRA will ensure that the State Veterinary Service has access to them".

I welcome that important first step, but there is a world of difference between allowing access to something and giving a firm commitment to use it. Given the enormous implications of the slaughter policy, it would be odd—to say the least—or even disingenuous not to use appropriate equipment that would give a foolproof answer as to whether such methods were necessary. Apart from anything else, the saving to the Government in compensation alone, if unaffected animals were not slaughtered, would be enormous. If such equipment were available and the Government were satisfied that it worked, it should be incumbent on vets to use it. Why have it, if it is not to be used to optimum effect?

I leave your Lordships with a final thought. We should imagine the case of a farmer who has had his herd destroyed in circumstances in which it was deemed expedient to do so. How will he feel, knowing that such a testing system existed and that officials chose not to use it? A lingering doubt will remain with that fanner for the rest of his life.

When we were discussing Amendment No. 1, tabled by the noble Countess, Lady Mar, I scribbled down something that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said. He said that the Government would grasp with both hands any opportunity to find ways of preventing mass slaughter. My simple amendment would go a long way to achieving what the noble Lord seeks. I beg to move.

My Lords, I support the noble Earl's amendment, although I would go further and say that the Government should use expertise from outside government. The Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, will remember that Dr Colin Fink approached DEFRA with a test that would have differentiated between vaccinated animals and animals that were diseased. Because the scientists in DEFRA had not invented the equipment themselves, they would not hear anything about it. I summarise drastically what happened, but I do not wish to see it happen again. We must use the most up-to-date equipment available, and that requirement should be written into the Bill.

My Lords, I strongly support the noble Earl's amendment. It is far-sighted, and, as he said, it does not commit the Government to immediate action. When the technology is in place, it should be used.

Professor Fred Brown worked at Pirbright on various tests for foot and mouth disease. However, because of funding difficulties there, he now lives and works in the United States. The testing that has been referred to is at an advanced stage. There may soon be two alternative tests available, one of which was referred to earlier. The amendment is prudent and would ensure that, when such technological advances were made, we could benefit from them.

One of the principles enunciated in the draft European Commission report is that rapid diagnosis is a key factor in tackling and preventing the disease. The amendment would assist that process.

My Lords, the noble Earl was kind enough to quote what I said about an earlier amendment. That was, of course, a personal view. Although I support the Government, I no longer speak for the Government.

We all understand what the noble Earl is driving at, but I am not sure that the amendment is required. It will be interesting to hear the Minister's view. The government amendment is rather complicated. Subsection (2)(b) of the proposed new clause refers to,

"the principal factors to be taken into account in deciding whether to exercise the power".

Before the government officer can exercise the power of slaughter, he or she must take into account all the principal factors. If there is a diagnostic test available and the Government have decided not to use it, which would be extraordinarily unlikely, the Government would not be taking the principal factors into account, as that would be one of those factors. I suspect that the Government would be subject to judicial review on that. I shall be interested to see whether my noble friend agrees.

Subsection (2)(b) of the new clause already deals with the point that the noble Earl made so persuasively. The amendment is, therefore—to use a favourite word that appears in all briefings—otiose.