asked Her Majesty's Government:

What steps have been taken regarding the application by the National Air Traffic Services to amend its charges.

My Lords, the Civil Aviation Authority, which is NATS's economic regulator, has proposed some changes to the way in which NATS is regulated. Its proposals include giving NATS some protection from traffic fluctuations and allowing it to levy slightly higher charges—although charges will still decrease in real terms. These changes will make a vital contribution to the financial package that NATS and its shareholders are putting together to put NATS's finances on a secure footing for the future.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he agree that, in the wake of the events of 11th September 2001, it was important for NATS to restructure its balance sheets? Does he also agree that the new regime proposed by the CAA will in no way impinge on the airlines except that there is likely to be a gradual reduction in charges over the years? Is not the corollary of that that there will be an unlocking of resources to improve air traffic control services? Does he also agree that, in the light of the overall situation, the quicker the recommendations are accepted, the better it will be for the whole airline industry?

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis is right to draw attention to the effect of September 11th, which affected not only our own air traffic control system but all air traffic control systems, all airlines and the whole airline industry, all of which are having financial troubles of different kinds. It is certainly true that any changes will have to be acceptable to the airlines, not only as users, but, in some cases, as shareholders of NATS. I also agree that the issue should be resolved as soon as possible. The consultation period to which I referred ends on 14th November. It is important that the CAA should seek agreement on a way forward as soon as possible.

My Lords, let us bear in mind that NATS's current financial problems were caused by a downturn in the demand for its services following the events of 11th September. Does the Minister think that NATS could survive another downturn in business due to a similar event such as a war with Iraq? What are the Government doing to ensure that NATS can survive such unforeseen predicaments?

My Lords, the proposals put forward by the CAA, which are being consulted on at the moment, cover a considerable number of years ahead and will have to take into account the type of consideration that the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, raised. As for the immediate future, NATS has satisfactory financing for some time ahead.

My Lords, in giving general guidance to the CAA as the economic regulator for the industry, will the Government ensure that matters of great importance to the airline industry—matters such as surface access which are probably more important than NATS to the development of airlines—are properly funded from the regulated charges imposed on the airline industry?

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, is right to refer to general guidance because, although the CAA is the regulator, it is the independent regulator and it would be wrong for the Government to indulge in micro-management of it. I am not quite sure on which side of the line the issue which he raises falls.

My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that, if we can get it in place, the new financial regime will lead to long needed and long overdue increased investment? Can he also confirm that the new regime will not be a burden on the airlines as it will lead to reduced costs in the long run?

Yes, my Lords, the airlines have the same interest as NATS; they, too, have an interest in an efficient, up-to-date and well-resourced air traffic control system in this country. They also have very much the same interests as we do as the users of their services.

:My Lords, does the Minister agree that safety is paramount? Is it not surprising and a matter of concern for the Government and the CAA that, while traffic has decreased this year, delays have increased and there has been a record number of what are called "risk-bearing incidents"—in laymen's language, near collisions? There have been seven such incidents so far this year. Is that not a cause for great concern? As to restructuring, is it not the case that NATS has been saddled with £780 million-worth of debt, costing more than £45 million in interest a year? If that is going to be converted into shares, will the Government decrease their NATS shareholding or put up their share of the money in the restructuring?

My Lords, I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, that safety must be paramount. However, even in the period soon after the construction and commissioning of Swanwick, safety standards have been very high. Significant delays, which are the other aspect, have also not been very significant. In the year to date, delays attributable to air traffic control have been 2.8 minutes per flight. That is not what one hears from the pilots but that is what actually happens. Speculation on changes in shareholding as between us and the airlines is premature.

My Lords, my noble friend said in answer to an earlier question that it was important that the airlines accepted the new financial structure for NATS. Does he not agree that whether or not they do so, the important factor is that NATS works efficiently and effectively and has long-term financial stability regardless of the ups and downs and the fluctuations of the airline market? If that means a short-term rise in charges to the airlines, at least it will help NATS get on its feet.

My Lords, in the sense that it is important for the management of NATS to get on with managing rather than worrying where the money is coming from, I entirely agree with my noble friend.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

When they intend to implement the key recommendations in the National Institute for Clinical Excellence guidance, Improving outcomes in breast cancer.

My Lords, the NHS has already largely implemented the improving outcomes guidance for breast cancer published in 1996. The guidance has recently been reviewed to take account of latest evidence. Implementation of this and other NICE cancer guidance has been set as a priority in the priorities and planning framework for the NHS.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. But does he share with me a depressing sense of déjà vu in looking at the report? How can it be that it still needs to be said that all breast cancer patients, indeed, all cancer patients, should be treated by teams of specialists? All the evidence shows that ensuring that every cancer patient is treated by a specialist is the one thing that will make a difference at the moment to outcomes. How soon will the Government fully implement not only this blueprint for breast cancer but also similar blueprints for the other cancers that are lagging behind?

My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Baroness takes such a negative view of the progress that has been made over the past four or five years. The Government have shown great determination to improve services for people with cancer and to improve preventive programmes. We agree with the report that the noble Baroness mentioned that, of course, multidisciplinary team working is important. But if the noble Baroness looks at all the statistics, the improved outcomes, the improved access to treatment, the reduction in waiting times and the development of screening programmes, surely she will acknowledge that considerable progress has been made.

My Lords, will the Minister comment on the reports in today's press that mammogram screening might in itself cause breast cancer? That could cause much confusion with regard to whether or not people should present themselves for screening. Does the Minister agree that it is important for people who are considering presenting themselves for screening to be given some reassurance on that point?

My Lords, I very much agree with that. Screening programmes that are proven to be effective need a great deal of support. Some of the results of screening programmes introduced over the past decade have been spectacular. We very much need to encourage people to present themselves for screening where it is appropriate. However, it is also important that screening programmes are introduced only where they are shown to be effective. That is why we have an expert National Screening Committee that advises the Government on those matters. When those kind of issues are raised we always look to that committee for further advice.

My Lords, will the noble Lord indicate whether NICE has turned its attention to the equally important issue of prostate cancer and whether there is the prospect of a more effective test being introduced?

My Lords, that is, of course, a matter of great debate. However, there is no good evidence to date to indicate that screening for prostate cancer using the PSA test—I suspect that that is the test to which the noble Lord referred—reduces mortality. It is controversial and professionals disagree on its usefulness. However, when seeking advice from their general practitioners, patients should be given the most robust advice possible. We have recently sent a pack to GPs that provides such advice. I believe that it will be helpful in the future when GPs are asked for their view on the matter.

My Lords, my noble friend is obviously right to point out the progress that has been made in cancer treatment but he will be well aware that survival rates for breast cancer, as for other cancers, are far lower among deprived groups of the community than they are among affluent groups of the community. Can he give us some assurance that the funds necessary to bring services up to the level in affluent areas will not only be earmarked but will actually be delivered to the front line? In asking the question, I should, of course, declare my interest as chairman of Cancer Research UK whose primary care research group work underpinned some of the NICE guidelines.

My Lords, I cannot commit myself to earmarking in the future. However, the decentralisation of funding allocations to primary care trusts from 2004 will allow greater focus to be given to the funding of programmes that tackle deprived communities. My noble friend will also know that we are currently reviewing the formula under which resources are allocated to the NHS. One factor is the extent to which funding recognises deprivation. As regards survival rates, I refer my noble friend to the comments of Professor Boyle of the Milan-based European Institute of Oncology who told the Britain Against Cancer conference on 5th November that Britain's attempts to prevent and cure cancer have indeed been a success story.

My Lords, why do we have to wait until the year 2004 for the improvement that the noble Lord suggested?

My Lords, we are not waiting for 2004 for the improvements that I have suggested because money is being allocated to the NHS. I was saying that from 2004 the resources that currently go to health authorities will go to primary care trusts. I believe that because GPs will be much more involved in those decisions, the targeting of funds towards deprived communities will be that much more effective. Much effort is also currently going on.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that much of the funding that has been announced by the Government for cancer services is not getting through to the front line? Is he aware that many of the priorities identified by cancer specialist teams are not being funded? Is he also aware that in one area, of which an oncologist of my acquaintance is a member, none of the priorities has been funded?

My Lords, again, the noble Baroness is extremely gloomy and depressing about what is happening. The reality is different. Of course I know that there is concern about whether all of our intended funding is getting through to front-line services. That is why we are discussing that question with strategic health authorities. Our cancer director, Professor Richards, is working with those strategic health authorities to ensure that the money gets through. Great progress has been made, services have been expanded, waiting has been cut and new equipment has been introduced. As Professor Boyle said, the UK is one of only a handful of countries that have attained, or nearly attained, targets for cutting cancer deaths by 15 per cent by 2000. We have brought down male cancer deaths from the third highest in Europe to the fifth lowest. At the same time as tackling problems, we should acknowledge the success that has been achieved.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In so doing, I declare an interest, having been vice-chancellor of the University of Ulster from 1991 until 1999.

The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the current situation regarding the development of the tertiary education campus at Springvale in north and west Belfast which was launched in 1998 by the Prime Minister and President Clinton.

My Lords, in the preparation of the outline business case for the Springvale project, serious doubts have arisen about affordability and long-term sustainability of the main campus element. The Springvale board, representing the promoters and the local community, has been asked to carry out an urgent review, which should, if necessary, include consideration of alternative models. A response is awaited.

My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that Answer. Is it not disappointing that after four years, when Springvale was originally given the go ahead, the development has come to this state of affairs? Does he agree that the people of west and north Belfast feel extremely let down by the situation? What steps will the Government take to help to rescue this initiative once the Springvale board has reported, bearing in mind that it received widespread political, religious and, most importantly, community support, together with the strong personal endorsement of the Prime Minister and President Clinton?

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that it is disappointing. I understand and share the feelings of the local community that he identified. Our position is that we shall support the Springvale board in the conduct of the review. We would like to secure resolution and progress as soon as possible. However, it does no one any favours to allow moneys, whether public or private, to be spent on projects that simply cannot have a sustainable outline business case on the grounds of financial viability.

My Lords, in asking this question, I have to declare an interest as a Millennium Commissioner and a member of the court of the University of Ulster.

Is the noble and learned Lord aware that the Millennium Commission has put £1.5 million into an outreach building on the site, which is now complete, or very nearly complete? The raison d'être for that was that the Springvale campus would go ahead. Is he also aware that if it does not go ahead, that will almost certainly have an impact and lead to clawback of that £1.5 million from this worthwhile project in a very poor and disadvantaged area?

My Lords, I was aware that the Millennium Commission had contributed £1.5 million and, as the noble Lord will be aware, there has been £2.5 million from Atlantic philanthropies. The community outreach centre has been completed and is fully operational. The other two components—the applied research centre and the main campus—remain in doubt. I hope that the outreach centre will continue its excellent work.

My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware—I am sure that he is—that the lower Springfield Road is a notorious sectarian interface and a de-industrialised area? Does he agree that considerable expectations have been built up in the local population because of years of preparation for, discussion of and negotiation on the project? Does he accept that bringing it to fruition in a greater form than it now has would be a major confidence-building measure which I hope the Government will support?

My Lords, I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. He is quite right; the project has been in development for a long time: since 1993. I accept that it is in a socially deprived area with particular problems. However, if one does not have a sustainable business plan, it is folly to invest large amounts of capital in projects that are not likely to be sustainable.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

What progress has been made towards an agreed position in the United Nations Security Council on Iraq.

My Lords, negotiations on a new United Nations Security Council resolution are still in progress. We hope that those negotiations will be completed and a resolution adopted soon.

With the leave of the House, I shall later today be repeating a Statement being made on this matter in another place by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. As noble Lords will understand, I cannot pre-empt that Statement. I shall therefore be able to answer the questions of noble Lords on this important issue more fully later today.

My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that reply and completely understanding that she cannot pre-empt the Statement, I am aware of the vagaries of chance when it comes to contributing to the debate on a Statement, and would like to pursue my Question briefly. Will my noble friend accept that it is deeply reassuring to find how consistently and firmly the Government and the Prime Minister have pursued the multilateral and UN road, as distinct from the unilateral road? Does she agree that it is crucial to be clear about the issue of specific UN authorisation for any military action that may be necessary? Does she also agree that it is essential to be clear that there is a genuine commitment to the success of the work of the inspectors? Does she further agree that if the policy is to be effective, there has to be consistency in approach towards the Middle East as a whole, not least to the deplorable situation in Israel?

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his comments on the Government's pursuit of a multilateral track in this regard. He is quite right. The negotiations have been going on for some six weeks. As I said in my initial Answer, although the Security Council resolution has not yet been adopted, we very much hope that it soon will be.

I will shortly be in a better position to address the question of specific action after the Statement of my right honourable friend in another place. As we have discussed many times in your Lordships' House, we all agree on the importance of consistency and following through United Nations Security Council resolutions. The resolution to which my noble friend refers in relation to Israel should also include obligations placed on Palestinians. We also know that other countries have been or may be developing weapons of mass destruction. As I have said on previous occasions, we have been having discussions with those countries in order to try to pursue what we believe is right for them as well as pursuing the course that we have adopted in relation to Iraq.

My Lords, the arrangements that the noble Baroness suggests are acceptable to us. We look forward to the Statement later on and to pursuing the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Judd.

My Lords, I must risk asking the Minister to do what she says she is unable to do. I regret that I shall not be able to be here this afternoon. Is she prepared to give an assurance to the House that the sole purpose of any Security Council resolution and of any military action in which we might subsequently take part is to provide for the full inspection and destruction of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction and not for regime change in Iraq, Iran or anywhere else in the Middle East?

My Lords, I give the noble Lord the assurance that the purpose of the resolution is to pursue full inspection and destruction of weapons of mass destruction. But let me not leave the noble Lord, Lord Wright, in any doubt that, were that to result in regime change, Her Majesty's Government would not be sorry.

My Lords, irrespective of what happens in relation to Iraq, can the noble Baroness assure the House that the Government are aware of the problem that there can be no enduring peace without settlement of the Palestinian question? Can she assure the House that Her Majesty's Government are pursuing both with the United States and separately energetic efforts to bring about a settlement of the Israel/Palestine question?

My Lords, I accept, as I always have done, that in the minds of many the two issues are linked. However, they are two separate issues. It is enormously important for Her Majesty's Government to pursue the questions relating to a peaceful settlement between Israel and the Palestinian authority. My right honourable friend has made that clear at every opportunity and, most notably, in the remarkable address that he gave to the Trades Union Congress in September. He has been very clear that pursuing peace in Israel and Palestine is enormously important. We are pursuing it internationally.

My Lords, is there not an unfortunate coincidence in the juxtaposition of this Question and the previous one, and does not the Answer of the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House to the previous Question underline the importance of assessing accurately the final cost and the political sustainability of any project into which we enter with another country—particularly America?

My Lords, I believe that accurate assessments are always important and I am sure that my noble and learned friend the Leader of the House would agree.

My Lords, I add my very warm tribute to the Prime Minister for having persuaded the United States to go down the United Nations route. I also pay tribute to the Minister's right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary for the crucial part that he has obviously played in obtaining a resolution which looks as though it will go through the Security Council.

However, perhaps I may raise a point which I suspect will not be dealt with in the Statement but which I believe to be important in relation to the general issue of Iraq. It is a question of which the noble Baroness has first-hand knowledge from her earlier ministerial job. Can she assure the House that, in the event of British troops being committed into action in the Gulf in the future in respect of Iraq, they will not be allowed to do so with the obsolete and inefficient Clansman communication system? Given that Bowman, the secure digital system, will not be available in the foreseeable future in the timescale that we are talking about, will she give an undertaking that the Government will ensure that our troops are equipped with the American communication system because the communication system of an army in warfare is a crucial weapon for defence and offence?

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, for what he said about my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary. Without preempting the Statement, I can assure him and the rest of the House that both my right honourable friends have worked tirelessly on this issue day by day for the past six weeks.

I turn to the question raised by the noble Lord in relation to communication systems which may be used in the eventuality—it is by no means an inevitability—that our troops go into action on this matter. Were that to happen, I cannot give him an assurance about an American system. However, I can tell him that, during my time as Minister for Defence Procurement, I undertook to put in place interim measures which would mean that the troops would not be entirely reliant on a radio system which, I believe, all of us acknowledge is inadequate. Supplementary measures have been taken. I shall check exactly how far those have come into operation and I shall write to the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, on that point.

My Lords, will my noble friend comment on recent press comments that there seem to have been enhanced bombing raids on Iraq which go well beyond protection of the no-fly zones? Do those raids have UN authority or are the press reports misleading?

My Lords. I can tell my noble friend that all the activity has been in relation to securing the no-fly zones and that it has been entirely lawful and within the ambit of the U N SCRs which have been passed.

My Lords, at a convenient moment after consideration of the Animal Health Bill and after 2 p.m., my noble friend Lady Symons will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement being made in another place on the Iraq Security Council resolution. Depending on the progress of the Animal Health Bill, the Statement will take place either before or after we discuss the three sets of regulations.

We expect the message from the Commons about the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill to arrive at about 3 p.m. The Clerk will read it at the next break in business. Your Lordships will then be given at least half an hour to read material to be issued by the Public Bill Office and to table any Motions before the message is considered. I shall do my best to keep all your Lordships informed as the day unfolds by means of further statements and by the annunciator.

My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments and reason be now considered.

Moved, That the Commons amendments and reason be now considered.—(Lord Whitty.)

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1A in lieu thereof.

Yesterday, in reporting to the House the Government's response to the inquiries on foot and mouth, I indicated that the Government and, indeed, technology and circumstances had led to a shift in the approach to the use of vaccination and, in particular, to a preference to vaccinate to live. I indicated that that would be our preferred strategy if emergency vaccination were used.

However, I also stressed that there may be scenarios where, following veterinary and scientific advice, the culling of animals on non-infected premises is deemed more appropriate than vaccination to live. We would not wish to be restricted in the disease-control methods available to us. Therefore, it is important that whatever we say about vaccination reflects those realities. In relation to the amendment previously passed by this House, I also made clear that both the reality of dealing with disease and EU legislation will require the slaughter of livestock which is diseased, which is on infected premises and which has an epidemiological link to infected premises—the category that we tend to call "dangerous contacts". By and large, those dangerous contacts would not be on the same premises, whereas the amendment would advocate vaccination in those circumstances as the prior consideration. Those are situations where slaughter would be the normal approach, even with the position on vaccination. The amendment would run counter to that and counter to the EU requirement on stamping out disease. Therefore, it cannot be accepted.

I note that Amendment No. 1C in the name of the noble Countess, Lady Mar, which has replaced Amendment No. 1B, would place a duty on the Secretary of State to consider, rather than give priority to, a vaccinate-to-live programme. But the rest of her amendment remains the same and therefore would include the issue of dangerous contact on non-infected premises. That runs counter to the strategy which we are behind, which is in our contingency plan and which is required by EU law.

Amendment No. 1A, which the Government, in the Commons, have inserted in lieu of Amendment No. 1, was carefully drafted to address what I and the Government recognise as the widespread concerns that when vaccination can be used it should be used in future disease outbreaks. It explicitly sets out that,

"the Secretary of State must consider what is the most appropriate means of preventing the spread of the disease".

In particular, she must consider whether vaccination is more appropriate in the circumstances.

That reflects many of the concerns of Members of this House and elsewhere that vaccination should be given due priority and prominence in the armoury of weapons to combat any future disease. The inquiry reports and the recent discussions at EU level have also underlined the need for vaccination to play a higher profile in future disease outbreaks. We have clearly indicated that we agree with that strategy by taking those recommendations forward.

Last night in another place, when these issues were considered, it was noticeable that a number of Members accepted that the balance that the Government have established is now more appropriate than the amendment previously passed by this House. Indeed, Mr David Curry, the chair of the appropriate Select Committee, who has considerable experience in these matters, said:

"On vaccination, the Government have got the balance about right. The other place has gone too far—it has run a little ahead of the science".—[Official Report, Commons, 6/11/02; col. 318.]

I believe that that would be the general feeling in the farming community. We recognised that we had to do more than was in the previous version of the Bill, but the steps taken by this House went a little too far. We accept that we should attempt, on the face of the Bill, to clarify the Government's position on the matter. The clause, on which I propose that we should support the Commons, would help to achieve that end. Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1A in lieu thereof.—(Lord Whitty.)

rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1A in lieu thereof, leave out from "disagreed" to end and insert ", do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No 1A, and do propose the following amendment in lieu thereof—

Page 1, line 3, at end insert—

"( ) In the Animal Health Act 1981 (c. 22) (in this Act referred to as the 1981 Act) before paragraph 3 of Schedule 3 insert—

"(2A) The Secretary of State shall consider a "vaccinate to live" policy prior to causing to be slaughtered animals on premises where no infection has been detected."" "

The noble Countess said: My Lords, I move this amendment in the firm conviction that what I am asking the House to agree is correct. I do not need to repeat all the details of the horrors that arose in the last epidemic of foot and mouth disease. We have heard them often enough. I ask noble Lords to look forward and to make provision for the protection of our livestock and agricultural industry on the basis of the lessons that we have learned from the events of 2001.

I can understand that when the Bill was first published, Ministers believed that the epidemic had got out of hand because they did not have the powers to enter premises and slaughter animals as and when they wished. In the year since publication we have had three official reports and several county reports, all of which have been extremely critical of the ruthless and inefficient policy of mass slaughter. Those facts are still very much at the forefront of the memories of the British population, and particularly of the rural population. They still feel very sore.

Science has moved forward by leaps and bounds and vaccination is now much more important than it was a year ago. I recognise the willingness of the Government, who have put in an amendment of their own. Noble Lords have fought long and hard to gain that concession, although I am disappointed that they have chosen to place their amendment at the end of the Bill, in Part 4. I would like to see vaccination come first to the mind of the Secretary of State. I do not read books from back to front and I do not expect those who will have to implement the measures laid out in this Bill to do so either.

I shall try to deal with the objections of the Minister and his colleagues in another place. His honourable friend Mr Elliot Morley made clear yesterday, and the Minister has repeated today, that,

"we will, ideally, want to use a vaccinate-to-live strategy if emergency vaccination is used. There may, however, be scenarios in which, following the appropriate veterinary and scientific advice, culling of non-infected premises is deemed more appropriate than vaccination".

That statement makes me feel a little uneasy and I would be grateful if the Minister would explain when those scenarios may occur. He has spoken about the "dangerous contacts" animals. Are there any other scenarios in which that may occur?

"We do not want that advice to be restricted artificially in terms of the most appropriate disease control methods that could he applied".—[Official Report, Commons, 6/11/02; cols. 307–08.]

I understand that. On occasions Ministers have inferred that I want infected or contact animals to be vaccinated. I hope that noble Lords will give me the credit of knowing what I am talking about and that I would not dream of asking for that.

I accept all that. I have always accepted that animals that are infected or are dangerous contacts must he slaughtered. However, I was saying that for all other circumstances the Secretary of State should give priority to a "vaccinate to live" policy. I understand that the word "priority" has caused a major stumbling block. In an attempt to overcome that I have changed "give priority to" to "consider". Perhaps in view of all the discussions that we have had about the word "think" I should have used the phrase "think about" because that is what I mean.

I know that this Bill is about slaughter. Everyone who has had anything to do with the Bill, however remotely, knows that. I am attempting to put, right at the beginning of the Bill, the declared intention that the almost indiscriminate slaughter of last year will never again be repeated.

In the light of the recommendations of the Royal Societies of London and of Edinburgh, following the ruling of the OIE (Office International des Epizooties)—that means animal diseases—that resulted from the development of new vaccines and tests, that emergency vaccination should be the prime control strategy in the event of a future outbreak, it is not good enough for a much watered-down clause to be inserted at the end of the Bill. The amended version of my original amendment does not, as far as I can see, restrict the Secretary of State unless the word "considering" has suddenly become restrictive. Neither do I believe that the time that the Secretary of State may take to consider "vaccination to live" would hinder the rapid implementation of the remaining clauses of the Bill when it becomes law.

Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1 A in lieu thereof, leave out from "disagreed" to end and insert ", do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No 1A, and do propose the following amendment in lieu thereof—

Page 1, line 3, at end insert—

"( ) In the Animal Health Act 1981 (c. 22) (in this Act referred to as the 1981 Act) before paragraph 3 of Schedule 3 insert—

"(2A) The Secretary of State shall consider a "vaccinate to live" policy prior to causing to be slaughtered animals on premises where no infection has been detected."" "—(The Countess of Mar.)

My Lords, I rise to speak to the amendment moved by the noble Countess, Lady Mar, and the government amendment passed by the other place yesterday.

This is a time when, after months and months of argument on the Bill, this House should proclaim victory and welcome the very substantial concession that the Government have made. We should not be churlish and continue to argue over the small differences that now remain on the wording of the clause. I repeat, I believe that the government amendment passed by the Commons represents a great—I was going to say "triumph", but this is not a triumphalist place—a substantial victory for noble Lords from all sides of the House who have argued interminably about this matter since Second Reading at the beginning of the year. There comes a time when we should say, "We have won; the wording may not be exactly what we want, but we are not the Government and at the end of the day the Government put in the wording that they want". The substance of this government amendment is what so many noble Lords have been arguing about in your Lordships House for so long.

Having said that, I pay tribute to the work that has been done during these many months by the noble Countess. She has provided us with expertise, knowledge and single-minded commitment on this and on other issues, in particular on the scrapie issues where her knowledge is unrivalled almost anywhere, never mind in your Lordships' House. In saying that we cannot support her last-ditch amendment, I am not suggesting that we are trying to undermine the work which everyone—the noble Countess in particular—has done over the past few months.

We have had the Bill for almost a year. There have been two long gaps: first, one for several months after the House refused to commit the Bill; and, secondly, over the Summer Recess. So it seems a very long time. I read the Second Reading debate last night as one means of getting myself to sleep and of not getting too worked up about this exciting occasion here today. From the beginning we debated the question of vaccination as opposed to slaughter and the question of putting the issue of vaccination on the face of the Bill in a clear way. On Report a number of amendments were moved. The amendment moved from these Benches sought to establish a four-stage sequential test that the Secretary of State would have to apply when deciding how to tackle a particular outbreak or occurrence of foot and mouth disease. In essence, the government amendment that has come from the Commons accepts that principle of a sequential test. It is a two-stage test. What it says is very clear. It states:

"In particular he"—

that is the Secretary of State, who is a she but never mind—

"must consider whether in relation to the occurrence treating animals with serum or vaccine is more appropriate than any other means of preventing the spread of the disease".

Elsewhere in the Bill we have a government amendment that was put forward previously at the request of the House. One might say that it is a concession, but, nevertheless, it is a very important amendment. It states that where the Secretary of State decides that slaughter is the appropriate means of going ahead he has to publish the reasons for that.

So we have a very clear test now that the Secretary of State has, first, in relation to any occurrence of foot and mouth, to consider vaccination before slaughter. If the Secretary of State decides that slaughter is nevertheless necessary, he must then publish his reasons why.

If people then want to challenge that in the courts—seeking judicial review, an injunction or whatever—that is the basic structure that is required in order to be able satisfactorily to test and challenge the decision of the Secretary of State. So I think that in many ways the government amendment provides much of what noble Lords have been asking for.

A few minor differences remain. The difference between

"priority"

and

"consideration"

has been removed because the amendment of the noble Countess now says

"consideration"

. So there is little difference between what the noble Countess and the Government propose. In many ways it comes down to where the issue appears in the Bill. I have to say that I cannot advise my colleagues in this House to continue fighting a battle about whether this clause appears at the beginning or later on in the Bill.

There are many noble Lords in the House who, if they were sat on the Government Benches, would not have introduced the Bill. We would have introduced a Bill with a very different structure, balance and approach. Although we all want highly effective and rapid means to deal with such an outbreak, we disagree about the means of achieving it. But we are not the Government. We are dealing with the Government's Bill and we have to accept the structure of the Bill as put forward by the Government. What we are able to do is to look at issues within the Bill—often very important issues—and to make changes here and there. We are not able to throw the Bill out and put something completely different in, which I think is what the noble Countess would really like to do and perhaps what I would like to join her in doing. But we are not able to do that. We have a government Bill and we have to accept it.

The amendment is a major and important concession on one of perhaps the two or three major issues about which we have been arguing all these months. It is my view that it would be churlish now further to reject the government amendment. I hope that there will not be a Division because I think that a consensus is developing on the issue. That consensus was helped very much by the Statement yesterday. We still have some differences. We still have some criticisms of the speed and commitment of the Government in regard to these matters. Nevertheless, I think that a consensus is now developing. The deliberations of this House over the past month have contributed greatly to the development of that consensus. With that in mind, it would be churlish now to oppose the government amendment. If a Division is called on the amendment I shall advise my colleagues to support the Government.

My Lords, the concession on the amendment in lieu in effect—and it is not mere semantics—confers a priority because reasons have to be given as to which is the most appropriate form of treatment. Those reasons must support what is the most appropriate form. That, in essence, involves the concept of priority. It is not a question of mere semantics. I think that the Government have met the substance of the point.

I also wish to associate myself with the tributes that have been paid to the noble Countess who started the matter off and the noble Lord the Minister who carried it on.

My Lords, in spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has said, I believe that we should support the amendment of the noble Countess, Lady Mar. During the debates we have had in the House it has been your Lordships' feeling that the balance of the Bill has been wrong. That has been said from every quarter of the House. It is disappointing after all that that although the Government have swallowed the camel of vaccination they are still straining at the gnat of where it should go in the Bill.

The Bill as it stands is still a slaughter Bill. The amendment on vaccination will appear on page 9 of the Bill, before the clauses entitled Commencement, Finance, Extent and Short Title. We are dealing with vaccination. As the noble Countess has pointed out, every report dealing with the foot and mouth epidemic has recommended vaccination. We still await the formal report of the European Union committee, which no doubt—I think that the leaks we have had indicate this—will indicate that vaccination should be the priority. Vaccination should be "considered"—I believe that is the right term to use—early on in the Bill. This should not be a Bill about slaughter with a tip of the cap towards vaccination late on in the Bill. It should be dealt with early on and be given clear priority.

I do not know whether the noble Countess will divide the House. But I think that the Government might consider putting vaccination earlier in the Bill, in spite of their acceptance of vaccination as one of the tools for dealing with a future foot and mouth crisis—if we are ever unlucky enough to have one.

My Lords, I rise on behalf of these Benches to pay great tribute to the noble Countess, Lady Mar. My name was linked with her original amendment. Noble Lords know that. I still think that vaccination is a hugely important issue. I have heard what other noble Lords have said and I accept their views.

In another place yesterday the Minister said that there were conflicting views between some of my colleagues on my side of the House. Indeed, that is right. I suspect that if one took a straw poll there might be conflicting views on his side too. But I am grateful to the Government for the way that they have responded. They have come forward with something that is not quite perhaps as perfect as we would like, but it is at least a recognition of the way that science has moved on. In the amendment before us, the noble Countess, Lady Mar, has changed the wording from,

"a priority"

to

"consider"

. I understand why she has done that.

I shall underline one or two things that we should put on record about our deliberations on the matter. We all accept that all of the inquiries have recognised the importance of vaccination now and in future—and not just of vaccination-to-kill. The Royal Society, which was cited yesterday, has been clear about that. The most recent of all reports is the European Parliament working group document 5A. I remind your Lordships of the two quotations that I have given before from paragraphs 54 and 57. Paragraph 54 states:

"The vaccines currently available make it possible—at least on a herd by herd basis—to distinguish between infected and vaccinated animals".

Paragraph 57 states:

"In future, therefore, emergency vaccination with the aim of allowing animals to live for normal further use should no longer be regarded only as a last resort for controlling FM D but must be considered as a first-choice option from the outset when an outbreak occurs, except in the cases of the actual farms which unequivocally have to be regarded as being infected".

There may have been a misunderstanding between the Minister and my colleagues at the other end of the Corridor when he questioned whether we were against the control system of slaughter of infected animals. I again put clearly on record that if animals are infected, they should be slaughtered. At no stage have we on these Benches in this House suggested differently. I hope that the Minister will accept that.

Responding to the debate at the other end of the Corridor, my honourable friend James Gray said that the Minister seemed to suggest that the amendment that they were considering—the amendment moved previously by the noble Countess, Lady Mar, which stated that vaccination shall be a priority—would require vaccination to be used. It would not; it would merely require the authorities to make it a priority and put it at the top of the tree, to use my honourable friend's expression. Of course a contingency cull would still be allowed. It is important to place that on record. Yesterday's Statement helped to clarify one or two points that were still in doubt, so even since yesterday, when the Commons debated the Bill and we debated the Statement, things have moved on. However, I refer the Minister to the words of Mr Morley. He said:

"During the last outbreak, a minority of people objected strongly to the contiguous cull and there were many appeals to the district veterinary manager, many hundreds of which were upheld, according to circumstances".

We all agree with that. But I did not especially care for what he said next:

"If we move to emergency vaccination, however, there would also be a minority of people who would not wave flags when they saw the vaccination teams coming down the road".—[Official Report, Commons, 6/11/02; col. 325.]

That is not true. Will the Minister clarify that? What grounds did the Minister in the other place have on which to make that assumption? I do not follow the logic of that. Those animals would not be killed; they would be vaccinated to live. I am perplexed by Mr Morley's statement yesterday and seek clarification of it.

The Minister rightly referred to my honourable friend David Curry and a couple more of my colleagues who are content with the Minister's amendment; I do not say that we on these Benches are not. However, the noble Countess, Lady Mar, wants to raise the issue at the beginning of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said that we have obviously considered the matter for some time. We have altered what I classed as a bad Bill to make it a better Bill. That is right. However, I am concerned that vaccination is still not at the forefront of the final version of the Bill. We have all talked at length about trying to get a strategy. There is still nothing about that at the start of the Bill.

Having said that, I do not wish to quibble. We certainly welcome the Government amendment. I should like clarification of the points that I have raised. All of us in this Chamber are acutely anxious to ensure that we achieve the best control of animal disease. There is no disagreement on that. We also recognise, and have argued throughout, that in doing so, we must rebuild the trust that has been so devastated in the country. I had hoped that the Government would accept the new amendment moved by the noble Countess, Lady Mar, which mentions not

"priority"

but

"must consider"

.

I wait with interest to hear what the Minister has to say, but I hope that he accepts that our concern is genuine, will clarify the points that I have raised and will explain the comments of his honourable friend at the other end of the Corridor, when he said that people will immediately object to a vaccination policy, even if it is a vaccinate-to-live policy. I do not accept that, nor do I understand why the Minister made that comment.

My Lords, I am sure that noble Lords who are concerned about the placing of the new section in the Bill would agree that it is the words of an Act of Parliament that matter, not the page number. The wording of new Section 14B sets out all that those who support the vaccination approach could wish for.

The noble Countess, Lady Mar, asked about various scenarios. Yesterday, we heard that the Government intend to prepare an emergency vaccination programme and to keep a stock of vaccines for the seven major strains of foot and mouth disease. Viruses mutate. It is unlikely, but not impossible, that we will face a strain that is not one of the seven major strains but a mutation. In that case, we would not have the vaccine for it, so we must allow the Government flexibility. It is clearly stated that the Government,

"must consider whether in relation to the occurrence",

vaccination is more appropriate. We should bear in mind such unlikely but not impossible eventualities.

Perhaps my noble friend would reinforce the point made yesterday by the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, during the Statement on the Government's response to the inquiries. He said that there is now a test that can distinguish between an infected and a vaccinated animal in the laboratory—I think he said—but not yet on a farm scale. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, referred to a herd scale. There is confusion about whether a test is available that could be used on the farm to distinguish all the animals. I am sure that my noble friend can clarify that.

Yesterday's Statement contained the interesting idea that research could continue on a European basis on a polyvalent vaccine—a single vaccine for all species. If that were to come to fruition, that would be extremely good news. To repeat what I said in Committee, no government in their right mind would consider slaughter in future if an alternative were available.

My Lords, I am grateful for many of the remarks made during this debate and for the recognition that the Government have come a considerable way to meet the concerns expressed on all sides of the House about giving priority to the use of vaccination.

The remaining objections to our amendment, when compared to that moved by the noble Countess, Lady Mar, boil down to whether the provision is in the right place in the Bill, and in what scenarios we may not in practice give vaccination priority. My noble friend Lord Carter has already spelled out that Bills have a structure and there is a certain legalistic logic, at least, to them. We suggest that it should be inserted after the passage dealing with the national contingency plan, which will, of course, spell out how we will deal with an actual occurrence of the disease. The rest of the Bill deals with powers to do so; the new clause deals with actual decisions and strategies to deal with the disease itself. This is, therefore, the most logical point.

One of the difficulties with the Bill is that people regard it as solely a slaughter Bill. We touched on that issue a few days ago. In fact, most of the powers relate to vaccination, as well as slaughter. The central power to vaccinate already exists whereas some of the powers to slaughter do not, and that has, perhaps, got the Bill a worse name than it might otherwise have had. The House should not divide on the issue of where the new clause comes in the Bill.

The noble Baroness—I have done it again; I mean the noble Countess, and I beg her pardon—has made a great contribution to our discussions on the subject. Certainly, I never suggested that she did not know what she was talking about; nor have I suggested that noble Lords have failed to recognise that slaughter would have to occur on infected premises and among diseased animals. However, I am not entirely sure that that is the position of the public at large. The greater emphasis that the Royal Society and we have put on vaccination has been interpreted as meaning that there will be no slaughter. It must be made clear that diseased animals on diseased premises will be slaughtered and that, in addition, dangerous contacts will normally be slaughtered.

The problem with the amendment is that, as most dangerous contacts will be off the original premises, it implies that we would consider slaughter on premises away from the original infected area. In that contingency, we would have slaughter, rather than vaccination. There may be other such contingencies, and that is why we sought wider powers of pre-emptive cull in the Bill. Other contingencies could include the situation referred to by my noble friend Lord Carter in which it would take time to develop the means of delivering the serum and in which we can deal only with the main strains. We could have either a logistical problem or a supply problem, and we would therefore be bound to go for slaughter in those circumstances. In other cases, there might be topographical difficulties with administering vaccination. Much depends on the lay of the farm, the size of the farm and the distance between farms.

There is also the question of how rapidly we can get to a position in which vaccination is an immediate proposition. Once Royal Assent is given, the Bill will be law, but we have indicated, as has the Royal Society, that it will take some time—a relatively short time. I hope—before we can deliver the vaccinate-to-live policy. We need to clear up some technical issues, and we must make sure of the logistics. We must also ensure that the trade and the consumers understand that, in those circumstances, vaccinated meat can go into the food chain in the normal way. That will take a little time, and, prior to that, we will need to consider other methods of controlling the spread of the disease.

The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, suggested that she did not believe my honourable friend Elliot Morley, who said that there would still be opposition to vaccination. During the epidemic, a large section of the farming community was seriously opposed to vaccination, primarily on the relatively rational basis that the product would lose value. They were thinking of a vaccinate-to-live policy or a vaccinate-to-kill policy. We have made it clear that, if it were a vaccinate-to-kill policy, which we would try to avoid, the Bill provides for equal compensation. That rather defuses that argument, but there is still a residual belief that the product of a vaccinated animal may be less valuable than the product of a non-vaccinated animal or the compensation that farmers would get for a slaughtered animal.

My Lords, had we had this conversation a year ago, the Minister might have been right. However, the farming community has moved on. As the Minister will recall, the difficulty that farmers had at that time was that the Government were unable to answer their questions about what would happen to vaccinated animals. Would they be worthless? Would they be vaccinated and then killed? There was a range of questions then, which shows that it is a blessing that the Bill was delayed. I hope that we are coming up with some of the right answers now.

The Minister is right: a year ago, many people would have been hesitant. A year on, as the NFU has indicated, those people would support a vaccinate-to-live policy.

My Lords, I accept that case entirely, as the noble Baroness now puts it. Opposition has diminished, and support for a vaccination strategy at that stage in the disease control operation has grown. The noble Baroness is slightly more confident than I am that opinion throughout the entire farming community has changed. We must recognise that there may be some opposition to people coming onto farms with syringes or tests, just as there would be to slaughter. That is partly catered for elsewhere in the Bill. Certainly, if there were substantial opposition in a particular area, the Government must take account of that in carrying out disease control measures.

More generally, it is realised that the Government have shifted. The clause's position in the Bill is not something over which the House should divide. With our amendment, we have met the vast majority of the concerns that have been expressed during the many months of the Bill's passage. I urge the House to accept the Commons amendment.

My Lords, the Minister did not answer the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, on the basis of the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior. The noble Lord, Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, said:

"However, if we are to get to the desired position with regard lo vaccination, we will need a vaccine that produces prolonged immunity and can differentiate between vaccinated animals and infected animals".—[Official Report, 6/11/02; col. 755.]

I quoted from the OIE, that unpronounceable organisation. In November 2001, it accepted that there were validated tests to detect the difference between vaccinated and non-vaccinated animals. Why cannot that test, which has been validated in many countries, including Holland and France, be accepted in this country?

My Lords, the test to which the noble Countess refers and to which the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, referred earlier this week, is accepted in some countries. However, it has not been validated for EU purposes—or, beyond certain strains, for OIE purposes—for farm-level trials. Validation will not take long: indeed, the pressure from the EU to ensure that we get validation is substantial. As of now, however, there is no confirmed, validated test that would convince the whole of the world trade that we could distinguish effectively herd by herd—let alone animal by animal—between vaccinated animals and diseased animals. That time is not far off, but we are not there yet.

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who took part in the debate, and I am humbled by the comments made about my participation. I acted from a sense of conviction and from a feeling that a great injustice has been done to many people in the agricultural community and must be righted. That is why I have pressed, until the very last minute, for my amendment to go right at the beginning of the Bill. However, I recognise that one comes to a point at which discretion is the better part of valour. I propose to exercise the latter and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on Amendment No. 13 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered Amendment No. 13A.

The amendment relates to the 20-day standstill, which is causing concern around the country. The Government have substantially modified the original standstill restrictions but in principle a 20-day standstill remains.

That standstill was originally and is still supported by strong scientific and veterinary advice. It represents the Government's best view as of now of an appropriate precautionary peace-time control. It is to deal with the possibility of future outbreaks rather than the aftermath of the past one. The Lessons to be Learned inquiry recommended that the 20-day standstill be retained, as did the Royal Society, until wide-ranging cost benefit analysis based on a risk assessment could be completed. The Government are having that study carried out, as we discussed yesterday. It would be highly undesirable to pre-empt those studies. My central objection to the amendment is not what it says about what we would do now, which is a matter of ongoing discussion, but what we would do eight weeks after the last confirmed case in this country. It requires any standstill of 20 days or above to be dropped eight weeks after the last confirmed case.

Perhaps I may take the House back to eight weeks after the last case at the end of September last year, which took us to the end of November, almost exactly a year ago. At that point we were still in a state of high alert and did not have clearance from the EU for the resumption of trade or disease-free status from the OIE. There was still great concern in the farming and veterinary communities and beyond that the disease might still be lurking.

In terms of international negotiations we were able to reassure the EU and the OIE that we still had restrictions in place that would limit the spread should such a recrudescence occur. One cannot be absolutely sure of that, but despite the devastation the disease caused, those negotiating obtained the lifting at the first available opportunity under EU and OIE rules. Part of our case was that those restrictions remained in place.

We would not have obtained that lifting had we after eight weeks removed all the restrictions on movement or indeed moved them to below the level veterinary advice was strongly suggesting. Three months is the minimum period after the last confirmed case required by the international community and the EU. Eight weeks would be two-thirds of the way through that period. It would not have been appropriate and would not be appropriate in any future outbreak of foot and mouth or any other disease for us to lift standstill arrangements at that point. It would jeopardise our international obligations.

My Lords, will the Minister explain what the objection in this case would be? If there was a degree of uncertainty in the days coming up to the point of eight weeks following the last confirmed case, surely the Government could move another order to start the process again. There would be nothing to stop the Government replacing the existing order with a new order lasting 20 days.

My Lords, that is not what the amendment says, nor what the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, said on the previous occasion. I believe that he said—I beg his pardon if it was not him who said it—that we could impose an order of 19 days. He shakes his head; it was not him and I beg his pardon. Amendment No. 13 says that we should drop any standstill of 20 days or above irrespective of veterinary advice, scientific views and the views of our international trading partners and our obligations to the EU.

That is what is unacceptable about the amendment. I hope that the House will accept the removal of that provision as discussed in the Commons last night and that noble Lords will recognise that the issue of what should replace the 20-day standstill in time for the spring movements is a separate issue. Injecting this provision into our exit strategy from disease control is not appropriate and could be damaging to the farming industry. I beg to move.

Moved, That the House do not insist on Amendment No. 13 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 13A.—(Lord Whitty.)

My Lords, in responding to the Minister I address the reason numbered 13A. The Commons have said that they disagree to the amendment,

"Because it would be inappropriate to terminate automatically a restriction on the movement of animals".

The word

"

automatically" is a wide power. We all have a heavy responsibility to the rural areas and the agricultural industry in discussing this matter because it is of such importance at the present time. I detected in last night's debate in the other place and also here a certain defensiveness about the 20-day rule; in particular, the eight-week provision.

I consulted widely before drafting Amendment No. 13 with some of the highest authorities in the land in the veterinary profession. I asked whether they thought that was a reasonable time limit. They said that it was perfectly workable within the present constraints. I questioned them carefully about the length of time that a risk assessment would take. The answer I received was, "How long is a piece of string?" It was qualified by, "It all depends on the parameters in the risk assessment", which I understand.

Even after the worst ever outbreak of foot and mouth, certainly in the European Union, the EU lifted the restrictions after three months plus a few weeks. The Minister was able to reassure the European Union that safety and biosecurity measures were in place in the United Kingdom before the trade restrictions were lifted. We all know that the 20-day rule has continued for a further 10 months after that decision was made in early February. Other decisions were made on 22nd January, one of which related to exports, if my memory serves me.

We have seen the worst outbreak of foot and mouth that we could imagine or experience, but there was a virtually automatic lifting of restrictions in the European Union.

Earlier this week, or maybe last week, the Minister said that 20-day controls do not exist in other European Union countries. Is it the case that as a result of the volume of imports coming into this country we have the draconian situation of the 20-day rule, which has been in force for such a long time? I suspect that it is.

Again, I would like to thank the Minister for accepting our amendment on imports, which now forms part of the Bill. I believe that it will strengthen security measures on controlling the possibility of disease through imports. I am delighted and I thank the Minister as I know he has worked hard on this matter. The problem is that the farming community is suffering grievously from having the continued imposition of the 20-day rule. It is likely that the risk assessment will be completed before Christmas; that some results will be ready by February; and some relaxation will be possible. What that relaxation will be is difficult to perceive. However, I understand that not all the tests will be completed until June, which is a very long time. Had I originally proposed in the amendment three months rather than eight weeks, that might have made quite a difference because it would have been contiguous—in another sense—with what the European Union was doing.

We have an enormous responsibility to the farming community and to the rural areas because normal trading conditions are distorted by the rule. Yes, we must have bio-security and, yes, we must have it at the height of an outbreak. All of us without exception would agree with that. The question is, what is the exit strategy for the 20-day rule and where does the line have to be drawn?

There is a way through, although it may not be in the amendment as it is presently drafted. If the Minister has reservations about this, I understand that, hut he still has to find an exit strategy for the 20-day rule. If, God forbid, there is another outbreak, the farming community, industry and the individuals involved will need to know what are the rules on movement. There will be an impact not just on farmers but on, for example, hauliers, on rural areas and on tourism.

I went to the other place last night and listened to much of the debate. I must say that a number of crass comments were made by people who are not informed about matters affecting the livestock industry and the countryside. One comment was,

"Surely we really need a permanent 20-day rule because all the animals are going to be slaughtered".

Whether we are talking about dairy herds, beef herds, upland flocks or normal lowland flocks, most of us know that in upland areas stock has to be moved about for breeding purposes and that store lambs have to be moved to a marketplace to be sold. However, all these restrictions are affecting the returns in the farming industry.

I beg the Minister to consider the matters; not just to forget them today but really to address this problem. If the Government want to have better relations with the farming industry, solving this problem will go a long way to doing so. I believe that Amendment No. 13 should remain in the Bill.

My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Livsey of Talgarth, for raising this issue of the 20-day rule through amendments. He has put fairly the problems that farmers are having in moving stock, particularly over the autumn period when there are so many sales.

On the other hand, the Minister has a good point that a fixed eight-week period does seem to be rather brief and inflexible. There is much to say for an extended period. But farmers want to know how extended it is going to be. It is already nearly a year since the 20-day restriction was put in place and from what we have heard today from the noble Lord, Lord Livsey of Talgarth, and others, it may be another six months before the rule is lifted, provided we have no further outbreaks.

It would be helpful if in winding up the debate the Minister could be absolutely clear in telling the House what discussion he has had with the Scottish Executive so that the rules on both sides of the Border are exactly the same. As he knows, nowhere can be closer to the Border than Longtown. where the original case of foot and mouth occurred. That shows the importance of having the same rules and regulations relating to the movement of stock and to foot and mouth.

Much has been said about the Executive discussing the matter and there being close co-operation and co-ordination. However, we have not heard much in the way of fact about the 20-day rule and when it might be lifted in Scotland or in England, or in both countries. There is a good case for disagreeing to the proposal of eight weeks. In return, the Minister should make it clear where we are going and how long we are going to wait, provided that there is no further outbreak, for the 20-day rule to be lifted. He should also say whether it is certain that it will be as soon as practicable and as soon as the State Veterinary Service says it is safe to do so.

My Lords, I want to make a special plea for the little man—and the little woman, come to that. Concessions have been made on the 20-day rule. In certain circumstances, if one buys and sells, animals can be put 50 metres away from other animals. However, there are many small farmers in this country. I am thinking in particular of the beef fattener who buys calves, grows them up to fat and sells on. As he sells one he replaces it with another young one. He does not have vast expanses of buildings or buildings several fields apart. His risk is likely to below.

As regards breeding animals—and here I return to my goats—the practice has always been that the female goat goes to the male goat. The concession states that the male goat may go to the female goat. I understand it was given because the DEFRA understanding, which is perfectly valid, is that a ram goes into a field full of ewes. A bull goes into a field full of cows, does his business and goes away at a later date. However, goats come into season at different times. The male goat is visited by the female, who is then taken back to her premises and hopefully is in kid.

The owner of the male goat cannot function on that basis because he will probably have several female goats at different premises. As I explained a few weeks ago, the poor old male goat does not travel well. He is also extremely smelly and difficult to handle. It is much easier if the female can be popped into his pen and then hauled out again rather than the other way round. I know that it is a huge joke—even we goat keepers have fun about it—but it is a serious matter. We have already had one year when goat breeding has been impossible and we are now well into the breeding season for goats for this year. Goats must surely be low on the priority list of animals with regard to possible infection with foot and mouth disease. Could not some kind of concession be made for them? I support the noble Lord, Lord Livsey.

My Lords, I spoke to the amendment at Third Reading but I did not vote for it because I believed that the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, was wrong to specify eight weeks. But that is irrelevant.

I support the comments made by my noble friend Lord Monro. When I spoke to the amendment, I was looking for some degree of assurance from the Minister that he was considering very seriously ways of getting round the 20-day restriction. I did not feel that we heard any.

There is no question or doubt that the restriction is causing enormous difficulties. In my part of the world, the uplands of North Yorkshire, I hear constantly from farmers that this issue has to be resolved. Everyone acknowledges the need for sensible measures of control, but I urge the Minister to look at the matter urgently. It has to be resolved, otherwise the obvious disadvantage will continue.

My Lords, on a procedural point, the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, will not be able to insist on his amendment because he has not tabled a Motion to do so. Some years ago I was responsible for ensuring that the procedure we follow on Commons amendments is the same as the one we follow when dealing with amendments to a Bill. The noble Lord would need to table a Motion to insist on the amendment or a further amendment in lieu.

The noble Lord was concerned about the word

"automatically"

in the Commons reason—it is not an amendment from the Commons but a reason, and we all know what happens when there is a committee of reasons—but the word is correct. The noble Lord's amendment states "shall lapse"—it does not say "may lapse" so it would be automatic. Obviously for those on the committee of reasons, when they got their heads together, that was fairly logical.

I hope that my noble friend may find this point helpful. In considering what we can now do with the 20-day restriction, will he look at the proposal floated by the NFU, perhaps unofficially, that most well-run livestock farms have an animal health plan? We certainly did on the farms with which I was involved. We had a monthly visit from the vet as a part of that plan and he reported each month on how we performed against it. Such a plan could include arrangements for isolation of new animals on a farm. Most farms, in practice, isolate animals because of the risk of disease. They do not wish to mix the animals until the incubation period of a disease is out of the way. If the farmer could show that he had arrangements in place to isolate new animals as they come in, that could be perhaps a factor the department could take into account when considering what will replace the 20-day rule.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, for raising this issue again. He knew very well that it would put some of us in an awkward position because the amendment was technically flawed. The House has been very forbearing in accepting a technically flawed amendment and it has given us an opportunity to discuss a very important issue. I am convinced that the noble Lord would not dream of pushing the matter to a vote, but it has given our colleagues in another place an opportunity to consider an issue on which there has been no movement for a year. As my noble friends Lord Monro and Lord Peel said, this is a very real issue.

Can the Minister tell the House why Scotland is able to work a more flexible scheme and yet this Government, a year later, have stated that England cannot do the same? That does not seem logical. My right honourable friend David Curry, and other colleagues who farm on the Border, said yesterday that they find themselves in an impossible position. They can take certain actions on one side of the Border and yet cannot take them on the other side. I should like an answer to that question because the situation seems totally illogical. If the debate does nothing else but move the Government forward with a degree of urgency, it will have been well worth while.

Can the Minister say whether the proposals for the action strategy they have in hand will not be implemented until summer 2003? We need clarification on this because summer 2003 is nine months away and the issue is still causing a problem.

My noble friend Lord Monro raised the important question of whether we will still be in the same position in future if further disease control measures need to be put in place. Is the Minister hopeful that the research and negotiations the Government are currently undertaking will ensure that in the future we will not have to go through what we are going through at the moment? In other words, will we have moved on or will we still be at square one if another outbreak should occur in one or two years' time? Will these arrangements stay in place for X number of years? We have no idea. This is an urgent matter.

In the context of the more general debate, my next question of the Minister may seem a little light, but again it is important. The noble Countess, Lady Mar, referred to the breeding season for rams and ewes, but we should like to know about the directions that the Government will give to those people organising agricultural shows for next season. It is a small point but it is of huge importance.

In my home county, Leicestershire, the agricultural shows start in May and contracts should be signed now. There is no permanent showground and any extra events constitute big commitments. Because it is among the earlier shows, a decision has to be taken early on whether there will be no livestock animals apart from horses. This is a very urgent problem because we cannot afford to wait until February.

My Lords, I endorse what the noble Baroness has said. In our area alone there are 48 shows between 20th May and 15th September and there are huge problems.

My Lords, the organisers of the shows need to know whether movement restrictions will be lifted. As the Minister knows, some made a loss last year. They can sustain a loss for one year. but they will find it very difficult to sustain a loss for a second year.

I am sure that most noble Lords know that such shows raise money for charity. One of the attractions is that people not only see good quality livestock but the shows promote a better understanding among those who do not live and work in the countryside of how their food is produced. The opportunity for people to see the animals, stroke the animals and be with the animals is under threat. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, for giving me the opportunity to raise the issue.

So I have two questions for the Minister. First, will there be any change in the position with Scotland and why cannot we adopt the Scottish system? Secondly, will he address the question of the future for those organising agricultural shows?

My Lords, as I predicted, this debate is taking place on two different levels—that is, first, whether the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, is appropriate and, secondly, what are we going to do now about the 20-day standstill.

As to the first question, it has been widely recognised that the eight-week provision is not appropriate and that we do not have before us any alternative. The point is not, as the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, implied, how long it takes to do a risk assessment and what is the veterinary advice in that period, but whether we would be able to provide our trading partners with sufficient assurance if we lifted the restrictions four or five weeks before the earliest point at which the trading arrangements could be lifted.

A number of factors persuaded the EU and the OIE to lift the restrictions earlier. In my opinion, one was that we still had restrictions in place; hence, three months would not be appropriate either. The restrictions would have to continue up to some point beyond that. Obviously, the issue arises of whether the length of the period should be, for example, three months, 10 months or 13 months. But that is not the issue before us. Noble Lords on all sides of the House would not wish to support an eight-week period. Even were the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, able under our procedures, so ably contrived by my noble friend Lord Carter, to press such an amendment, it would not receive significant support. It is incumbent on me to respond to the many issues raised in regard to the present situation. First, it is not true that we have remained rigid over the 20-day rule. There have been substantial relaxations, both in Scotland and in England and Wales, compared with the period when the disease finished; and a substantial number of exemptions were provided for the current breeding season.

Secondly, the inquiries recognise—as do many responsible elements within the farming community—that whatever we do for February and beyond, we are not reverting to the status quo ante. There will always be some form of greater restriction on the movement of animals than existed previously, in terms of actual movements and traceability. One of the concerns—and one of the reasons why this country is in some ways different from our European partners—is the rapidity of movement, particularly of sheep, which was revealed in its totality in terms of tracing movements and the spread of the disease in the early weeks, in February and March last year. That indicates that some restriction on movement will continue to be necessary.

We shall be in a position to take at least the emerging findings of the cost-benefit analysis and the risk assessment at the end of this year. We hope to be able to introduce a regime that will come closer to being a more permanent one in time for the major spring movements of animals next year. Under the current devolution arrangements, that will be for England and Wales.

On occasions, devolution leads to different regimes. We keep in close contact with our Scottish colleagues and, in conjunction with the all the devolved Ministers, we recognise that it would be helpful if we could move closer, if not to a single system at least to a compatible system. However, the devolution settlement allows us to reach different judgments on the basis of the same facts and on the basis of somewhat different facts in terms of the structure and size of farms in Scotland as compared with those in England. The Scottish Executive has for the moment taken a different decision from that taken in England and Wales. That will be one of the considerations that we shall bear in mind when we examine alternatives to the 20-day rule beyond February.

Part of those alternatives may well involve other biosecurity measures. My noble friend Lord Carter and the NFU have referred to the requirements on animal health plans, which of themselves could include provisions on movement in farm and off farm and the provision of isolation facilities on farm. That may be part of a longer-term solution. It is a very heavy responsibility on government to ensure that the situation that arose in February and March last year, in terms of the rapidity of spread of the disease, never occurs again. At this point, we believe that that will involve some continuous restriction on movement, even if it is not in the form of the current 20-day rule. We hope to base future decisions on both scientific and economic assessment, and also on widespread consultation with the farming community and with our devolved colleagues. However, it would not be right to give the House the impression that, come February, we should return to the situation that existed before 2001.

My Lords, before the Minister sits down, will he acknowledge the situation in Wales, where sheep farming is of much greater importance? There are more sheep in Wales, for example, than there are in the whole of Scotland. What assurance can he give that administration of these policies by the National Assembly for Wales will take account of the matters to which I referred?

My Lords, I recognise that the operation in compliance with the 20-day rule causes greater difficulty among sheep farmers in the uplands; therefore, in Wales, a large proportion of the agricultural community are faced with a more difficult situation than farmers in lowland England or cattle farmers in the lowlands—where the 20-day rule, although at times irritating, is not a major imposition. Therefore, the situation in the uplands and in Wales will be taken into account. I cannot speak for the devolved administration. However, I can say that it has made its views and those of the farming community in Wales well known to us and to the State Veterinary Service, which serves both administrations. That will be taken fully into account in making the final decision.

It is probably strictly out of order for me to have talked about the 20-day rule as of now and in the future. So far as concerns the amendment previously carried by this House, I do not think that it would be appropriate. I therefore commend acceptance of the Commons' amendment removing the clause.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 14A to Lords Amendment No. 14. In so doing, I shall refer to the other amendments in this group, all of which deal with the warrant procedure.

The Commons have not accepted the amendments inserted by this House in this respect. I recognise the degree of feeling on these amendments, but I emphasise that it was one of the central pillars of the Bill that we adopted a procedure which speeded up the ability to adopt strategies both on slaughter and on access for vaccination and testing purposes for the effective conduct and control of foot and mouth or any other disease. The provisions cover entry to farms for all of those purposes and in relation to the scrapie provisions as well.

Before we returned the Bill to the Commons, this House had already tabled a number of safeguards relating to the way in which the warrant procedure would be carried out. But I cannot accept the basic proposition previously carried by this House on representations to the magistrate and the delay that that would build into the system, and the unprecedented effect that it would have on other equivalent warrant procedures.

I have pointed out on a number of occasions the fact that the occupier of the premises or the owner of the livestock has other means of making representations. In particular, he has the right to make representations to the divisional veterinary manager. It has been a tendency in this House in discussing this matter previously to dismiss that as not likely to lead to any change in the situation because the DVM is merely part of the administrative structure which is carrying out—noble Lords did not put it quite this way—the diktats from the centre, and in any case it would uphold the decision of its vet on the ground.

It is worth spelling out that that was not actually the case during the last epidemic. Because of the speed of events during the control, full information was not always available. But we now know how many representations were made to DVMs and their outcome. During the outbreak, in the most contentious area—the area of contiguous cull—534 appeals, all relating to the contiguous cull, were made to the DVM. Of those appeals, 336 were upheld. In other words, significantly over half of the appeals to the DVM were dealt with rapidly and the majority were upheld. So, contrary to the view put forward in this House, in the farming press and elsewhere, that procedure provided some means of representation. It also provided a significant means of relief in cases where it was clear to the DVM that a contiguous cull was not appropriate or had been misinterpreted in the circumstances. That is a substantial indication that current provision for occupiers and the owners of livestock already gives significant protection.

Having moved to warrant procedures, were we to go the other way by requiring occupiers to make a farm al representation to the magistrate, delay would be inevitable. The magistrate would need to consider the representation and take legal advice on the grounds for representation. It would slow down the process. But the key element of all inquiries and all commentary on how the operation was carried out was that it needed to be speeded up. One of the problems during the previous epidemic was that the strategy was not effectively carried out in certain areas within an effective timescale. That applies to culling for all purposes, including disease on infected premises, as contained in various amendments. It also applies to the administration of tests and of vaccines. For all those reasons, the authorities need access as rapidly as possible. Any slowdown is therefore not appropriate.

We provide occupiers with an appeal through the DVM, so their human rights are not infringed. The DVM has exercised appeals with a high degree of judgment. Even during the fraught times of the previous epidemic, over half of the appeals were upheld. Moreover, other provision exists in the form of injunctions and judicial review, neither of which are affected by our clauses. The House has been reminded many times, not least by my noble friend Lord Carter, that the Joint Committee on Human Rights has always said that the provisions do not infringe the European Convention on Human Rights.

I am aware of the strength of feeling about the matter in the House. But I am afraid that I cannot accept the views previously taken by this House on including in the Bill these representation rights and the connected rights that would have been inserted by previous amendments adopted by the House. I therefore draw the House's attention to the provision for farmers to make representations to the DVM. That is a sufficient guarantee as are the standard legal provisions on the ability to seek an injunction.

I beg to move that the House accepts the Commons deletion of those amendments and recognises that the provision that the Government seek and is now in the Commons version of the Bill will be appropriate in any future outbreak.

Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 14A to Lords Amendment No. 14.—(Lord Whiny.)

rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 14A to Lords Amendment No. 14, leave out "agree" and insert "disagree".

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 22B, 35B and 65B.

This is the last big ditch at the end of this Bill that we must cross, or not cross as the case may be. It is the last major item of contention that has run throughout the passage of the Bill. We regret that the Government have been unable to concede, or at least to move further, on the fundamental issues behind the amendment; first, to give people the right to see the sworn information on the basis of which the magistrate will make a decision, and, secondly, the right to put their view to the magistrate before that decision is made. We want those two rights to be written into the Bill. This House approved them previously, and the other place has now removed them, which is why we are discussing them again today.

It is only three days since we had a fundamental, long debate on the matter. I do not want to repeat everything I said then or to go through the issues. But I want to pick up remarks made on behalf of the Government since then. Having read the comments of Elliot Morley as reported in yesterday's House of Commons Hansard, and having listened to the Minister today, it is clear that there are two main issues. The first is the question of delays, which we have discussed in great detail. We simply do not accept that this procedure would introduce a huge and unacceptable delay. There is a clear difference of view. Elliott Morley said:

"The risk is that we would have further delays if the court then required additional expert evidence, or if there were an application for legal aid".—[Official Report, Commons 6/11/02; co1.368.]

That is reading into our proposal something that is simply not there. We are simply suggesting that people have the right to put their view directly to the magistrate who is making the decision about the warrant. To talk about courts, legal aid, et cetera, is simply to fail to understand our proposal.

There was much interesting discussion in the other place yesterday about the role of the DVM. The statistics that the Minister gave us today were cited there also. Interesting questions were put by my honourable friend David Heath, among others, about the relationship between the appeal application to the DVM against a slaughter of stock, as part of a contiguous cull or a wider cull, and the application for the warrant. From my reading of Hansard, no satisfactory answer was given to that. In particular, questions were asked about whether the knowledge that the application to the DVM had been made would be provided automatically to the magistrate. That is not clear to me, and a clear answer was not given yesterday. Secondly, it was asked whether, if the DVM upheld the appeal, the application for the warrant could still go ahead in those circumstances, and, if it did, whether the reasons for the appeal being upheld by the DVM would be provided to the justice of the peace before making a decision. The relationship between the two processes is not clear. I do not believe that it was clarified in the other place yesterday. Quite apart from the merits of this amendment, it will be helpful if the Minister could clarify it today.

My honourable friend Andrew George said yesterday that this was an acceptable and progressive measure. I would add that it is also a very modest one. It will help to increase trust on all sides in the process. It will lead to fairer decisions and therefore to fewer time-consuming appeals, whether for judicial review or to the High Court for injunctions. It is therefore likely to speed up the process rather than slow it down in critical cases. It is certainly likely to reduce the number of occasions on which disgruntled occupiers of property—farmers or whoever—try to keep people out physically and cause all that kind of aggravation.

We therefore believe that this remains a sensible although modest amendment and we would like to pursue it. I beg to move.

Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 14A to Lords Amendment No. 14, leave out "agree" and insert "disagree".—(Lord Greaves.)

My Lords, we have all discussed these matters on a good many occasions during the passage of the Bill through your Lordships' House. I feel just as strongly now as I have always felt in favour of the amendment as we sent it to another place.

I very much hope that at the end of the debate we shall divide on the amendment and insist on it. I also very much hope that we shall win that vote so that the amendment goes again to another place. We are in danger of getting into a protracted phase of parliamentary ping-pong.

I shall take my life in my hands and risk infuriating my noble friends, and maybe some Liberal Democrats and Cross-Benchers as well. I passionately hope that we defeat the Government, but if we are looking for a compromise somewhere, I wonder if I might have the temerity to suggest how we might arrive at one in which we who believe strongly in this can give up something and so can the Government.

I understand perfectly the problem of delay. I suggest that, in the event of the Government losing a vote on this matter and the amendment going back to another place, the Minister might use his good offices with his friends in the Government there to propose that maybe paragraph (e) could be deleted. That is the provision for the opportunity to present sworn information in person or in writing to a justice of the peace. Paragraph (d) could also be altered. I fully acknowledge that my drafting is not professional, but my suggested compromise wording is something like:

"he has been provided with an opportunity to make written representations to the justice of the peace within six hours of being informed under subsection (5)(c), excepting the hours between 8 p.m. and 8 a.m.".

That proposal may infuriate some of my friends, who may accuse me of selling the pass. As one who has spent time looking for compromises in one role or another, I wonder whether this is a compromise that the Government might accept in another place. Having said that, I passionately hope they are defeated when we come to a Division.

My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, perhaps he can explain his proposal further. His wording refers to written evidence. Presumably if the occupier or his legal representative were prepared to attend in person, that would also suffice.

My Lords, that was the pass that I may have sold. My proposal to delete subsection (5)(e) might take away the opportunity for those concerned to appear in person. That is exactly why I felt the dagger poised over my heart.

My Lords, I have a possible alternative compromise that goes even nearer the Government's position. Following the helpful explanation by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, I can just about see that the Government might possibly have a case for wanting paragraphs (d) and (e) deleted, but I can see no case for trying to truncate paragraph (c). Why on earth should not the farmer be given a full explanation for the issuing of the warrant?

My Lords, I was interested to hear how the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, thought the amendment would work. I am told that it would be a new procedure in the magistrates' court. It is unprecedented to allow representations on a warrant. He dismissed the idea of legal aid. Does he also dismiss the idea of legal representation? Is the farmer to do this himself in person? If not, and if he requires legal assistance, presumably he would also be eligible for legal aid. The noble Lord seems to brush that aside.

I am not sure what procedure the noble Lord envisages for the representation to be made in front of the magistrate. It is probable that a farmer who wished to do that would intend to seek some legal help. The procedure is unprecedented. I am sure that the noble Lord has thought through exactly how his proposal would work in a magistrates' court.

I do not apologise for replying to the point that I made before about the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. It is an important committee. The House understandably and correctly calls it in aid when the committee criticises the Government. We should bear in mind its conclusions when it supports the Government.

I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Peel. I do not have the Hansard for our previous debate in front of me, so I shall have to paraphrase his memorable words. He said that we are not talking about human rights here; we are talking about justice. That threw a new light on the whole legal process.

Finally, speaking as an ex-Chief Whip, we know that if the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats vote together they have 100 more votes than the Government, if everyone is here. Everyone will not be here, but there will still be enough to defeat the Government. If the amendment is sent back, an interesting situation will arise. We know that the Opposition can defeat the Government if they vote together on any occasion on which they wish to do so. We then have to reflect on the previous convention that we used to observe that the elected Chamber should finally have its way. I hope that that will not be called into question with ping-pong. If there is a vote I hope that we win it. If we do not, the House will have to think very carefully about what happens when the amendment comes back.

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, keeps referring to the fact that the Joint Committee said that this was not incompatible with the Bill as drafted. It is not. Nobody has said that it is. The noble Lord misses the point that it is the implementation of these provisions by the Secretary of State that can engage and inevitably will engage the convention requirements if they do not accord with the minimum requirements of natural justice. They engage not only the convention provisions, but the very heart of our own administration of justice.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jopling. I had already crossed out paragraph (e) because it is not essential. We are concerned with the absolute bare minimum essentials of our administration of justice. I shall go on voting and voting for this, even if I go down, because I cannot conceive of the injustice. If you cannot have a copy of the sworn information and an opportunity to make some representations, the issue of that warrant—as I think I have said before—is merely a rubber stamp for slaughter. That is wholly unacceptable.

I hope that I can have the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for a moment, because he also dealt with the minutiae of procedure. Perhaps I may point out to him that it is the obligation of the Secretary of State to devise and implement a procedure that accords with our principle of natural justice. It is for him to do that, in his own interests and in the interests of the farmer or the occupier. If the Secretary of State does not do so, the High Court has a supervisory jurisdiction to strike down the wrong decision.

However, it does not end at that point because the Bill pre-empts that jurisdiction only to the extent that you cannot stop the slaughter of the animals, but it does not pre-empt the jurisdiction of the High Court later to adjudicate on the matter. The High Court will say that there was a manifest injustice, and order compensation for the animals that have been slaughtered because the owners have been caused misery. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, is a farmer and that he understands all about the practical problems involved, which I do not; indeed, I have never pretended to do so. However, I do understand the rudiments of justice. There is no reason for this disagreement: the delay is minimal.

As for the question of representation posed by my noble friend Lord Peel, I should have thought that the man could go along himself, unrepresented, so long as he is allowed to appear before the magistrate and has the grounds for the warrant with him. I am not insisting on an elaborate legal procedure; I am insisting on the bare minimum concepts of justice.

I ask the Minister to reconsider the matter. I know that he has heard me on the issue before, and the House has been patient with me on previous occasions, but some of us simply cannot accept this. It is not a question of confronting the Government. We are trying to help the Government to do what they should do; namely, to administer the statutory provisions of the first and second conditions and to do so within the rules of fair and due administration. That is all we ask.

My Lords, I support noble Lords in their defence of the original amendment, although I may perhaps agree about paragraph (e). The noble Lord, Lord Carter, speaks with great authority. We have huge respect for him as a former Chief Whip, but sometimes he talks a lot of rubbish.

The noble Countess has used an unparliamentary phrase.

I apologise to the noble Lord. But he misleads the House when he says that people have to go to a magistrates' court in order to make an application to a magistrate. In fact, a magistrate can deal with such matters in his dressing gown, complete with bedroom slippers, while sitting in his armchair at home. There is no reason why Farmer Giles, say, should not make such an application dressed in his Wellington boots and an old jacket. The process should not take many minutes.

It may be helpful to the House if I point out that mistakes are made. Of all the infected premises that were culled out, 41.2 per cent in Wales, 34.5 per cent in Scotland, and 20.6 per cent in England were incorrectly diagnosed. As for the percentage of farms tested positive for FMD, in Wales the figure was 7.4 per cent, in Scotland the figure was 7 per cent, and in England the figure was 16.3 per cent. So hundreds of farms were culled out when there was no disease present. The farmers were aware of the situation, but had no means by which they could gain redress at that time.

The Minister will have rather a difficult task in trying to prove his point. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, may well call upon precedents, and other measures, but your Lordships also have a duty to perform in ensuring that the law is right before it is enacted.

My Lords, I rise to speak to the Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. As noble Lords will remember, the original amendment gathered support from all sides of the House. It is not a party-political issue. We are only sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, is not able to be present today. If she were here, I am sure that she would strongly support us. If I remember correctly, I believe she said that it is no use appealing after your animals are already dead, because they are gone. We should bear that in mind.

I am intrigued by my noble friend's suggestion. As ever, he is a very wise person and a very experienced parliamentarian. As he was speaking, I wrote myself a little note saying, "At the end of the day it is the art of the possible". Perhaps the Liberal Democrats will look again at this amendment. I hope that we send it back to the other place. But, should it be returned to us, perhaps those in another place will consider the suggestions that have been made—for example, that paragraph (e) might be an area that we could revisit.

There are a few important issues that I wish briefly to mention. First, I should remind the House that we are not talking about killing infected animals; we are talking about healthy animals. Secondly, the Government keep saying that they believe this provision would cause delay. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, said that it may be a small delay. There will be delay because, in any event, the DVM must make representations to magistrates. I cannot see the difficulty at that point in the farmer, or someone speaking on his behalf, being there at the same time so that such a discussion can take place. I accept that there may be a few minutes extra delay, but both matters could be dealt with at the same time.

I also remind noble Lords that the evidence presented in the National Audit Office's June 2002 report clearly states that,

"the three main factors contributing to delays in slaughter were: shortages of resources, of vets, of value men, of slaughtermen, and equipment".

Under inspection and diagnosis protocols, the report goes on to state that,

"occasionally delays may have occurred when laboratory tests or initial tests were inconclusive".

Initial requirements for such visits are also set out in the report; namely, that the department's vet should check on all livestock before carrying out a detailed clinical examination of the infected animals.

The NAO lays down those three causes of delay very clearly. Therefore, the Government should not say that their amendment, which we are trying again to reject, will solve the problem. That was not the main cause of the problem last time: the problem was as stated in the NAO report. Let us not be misled by that particular argument. My noble friend Lord Jopling said that he feels as strongly now on these matters as he did previously. I share that feeling. As each day goes on and I become more tired, I feel it even more strongly. I hope that other noble Lords will support this Motion.

My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway is quite right: what we are looking for is basic, natural justice and what should be seen to be done on people's behalf. Although the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, claims that 346 representations to the DVM out of the 534 were upheld, does he recognise that a large number of those were upheld only after they had been won through a High Court case? I am referring in particular to MAFF v Upton. Such decisions are not much use after the animals have already gone. We have therefore brought back our proposal, which I believe that the Government should now accept.

I return to an earlier point. We are trying to ensure that the public can feel that all new legislation is fair and just. Neither noble Lords nor, I suspect, millions of other people believe that this provision is fair and just. I hope that we shall resolutely say to the Government,

"We think that you have it wrong. We hope that, after this short debate, you will think again".

We are anxious to build bridges. We have had the Curry investigation into the future of food and farming, and the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, has been appointed to examine the way in which DEFRA works. The Government seem to be saying, "We are approaching these issues with a blank sheet and nothing has been finalised. We are here to talk and to listen. In this case, however, we are not willing to listen". I hope that noble Lords are resolute in this matter.

My Lords, I am as always willing to listen. I am not, however, willing to take on board an amendment, or a reversion to an amendment, that would seriously undermine our ability to control future disease. That is what noble Lords on the Opposition Benches are proposing.

The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, referred to this as a last ditch, and the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, asked us to try to bridge it. Frankly, however, there is a difference of approach here that is very difficult to bridge. I have tried to point out that the concessions and changes which we have already built into the legislation—such as what the magistrate has to take into account—already provide a huge number of safeguards. I have also pointed out, as my honourable friend Elliot Morley has pointed out in another place, that, even without these new safeguards, the rights of a significant number of livestock owners are already protected by the DVM administrative procedure under the previous regime.

The whole point of this Bill is to enable us to administer more effectively control mechanisms—whether vaccination, testing or slaughter, and regardless of the status of animals—to achieve the rapid curtailment of a disease that is enormously damaging to the whole of the livestock industry and to the economies of huge swathes of rural England.

I know that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, and others feel very strongly about the human rights dimension of this. However, I do not believe—nor, as I said, does the Joint Committee on Human Rights believe—that these provisions infringe those human rights. The provisions that already exist for appeal to the DVM clearly demonstrate that that process upholds the ability to raise those issues.

My Lords, I have no interest to declare; I have just resigned from the Joint Committee on Human Rights. However, I know the Committee's reports as I have read them all. The noble Lord is under a misapprehension. It is true, as I tried to explain once, that the Bill as drafted does not infringe human rights. It is the implementation of it without regard to natural justice which also engages articles of the convention.

My Lords, I accept that point. We are, however, dealing with the Bill which is before us. In the Government's judgment and in the judgment of the Joint Committee, nothing in this Bill infringes human rights. As I have also pointed out, the way in which this process is operated—under the administrative appeal, if one cares to call it that, to the DVM—clearly upholds human rights without infringing or jeopardising the ability to deal with this disease as rapidly as possible.

My Lords, the noble Lord gives us no reassurance on the implementation of appeals through the DVM. As my noble friend Lady Byford pointed out, however, the majority of those successful appeals were carried out after the Government had lost the Upton case—the Grunty the Pig case. Prior to that, most of those appeals were dismissed. It was only after that that the DVM realised that it had no grounds for upholding continuation of the contiguous cull.

My Lords, that is a strange and erroneous interpretation of that case. However, even if everything that the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, has just said were true, in future outbreaks, the magistrates would have to take those decisions into account—as the adjustment in the outlook would have to be taken into account—when they considered appeals. So I do not think that that point destroys my central argument.

In their positive response to the Government's response yesterday to the inquiry reports, noble Lords accepted that we are moving to a more positive, constructive and engaging way of dealing with future disease. The basis of that approach is the availability of a range of possible weapons against disease, among which vaccination should be given greater priority. However, to be able to vaccinate and test as well as to slaughter, we need these powers of entry, and we need those powers to be operational and to be rapidly deliverable. As I said, one criticism which the inquiry made and many people underlined during our campaign against the disease was that we were not carrying that out quickly enough and that we were therefore allowing the spread of the disease.

The noble Lords, Lord Jopling and Lord Monson, have suggested some compromises, none of which is before us now. If I understood the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, aright, although he would delete the part of the amendments that constitutes probably the largest element of the delay, he would then build in a six-hour delay, excluding the period between 8 p.m. and 8 a.m. The noble Lord may wish to correct me, but I believe that that exclusion could amount to 18 hours' delay. In dealing with such a virulent disease which can spread as rapidly as this one, a delay of 18, 12 or even six hours is an important restraint on the authority's ability to curtail the disease. I do not think that the farming community, if it thought about it, would be prepared to accept that as part of the normal procedure in dealing with this disease. The Government's judgment is that it would certainly not be in the livestock industry's interests to build in the restraint to the process for dealing with any future disease. Therefore, although I understand the passion on the other side of this argument, I think that the proposal is seriously misplaced. It is certainly not in the interests of the livestock industry of Great Britain. I should therefore hope that noble Lords will not press Amendment No. 14B, but will agree to Commons Amendment No. 14A.

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have participated in this debate, to which I listened carefully. I have been trying to decide whether any of the points raised today have not been adequately dealt with by any of those who spoke, and I have come to the view that there are very few. I shall not repeat the points that others have made. It is time that we made a decision on this matter.

I must, however, challenge one of the Minister's comments. He said that these amendments seriously undermine the Government's strategy. That is nonsense. We have gone out of our way to be as modest as we can, precisely because we do not wish to undermine the strategy. We are talking about a few hours at the very most. It is therefore incorrect to suggest that the amendments would drive a coach and horses through the provision. As we all know, in the most recent outbreak, the delay had nothing to do with this kind of procedure but everything to do with administrative competence or incompetence. That is the issue that will determine whether a future outbreak can be dealt with properly. Our ability to do that will not be determined by whether or not people have absolutely minimal rights—not to go to court, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, suggested, but to express their point of view when the magistrate is making the decision.

The only other thing I want to say is that I hope that the measure will be sent back to another place. I hope that, when it is, or if it is, the Government will seriously consider some of the compromises that have been suggested because I believe that compromise is possible here. If the Government make some effort to compromise, I shall certainly accept that. Clearly, I do not want to be here until this time tomorrow sending the measure backwards and forwards and I am sure that no one would support such a step in the Lobbies. Having said that, I ask the House to agree to Amendment No. 14B.

My Lords, the original Question was that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 14A to Lords Amendment No. 14, since when an amendment has been moved to leave out "agree" and insert "disagree". The Question is that this amendment be agreed to.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 22A to Lords Amendment No. 22.

Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 22A to Lords Amendment No. 22.—(Lord Whitty.)

22B Lord Greaves rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 22A to Lords Amendment No. 22, leave out "agree" and insert "disagree".

Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 22A to Lords Amendment No. 22, leave out "agree" and insert "disagree".—(Lord Greaves.)

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 35A to Lords Amendment No. 35.

Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 35A to Lords Amendment No. 35.—(Lord Whitty.)

rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 35A to Lords Amendment No. 35, leave out "agree" and insert "disagree".

Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 35A to Lords Amendment No. 35, leave out "agree" and insert "disagree".—(Lord Greaves.)

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 45A and 45B to Lords Amendment No. 45.

My Lords, it might be helpful to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, if I point out that I will not be moving my amendment. Will that save time?

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Countess.

Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 45A and 45B to Lords Amendment No. 45.—(Lord Whitty.)

My Lords, the Question is that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 45A and 45B to Lords Amendment No. 45.

My Lords, I believe that the noble Countess has withdrawn her amendment. We are considering government Amendment No. 45A.

Amendment No. 45.

Amendment No. 45?

My Lords, the Question is that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 45A and 45B to Lords Amendment No. 45.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 47A to Lords Amendment No. 47.

This amendment relates to that part of the Bill that prescribes the form of the national contingency plan. Your Lordships' House inserted a number of amendments that, in the judgment of the Government and the Commons, were not appropriate for this part of the Bill or for the contingency plan. The whole point of the plan is to reflect the fact that during the 2001 epidemic it became clear that we were not fully prepared for an outbreak on that scale. The contingency plan will deal with an outbreak on any scale, including the form of last year's epidemic.

The main purpose of this provision, as it was originally drafted, is to provide an assurance that the Government are serious about being prepared and that the contingency plan is referred to in the Bill. Good contingency planning and better preparedness are highlighted in the two reports. The contingency plan, which was updated and issued yesterday, will fill many of the requirements of those reports. Clearly, the plans will be reviewed and amended as policies and facts change and develop. Proposals for emergency vaccination, for example, are being developed so that vaccination can be integrated into one overall plan, which will relate to all aspects of disease control policy.

The contingency plan will cover the control of diseases using culling and/or emergency vaccination as appropriate, and that will be done within the context of the relevant EU legislation. I anticipate that the final contingency plan will be laid for the first time before Parliament in spring 2003.

The approach to contingency planning is a risk-based approach. The plan spells out what we would do in the event of disease. The requirements that have been added to the original proposition—at new Sections 14A(2) and 14A(3)—do not relate to the purpose of the clause, which is to define a requirement for a contingency plan to deal with occurrences of the disease.

The change would not allow us to target our resources appropriately in that respect. New Section 14A(2) could require us to expend a great deal of resources in relation to all the diseases listed in Schedule 2A. That contingency plan will deal with foot and mouth and extend to other diseases.

The risk to the UK comes not only from countries that report honestly to OIE, but also from those that do not report the disease situation or where there is no mechanism—or no effective mechanism—to diagnose and report disease. That means that we have to have, in preparation for disease, surveillance information from OIE and elsewhere. In relation to the contingency plan when the disease breaks out, that is not relevant. That should have been in place prior to the contingency plan being triggered.

That is not to suggest that the concerns that lie behind the amendments are not being addressed. However, those provisions are relevant to prevention of the disease, surveillance and international co-operation; they are not part of what would happen once the disease was here and the contingency plan had been triggered. That is where the broader issues of strategy, to which the amendments relate, will arise. This provision relates to what we would do once the disease was regrettably here. The proposals are therefore extraneous to this part of the Bill. I do not object to the thought that is behind the amendments but it is not appropriate to include such matters in the list of items to be included in the contingency plan. I beg to move.

Moved, that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 47A to Lords Amendment No. 47.—(Lord Whitty.)

rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 47A to Lords Amendment No. 47, leave out from "House" to end and insert "do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 47A, and do propose the following amendment in lieu thereof—

Leave out lines 24 to 29.

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation of the national contingency plan. Had it not been for the hard work in this House, I doubt very much that there would ever have been a national contingency plan on the face of the Bill.

As noble Lords will remember, when we returned on Monday 7th October, I apologised yet again for putting forward an amendment which dealt with strategy. One thing was obviously clear from the Bill as it stood in November last year; that is, it was a Bill designed to kill animals. It was not designed to look at other alternatives nor to look into the future. The long debate that we had then—I am grateful to all noble Lords who took part in it—was the start of moving the Bill in a different direction. The noble Lord, Lord Livsey, is nodding and, I believe, agrees with that. If I were to compliment him, I would have to say that it was the wonderful rare air in the Brecon Beacons that made that possible. We spent four days walking and discussing how to get the Bill to do what it was supposed to do.

The Bill is designed to control animal disease—God forbid that we have another outbreak in this country—and it is right that the Government have their legislation. However, at the same time, it is this Chamber's duty to scrutinise Bills, to ensure that they work, that they are representative and that they reflect the concerns of the wider community. We have spent days debating the balance of the Bill.

I repeat, as I have done on many occasions, that I am very grateful for the patience of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. He has been patient because the Bill has been in gestation for a long time. However, I believe that ultimately he will agree that what was a very bad Bill will leave this House a better one. Had it not been for the resolution that this House made in March, none of this would have been possible. The Bill would have been passed in April or May and we would probably now be revisiting the subject in a whole new Bill. I make no apology for challenging the Government and for trying to insert an additional direction on the national contingency plan. As the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and other noble Lords will have realised, I have deleted the third part of the original amendment. Having heard the Statement yesterday and having had a chance to read the debate, I am well aware that the Government have at last accepted the urgency and the degree of weight that should be placed on vaccination. I shall not go through that argument again. However, had that not been so, I would not have removed that part of the amendment because, although the wording stated

"may instigate"

—there was no question of

"must"

—I realise that there are implications for funding and others matters.

The amendment before the House requires a little more meat to be placed on the wretched skeleton that we have been debating for some time. In another place, Elliot Morley considered the first part of my amendment, which would have required a three-yearly review of exotic diseases, and commented that he did not consider that to be often enough. In reply, I say that a three-yearly review does not preclude a yearly or a six-monthly review being carried out if that is what is required, but it gives direction to the provision.

I shall not go over all the arguments because we have done so already. But I say again to the Minister that I hope that, even at this late hour, he will consider accepting the amendment. I believe that I have removed the parts which the Government found difficult. However, there would have been no contingency plan had we not put forward the important amendment on strategy—an amendment to which other noble Lords have rallied. From that, we now have import control and biosecurity clauses and a requirement for Parliament to have a contingency plan. I beg to move.

Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 47A to Lords Amendment No. 47, leave out from

"House"

to end and insert

"do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 47A, and do propose the following amendment in lieu thereof—Leave out lines 24 to 29"

.—(Baroness Byford.)

My Lords, I shall not detain the House long. First, I congratulate the noble Baroness on the work that she has done on the Bill. I mention, in particular, the importance that she places on this amendment. I also take the opportunity to say how much I have enjoyed working with the Minister, who has displayed great patience and, in many respects, great perception. It has been a pleasure to do business with him—sometimes successfully and sometimes not.

Briefly, I want to raise one point about subsection (2)(a) of Amendment No. 47, which concerns the three-yearly review of the world-wide incidence of diseases. I do not understand why the Minister finds that so difficult to accept. Surely in a contingency plan it is immensely pertinent that, if we know that certain strains of foot and mouth disease are rife in Asia and perhaps even in eastern Europe and if we are to enter a vaccination mode, sufficient stocks of serum are available immediately in order to attempt to keep the disease out of this country. I believe that that is an extremely prudent measure, which is equalled by some of the other measures within the amendment. I support the noble Baroness in her amendment.

My Lords, I thank both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for their kind words. I do not disagree centrally with their analysis. I might have put it somewhat differently myself. Nevertheless, while I do not accept that we would not have had a contingency plan, clearly such a plan would not have been embedded in the Bill in the way that the House urged on us and in the way that we responded at earlier stages. All credit is due to the Opposition and to the House as a whole for ensuring that the plan was included.

The only point that I make now is not that I disagree with having three-yearly reviews, the monitoring of the implementation of the plan or, indeed, the various preventive measures which are to be included in new Section 14A(2) of the noble Baroness's amendment; it is simply that that is not part of the contingency plan. It is part of what the Government should do outside the contingency plan, before there is any disease. The contingency plan must be about the actuality of the disease and how we deal with it. It is not a point of principle; it is a point of logic. We would engage in at least three-yearly reviews of the situation and we would engage in the preventative motions that are implied by new Section 14A(2)(b).

If this went anywhere in the Bill it should go before mention of the national contingency plan and not under the content of the national contingency plan, with which this clause is concerned. I thought that that was what the House urged on us originally.

This is not a sensible point on which to divide. Logically, all legal advice is that it should not be in this clause, even though the Government may want to implement it in precisely the way in which the noble Baroness wishes. Therefore, I ask her to consider the logic of the position—as distinct from the previous amendment on which we voted where there was a clear difference of opinion—as this relates simply to the tidiness of the Bill. The noble Baroness has made great play about this being a better Bill, as it is in many respects, but that would detract, if only slightly, from the way in which we have improved the Bill. Therefore, I hope that she and her colleagues will not pursue this amendment.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his courteous response. I have written down the word

"disappointed"

. When debating the Bill we have often been told that something is a good idea, but that it does not fit in here, or that it should be somewhere else, or that the Government are already doing what we ask, and so on. Bearing in mind what the Minister has said, perhaps, even from a sedentary position, he would indicate whether he is willing to take this issue away. I do not mean for him to put it in the Bill, but perhaps he could write to me or give a commitment that the Government will take the matter on board. At this late hour, that would help us.

When in Opposition matters are much more difficult. They are much easier on the other side of the Chamber. One tries one's best; one puts forward arguments; one wins the arguments and then one is told that it is not relevant or it is not in the right place. I am disappointed, but if the Minister could indicate that the matter will be taken further and that it will not just die a death I would be very grateful.

My Lords, I do not offer to swap places with the noble Baroness. We have both had different kinds of difficulties with this Bill. However, I shall certainly undertake to write to the noble Baroness, and to other noble Lords, outlining how we would carry out the obligations that are implied by what she wants.

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. I am worried about two things: climate change and the consequent possibility that more exotic diseases will be more likely to enter the country. That is a huge problem. I am grateful to him. I shall await his letter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

My Lords, I beg to move.

Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 65A to Amendment No. 65.—(Lord Whitty.)

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. The Statement is as follows:

"With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a Statement about negotiations on a new UN Security Council resolution on Iraq.

"A revised draft resolution was circulated to all members of the UN Security Council yesterday. The Council is now discussing the text and will vote on it shortly. A vote could come as early as tomorrow night. As we will prorogue later today, I wanted to update the House now the negotiations are entering their final stage.

"I have placed a copy of the joint United Kingdom/United States draft in the Libraries of both Houses.

"As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister reminded the House yesterday, our overriding objective is to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction through an effective inspections regime.

"The Prime Minister and I have made the case for UN action here in the House, to our allies and to the wider world. On 10th September, the Prime Minister told the TUC conference that the UN had to be the means of dealing with this problem, not of avoiding it. Two days later, President Bush in his historic speech to the General Assembly said that the United Nations had either to enforce the writ of its own resolutions or risk becoming irrelevant. On 14th September, in the same forum, I called on the UN to meet the challenge posed by Iraq and to defend its own authority.

"As one of the five permanent members of the Security Council, the UK has been determined to ensure that the UN emerges from this crisis with its credibility enhanced. During the negotiations, our aim has been to secure consensus on a tough resolution which leaves Iraq under no illusions about the need for disarmament.

"The text currently before the Security Council is the product of eight weeks of intensive negotiations. The UK and the US began to circulate elements of a draft resolution to fellow Security Council members on 25th September, and a draft full text on 23rd October. Throughout these two months the Prime Minister has spoken to President Bush and other heads of government at regular intervals. I have been in daily contact with United States Secretary of State Colin Powell, and I have had detailed discussions with my French, Russian and Chinese counterparts and with Foreign Ministers of the elected 10 of the Security Council on numerous occasions. Our UN ambassador, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, and his team have worked tirelessly in New York.

"The draft resolution uses the full power of the UN under Chapter 7 of its charter. The architecture of the draft has been extensively discussed between the permanent members. Let me set out for the House the key points.

"First, the text makes clear in operative paragraph 1 that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under previous Security Council resolutions.

"Secondly, in operative paragraph 2, the text affords Iraq a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations.

"Thirdly, it stipulates—operative paragraph 41—that false statements or omissions in Iraq's declaration of its WMD holdings and failure by Iraq to comply with the resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations, and provides that this will he reported to the council for assessment.

"Fourthly, the text gives—operative paragraphs 5 to 9—significantly enhanced powers to the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission and the International Atomic Energy Agency to conduct effective, intrusive inspections. Honourable Members may be surprised by the level of detail in the resolution. Our experience with Saddam Hussein has made this necessary. I would draw particular attention to: the provision for conducting interviews with Iraqi citizens inside or outside Iraq, without Iraqi government minders present; the explicit setting-aside of previous arrangements restricting access to so-called presidential sites; provisions for freezing a site to be inspected so that nothing is changed within it nor taken from it while it is being inspected; and making legally binding the 'practical arrangements' set out by the inspectors themselves and covering issues such as regional bases, the right to encrypted communications and so on.

"In sum, this is a basis for an inspection regime designed not to go through the motions, but to achieve active disarmament.

"The text sets out the procedure to be followed in the case of failure by Iraq to comply: it requires—in operative paragraph 4—that any further material breach of Iraq's obligations should be reported to the council for assessment; it directs—in operative paragraph 11—the executive chairman of UNMOVIC and the director general of the IAEA to report immediately to the council any interference by Iraq with their inspection activities or failure to comply with its disarmament obligations; it provides—in operative paragraph 12—that the council will convene immediately upon receipt of a report of non-compliance in order to consider the situation.

"On timing, the text provides that within seven days of adoption of the resolution Iraq must confirm its intention fully to comply; within 30 days Iraq must submit a full and accurate declaration of all aspects of its WM D programmes; within 45 days, inspections should resume; and within 105 days UNMOVIC and the IAEA should report to the Security Council.

"The text concludes in operative paragraph 13 by underlining that Iraq has been repeatedly warned that it will face serious consequences as a result of continuous violations of its obligations.

"I emphasise again that the detailed wording may change further in negotiation. Discussion will resume this afternoon in New York. But the draft resolution meets the United Kingdom's objectives. It takes into account many points raised in the Security Council by other member states and by the chief inspectors, Mr Blix and Mr El Baradei. We are now seeking unanimous support for the resolution in order to send the strongest message to Saddam Hussein.

"Britain wants a peaceful resolution to this crisis; and the United States has shown by its engagement in the long negotiations over the past weeks that it, too, is committed to using the UN route to resolve this problem. Here, I would like to pay my own tribute to President Bush and US Secretary of State Powell for their patience and statesmanship.

"History tells us that if diplomacy is to succeed, it must be combined with the credible threat of force. As Kofi Annan has said, with direct reference to Iraq:

'We have learned that sensitive diplomacy must be backed by the threat of military force if it is to succeed'.

It is that threat that in recent weeks has forced Saddam to concede the prospect of readmitting weapons inspectors. The more credible the threat, the more likely it is that Iraq will respond to the demands of the United Nations and meet its obligations under international law.

"As the negotiations at the Security Council enter their final stage, we are approaching a critical moment for the whole of the international community and for the integrity of our system of international law. By adopting the resolution, the Security Council will send the clearest possible signal of its determination to uphold the authority of the United Nations; and we will be one step closer towards resolving a problem that has undermined the security of Iraq's neighbours and the wider world for more than a decade.

"The task of the inspectors is to find and to destroy the weapons of mass destruction. The choice for Saddam Hussein is to comply with the United Nations or face the serious consequences".

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving your Lordships that update by repeating the Statement made by the Foreign Secretary. We concur with her view and that of the Foreign Secretary that this is indeed a critical moment in global affairs when clear thinking and strong resolution are needed.

We strongly welcome the revised draft resolution and hope that it will be swiftly and unanimously passed—perhaps as soon as tomorrow night. We also hope that it is as clear, strong and unambiguous as the Foreign Secretary understandably hopes and claims, and that the room for wriggling and delay is minimised by its wording.

I also recognise that considerable hard work has gone into drafting the resolution on the part of both Ministers and officials. I pay particular tribute to Sir Jeremy Greenstock and his team at the United Nations in New York, who have clearly been extremely assiduous in their work.

The timetable for all of this is extremely important. To recap without delaying your Lordships, we know that Iraq has seven days to signify compliance—that it will play ball. It then has 30 days to produce a full and accurate inventory of all of its weapons programmes—the hideous weapons developments believed to be contained in Iraq. Then, the inspectors have 45 days from when the resolution is passed to resume their work. Sixty days thereafter, they must report back to the Security Council and the United Nations. As the noble Baroness said, that adds up to 105 days, which is about three and a half months from when the resolution is passed.

The first and most obvious question is this: does that coincide with the weather window? Will it be possible, if we are talking about late February or, maybe, the middle of March, to manage the constraints imposed by the natural environment? Many people were thinking about an earlier operation, should it prove necessary, perhaps in January. We are now into March: will it all add up?

Secondly, I must ask about the conditions for the reconvening of the Security Council. We understand that the Security Council must meet before military force is used, should that prove necessary. I am not clear about what triggers a re-convened meeting of the Security Council. Is it just the eventual report from the inspectors in 105 days' time? Is it Iraq's failure, as registered by the inspectors, to comply with some aspect? Is it evidence of obstruction? What if, in the next week or so, Iraq does not answer the letter about compliance in seven days' time? Will that mean a re-convening of the Security Council or merely an assessment? It appears that, until that happens, military action cannot go forward.

My third question is on a smaller issue, but clarification would be useful. What does the reference in, I think, paragraph 7 to UN security guards mean? It says:

"Security of UNMOVIC and IAEA facilities shall be ensured by sufficient United Nations security guards".

How will that work? Are we talking about coercive intervention? If the inspectors run into difficulties, will they be supported by actual force? Is there some other meaning? I would be grateful for clarification.

Finally, we come to the three crucial words "face serious consequences". It is worth noting that the resolution does not tell the Iraqis directly that they will face serious consequences. It says:

"the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations".

That is not as direct as some would have liked, although I realise that that is where a great deal of the argument has gone on.

Has it not been clear all along that the pressure on Iraq to disarm needed to be backed, as the Foreign Secretary said and the noble Baroness repeated, by a convincing and credible readiness to use force? We must have the full contingency plan for when force is used and, indeed, plans for the outcome and aftermath of the use of force. The Foreign Secretary is entirely right to emphasise that point. Do not those who question the threat of force—however well intentioned and sincere—effectively weaken the pressure on Iraq by that questioning? Do they not weaken the authority of the United Nations, encourage Iraq to flout UN resolutions—I am sure that it longs to do so and is deterred only by the genuineness of the threat of force—and increase the threat of violence and the threat to international peace and security? Is not that a necessary question to put to all those who dislike—as we all do, while realising that it is necessary—the use of the threat of military force?

Are we prepared, now that we know the road ahead? Is the military equipment all prepared? Have we got the finances straight? The Chancellor of the Exchequer was reported only a few days ago as saying that there was a shortage of resources? Have we got the up-to-date equipment? We will hear a lot more about the difficulties with army equipment, about which we have already heard. Can we have an assurance that the words "serious consequences" really do mean that it is Saddam's last chance? Will we back the enforcement of those consequences vigorously and provide our forces with the means to do so, when and if the time comes?

My Lords, we thank the Government for the Statement and also for placing multiple copies of the draft resolution in the Library. I have often found that when the Government say,

"We have placed a copy in the Library"

, it means that it is in a back cupboard somewhere down below. On this occasion we welcome the Government's openness.

The question of the timing of parliamentary Sessions and changing the parliamentary timetable is relevant. It would have been unfortunate if Parliament had been away for a week during this crucial business. It is therefore highly appropriate that the Statement was made today. I add my praise to the Foreign Secretary, to our Permanent Representative in New York, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, and to the Prime Minister for the efforts that have been made to get the issue back on a multilateral track and to find, if we can, a peaceful resolution to this conflict through the resumption of a rigorous inspection process.

We welcome the commitment to a two-stage process in which the effectiveness of a reimposed inspection regime will be reported back to the United Nations for the Security Council to act. I hope that I am correct in reading operative paragraph 12 in confirming that the United Nations Security Council will convene immediately in the event of any disrespect or breakdown in the resumed inspection process.

It was correct to use the UN route. The British Government have happily persuaded the United States that the UN route is the one we should take. However, I have a few critical comments. I regret that the British Government's public diplomacy has not been as good as their private diplomacy. I was in Paris last week for a meeting with a number of French officials and observers. They all assumed that Britain was unconditionally and unreservedly supporting the American position. I wish that we had made it a little more clear that we are a "Yes, but" supporter of the United States, while France has been a "No, unless" supporter.

I recall an article in the Guardian 10 days ago which said how well the British and the French were co-ordinating their critical support for the United States. I wish that they were co-ordinating it rather better. It has been a failure so far for domestic opinion and for our European partners that the Government have not made it clearer that they have been critical rather than full supporters of the American debate.

I regret that the amount of loose talk and over-excited comment in Washington has made it difficult for some of us to defend the British Government's position. Suggestions that after occupation of Iraq the United States should move on to Iran have been the subject of Op-Ed pieces in respectable American newspapers, which also suggest that democracy should then be introduced almost immediately to Saudi Arabia.

Suggestions in authoritative quarters that oil rights in a post-conflict Iraq would be distributed to American companies only have been sufficiently serious to arouse comments from the noble Lord, Lord Browne, who is the chief executive of BP. There has been additional talk of a long-term occupation of Iraq to turn it into a democracy from officials who nevertheless maintain that they are opposed to nation-building as a strategy.

I wish that the Government had also been able to place the matter more explicitly in a European context. We are all conscious that Britain's influence in Washington depends partly on being seen to speak on behalf of its European allies. While welcoming the statement within the Statement that the credible threat of use of force is an important part of foreign policy, I hope that Her Majesty's Government will remind our European partners that commitment to a successful European security and defence policy is essential in maintaining progress towards a common foreign policy and a credible European contribution to NATO.

There is therefore a wider context which we must remember while talking about the problem of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The Prime Minister has spoken about reviving a peace conference in the Middle East. The quartet is still working towards that with effective co-operation with Javier Solana and Colin Powell. Will the Minister assure us that the British Government are putting equal efforts into promoting a return to a peace conference which will involve the Israelis and the Palestinians? Will he assure us also that the broader context of world oil markets and the need to reduce demand—which means reminding our American allies that they should be thinking about reducing the level of their increasing imports—is also a wider part of the context?

Finally, relations with the Arab world and with the wider Moslem world have not been well affected by much of the loose and occasionally anti-Moslem talk which we have heard in the United States in the past few months. Will the Minister assure us that the British Government, with their partners, will do their best to rebuild a closer relationship with moderate Moslem governments not only in the Arab world?

My Lords. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Howell of Guildford and Lord Wallace of Saltaire, for their remarks. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Howell, got it absolutely right when he emphasised the fact that this is an extraordinarily critical moment. It is precisely because we recognise that that my right honourable friend thought it was right to make a Statement today before proroguement. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, for understanding that.

Of course we want the resolution passed as swiftly as possible, but we also want a resolution which enjoys maximum support. My right honourable friend's Statement was careful in its wording in that regard. We hope it will be done within the next couple of days, but it is possible that in order to gain the wider consensus that we believe is important the discussions may go on a little longer.

I thank both noble Lords for their kind remarks in particular about Sir Jeremy Greenstock. He is a tremendous diplomat and we are very lucky to have him representing UK interests at the UN. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, for his kind remarks about my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary.

The noble Lord, Lord Howell, helpfully took us through the timetable because it is important to understand the stages. He certainly got the timetabling right. It is probably helpful to think of the day that the United Nations resolution is passed, as we hope it will be, as D-day and then to count on the days from then. He was right in saying that it will take some three and a half months to get to the point of the first report-back. I stress to him that this will be the first report-back from the inspectors. It will not necessarily be the end of any process; there may be a first report-back to indicate how the inspections went and further work may be taken on into the future. It is not therefore a point at which the work stops, but the first stage at which the inspectors have to report back.

In drawing up the timetable, the United Nations Security Council has had the explicit participation of both the UNMOVIC and the IAEA inspectorate in order to try to ensure that sufficient time is given for them to undertake their work. It also wanted to ensure that pressure is kept up on the Iraqi regime. In thinking about the timetabling, the noble Lord mentioned the window of opportunity. Of course those matters must be held in the minds of those drawing up the timetable, but the important issue must be that the inspectors are able to do their job properly.

The noble Lord, Lord Howell, then asked what triggers the UN Security Council being recalled. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, touched upon that point, too. It can he recalled at any time when Mr Blix and/or Mr El Baradei feel that that is important. When they feel that they have been obstructed or that in their inspections they have not been told the truth about what is going on, it is for them to judge. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, has been most concerned about the matter. But it is for them to judge when to bring the issue back to the United Nations Security Council. So it could be at any point where Iraq is not seen to comply with the Security Council resolution.

As to the UN security guards, they are there to protect the UNMOVIC and the IAEA inspectors. Where the draft resolution refers to

"serious consequences"

, it means consequences up to and including the use of military force. The wording is deliberately wide because it is a matter for the UNSCR to decide in the light of the prevailing circumstances. We cannot predict every eventuality. That is the importance of referring this back to the UN Security Council in order that it can look at the nature of the complaint and decide the best way forward.

The noble Lord asked whether it is the case that those who question the use of force weaken the pressure on Iraq. Of course, to a certain extent the noble Lord is right, but the obverse of that case is that we do not allow people free expression. One of our great concerns is that the people of Iraq do not have free expression. I would be loathe to see people in this country who do not agree with what the Government are saying somehow feeling inhibited from expressing that view. We live in a civil society where discussion and argument are vital. We can live with a little disagreement in order to preserve the kind of society that we have.

The noble Lord referred to military equipment if the eventuality were to arise where we deployed troops. If that were the case— it is not inevitable—our troops would be as well equipped as we can make them. I remind the noble Lord and others who have criticised some of the equipment that our Armed Forces are better equipped than they have ever been. As to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, we already have new personal radios—"personal role radios" as they are called—coming in to cover the gap that exists between the equipment that we all know is out of date and the new equipment coming in.

The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, was worried that our public diplomacy had not been as good as our private diplomacy. I should say to the noble Lord that sometimes a little dash of salt should be taken with some of the delightful French cuisine on these issues. If we were to say in public what we said in private, what we said in private would be far less effective. That is a matter of fact. We can live with a little French criticism while securing a far greater objective—that is, getting this issue before the United Nations and on to a United Nations' track. A few weeks ago many people thought that there was no chance of getting this before the United Nations, let alone a chance of getting a resolution, let alone a chance of getting a resolution as tough as this one.

In a European context, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has been talking to his opposite number, Mr. Villepin, and on a much wider basis to all of the 10 elected members of the Security Council. So he has been active not only in Europe but elsewhere.

As to the peace conference, the road map is under negotiation at the moment and we hope to take the matter forward. Of course oil is an important factor, but so is religion and a number of other matters. Some very useful work has been carried out by the former Archbishop of Canterbury on the whole axis of the Alexandria declaration and we are committed to pursuing the Middle East peace process as well.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the Statement. I join other noble Lords in congratulating the Government on the patience, perseverance and flexibility with which they have pursued negotiations on this very tricky and vital resolution. I perhaps have more reason than most to know that this is a labour-intensive operation and I therefore join those who have congratulated my former colleagues on the way they have carried it out.

Perhaps I may ask the Minister three questions. Does she feel confident now? Does she not agree that there is a vital need to show Saddam Hussein that there is no third way between compliance and the use of force; that there is no

"wiggle room"

left; that he has to co-operate or something extremely unpleasant will be coming down the track? I feel that it should be possible to do that because even those in this country and elsewhere who feel that the avoidance of war is primordial must understand that it is only through compliance that that can be achieved. Those who feel that the disarming of Iraq is primordial—and I am among them—must know that that is a straight choice, not one with three, four or five alternatives.

Secondly, given Saddam Hussein's record and our knowledge of him, we should be wise to assume that at some stage he will not comply. In that circumstance, we need in the period of time set out in the resolution to maximise support for what might then have to happen. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, that we must address the issues of Arab/Israel and other matters. If we are forced to use force, only in that way will there be maximum support. That will be crucial when the time comes.

I turn finally to a more technical matter to which I do not ask the Minister to respond now. Clearly, the provision of intelligence to UNMOVIC is crucial. During the 1990s some bad experiences were gone through in which the Iraqis were able to muddy the waters, to imply that intelligence had been improperly produced and so on. Will the United Kingdom and the United States take the greatest care on this occasion? When they and other members states which are called upon in the resolution to provide such intelligence do so, will they do so in a way that does not allow the Iraqis to muddy the waters again?

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his kind remarks. I shall make particular effort to ensure that they are drawn to the attention of his former colleagues in the United Nations.

I emphasise, as my right honourable friend in another place has, that we very much hope and believe that this resolution will be passed, but we are not there yet. We must keep on working very hard over the next few days. We shall be relying on our diplomats and our politicians from another place to take this forward.

I agree with the noble Lord's comment that it is vital to show Saddam Hussein that there is no "wiggle room", as he put it, between compliance and force. The United Nations draft resolution is very tough indeed. It makes that clear. One looks at the paragraphs on access, for example, where the inspectors must have "immediate","unimpeded","unconditional","unrestricted" access to "any", to "all". These are uncompromising words. This is very much tougher than any of the previous resolutions.

Yes, of course, Saddam Hussein, has a terrible record on compliance. We know that we possibly have some window of opportunity over the next few months to talk again to our friends in the Middle East—not only in the Palestinian Authority and in Israel but in many of the countries around Palestine and Israel—about what is happening in the Middle East peace process. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has reiterated time and again the importance that he attaches to negotiations and discussions on this in all fora, including the European Union, and with our colleagues in the United States.

On the question of intelligence, the point was well made by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. Dr Blix has made it clear that the intelligence flow will be one way only—that is, to UNMOVIC. It is crucial that he has good intelligence. United States and United Kingdom experts will participate if requested to do so by Dr Blix. I hope that that goes some way towards reassuring the noble Lord on the point that he raised.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. I share the admiration of other noble Lords for the work of our Government, the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and our diplomats in getting the United Nations so seized of this matter—to use their language.

I have always maintained that war is not inevitable. More importantly, I do not believe that we should think that it is inevitable. However, when I read the draft resolution this morning, the words that came into my mind were quite simply: this means war. It is a very tough resolution. I cannot conceive of how Saddam Hussein could comply with it. It means total, total humiliation. The Chinese have a wonderful proverb,

"Build golden bridges for your enemy to retreat over".

I read in the press about the possibility or hint of lifting sanctions. Can the Minister comment on the possibility of sanctions being lifted if Saddam Hussein complies? The only possibility of his complying together with the threat of force, which I understand and accept, would be for him to have some sort of bridge. That bridge would be something to offer to his poor, long-suffering people. Is there anything that he could offer to his people that might make it possible for him to accept what would be otherwise an abject humiliation?

My Lords, I am sorry if the right reverend Prelate no longer believes that war is not inevitable. The fact is that I still believe that war is not inevitable. I, too, have read the Security Council resolution. I am bound to say to the right reverend Prelate that, were it not as tough as it is. many people would say, "Well, of course, we are just going to go back over the same ground. Saddam Hussein has not complied. There is always a way that he can find of getting out of his obligations". I stress that this is not being pushed forward solely, as some would have us believe, by the United States or by the United States with the United Kingdom. Saddam Hussein has over and over and over again flouted the United Nations. We must do everything we can to ensure that he no longer has that option; that he no longer has that wiggle room to which the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, refers.

He can comply at first instance, in the first seven days, by saying, "Yes, the inspectors can come back", and, within the first 30 days, by supplying a list of weapons of mass destruction and their programme—not to this country or the United States, but to the nominated inspectors of the United Nations. In the Security Council resolution there is a clear pathway for him to follow. Yes, it is explicit; but that is helpful to him, because he knows exactly what is required and he knows that, in the end, if he does not comply, there will be very serious consequences.

What can he offer his people? In the end, were all this to happen as the draft Security Council resolution lays down, he could offer the lifting of sanctions. We have heard time without number of the suffering of the people of Iraq. I believe that that is suffering imposed on them by their leader, but I accept fully that some believe that it is because of the sanctions. I do not believe that is true for one moment. But Saddam Hussein will then have no excuse to hide behind the sanctions any longer, and the poor, suffering people of Iraq can get the medicine, get the food and get the education for their children that they need.

My Lords, in expressing strong support for the Government's position and their approach, I raise one relatively small point. Those countries that rely upon a velvet glove, and, therefore, may contribute to continuing horror, would be unlikely to contribute to the military personnel that needs to be deployed to deal with this problem. Will my noble friend ensure that efforts are made to try to secure any timing to be at such a period in which our personnel would not be exposed to the intense heat of the hottest months in that area? The protective clothing and equipment that they would have to wear would mean that they would face a very severe burden. If possible, can the matter be dealt with before such temperatures have to be experienced?

My Lords, let me reiterate again that I do not believe that military action is inevitable. However, if there were a decision that military action was the only way forward, any government committing troops to such action would do so in circumstances that maximised the possibility of that military action being successful. That must take into account all the exigencies that we have discussed. The noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, referred to issues around the time of year. We have also discussed issues around equipment. Any government who put their troops into military theatre must do so on the basis of doing everything that they can to ensure that those troops can be successful in the endeavour to which they set their hand.

My Lords, the report of the inspectors after 105 days will be a first report. It seems very unlikely that they will be able to say at that time that Iraq no longer has a programme of making weapons of mass destruction or possesses such weapons. However, if, at some later date not too far away, they were able to say that, do we contemplate that even if Saddam Hussein were still in power, the inspections would come to an end, or do we regard this as a continuing activity?

My Lords, I stress that D-day plus 105, to use the terminology that I used a little earlier, is specified in the resolution as the time when there must be an initial report. There may be an initial report before that if the inspectors decide that there is a breach that should trigger a report to the United Nations Security Council. The report could come in advance of that date if the inspectors decided that there was something of a nature that had to be reported. Thereafter, there would be further reports as and when the inspectors thought that was appropriate. I do not think that we are yet at the point of being able to say that this is an exercise with a final end day. There will be further meetings of the Security Council, even if not formally, to decide how this is taken forward. There will certainly be a great deal more discussion about that. The initial programme laid down in the Security Council resolution is probably as far as it can be taken at the moment.

My Lords, can we be absolutely assured that the UNMOVIC and IAEA contingents will comprise British and American personnel? I congratulate the Government on pursuing their policy of tough brinkmanship, which in my view will lead to the avoidance of a war with Iraq.

My Lords, I have always regarded brinkmanship as an iffy term, but in the mouth of my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours it sounds positively flattering. The inspection teams must comprise the people who are best equipped to carry out the inspection. By implication, that means that those who have expertise in chemical and biological warfare and in nuclear warfare will be needed on the inspection teams. That does not mean that Britain and America are the only countries with such expertise, but there is an enormous amount of such expertise in both countries.

My Lords, I suggest that we refer to R-day when talking about the future course of action rather than D-day, which has historical connotations that might lead people to suppose that we agreed with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford that there is an inevitability of war in these arrangements. I have two questions for the Minister. First, is there any significance in the fact that paragraph 11 does not refer to the Security Council convening immediately after the seven days if Iraq does not indicate its willingness to comply? It refers only to paragraphs 4 and 11, but not to paragraph 9. Will the Minister confirm that the Security Council would reconvene as a matter of course if no reply was received from Iraq within the period specified?

Secondly, the resolution speaks of any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, and "any failure" by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations triggering off reports by the executive chairman of UNMOVIC and the director-general of IAEA. Can the noble Baroness confirm that the Security Council will have full power to consider the nature and extent of any non-compliance and to decide on its future action in full consideration of the need for proportionality in response to the gravity of the non-compliance?

My Lords, I shall certainly convey to the Foreign Office drafters the noble Lord's preference for R-day rather than D-day. The noble Lord raised a question in relation to paragraph 11. If there is no response from Iraq after seven days, I should be enormously surprised were the Security Council not to reconvene. It would be a most flagrant insult to the United Nations if there were to be no such reply; indeed, that would be of much more importance, perhaps, than some minor difficulties that may be encountered down the path.

The noble Lord also asked whether any failure would have to the reported to the United Nations Security Council. This is really a question for the judgment of Dr Blix and Mr El Baradei. The resolution refers to "any failure". Therefore, it is a matter for them to decide what they believe to be a real failure—a trivial mistake might not be a real failure in their judgment. It is a matter for them to decide what they believe constitutes a real failure, and then to report it accordingly to the Security Council. In the light of all the prevailing circumstances, the Security Council is the appropriate body to decide just how serious it believes such a breach to be, and what appropriate action should be taken. In considering any retaliation, I have always understood that it must be proportional in order for it to be valid in international law.

My Lords, I am sure that we all hope to see an agreed United Nations resolution very soon. I join in commending Her Majesty's Government, and the officials concerned, in their efforts to achieve that end. Can the noble Baroness say what steps, if any, will be taken by US and UK Armed Forces to maintain pressure on Saddam Hussein—for example, by increasing rates of readiness or movements into the Middle East theatre? If taken, such steps will need, at least in part, to be overt if they are to be effective in demonstrating our resolve to achieve disarmament, and perhaps even regime change in Iraq.

My Lords, I thank the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, for his remarks. The Prime Minister has made it clear that military action is not inevitable; but he has also made it clear that the use of force must remain an option. Therefore, it makes sense to go ahead with some sensible planning, which includes military planning. The House will not expect me to go into detail on the matter now. I do not believe that it would be in the best interests of those concerned if I were to do so.

My Lords, the timetable that my noble friend so lucidly set out for the House is clearly predicated on Saddam Hussein maintaining full compliance with the requirements in a United Nations resolution. If the right reverend Prelate is right and it will be impossible for him to do so, we may be faced with a breach by Saddam Hussein in a matter of a very few days after the inspectors arrive. Can we take it that Her Majesty's Government are seized of that possibility and their military planning equally so?

My Lords, the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, is such that he knows the sort of planning that goes on in the Ministry of Defence. I can assure him that that is also the case in the Foreign Office. Of course, eventualities have to be considered. In the first short while, we have 30 days within which Iraq must submit its declaration. Then, within the first 45 days, UNMOVIC must have started those inspections. I believe that it is the period immediately thereafter that is a matter of concern to the noble Lord. I can assure him that all these eventualities are being worked through in the meticulous way with which I believe the noble Lord is very familiar.

My Lords, our time for dealing with the Statement has concluded.

rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 24th October be approved [39th Report from the Joint Committee].

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving these regulations, and with the leave of the House, I shall also speak to the Paternity and Adoption Leave Regulations and to the Statutory Paternity Pay and Statutory Adoption Pay (Weekly Rates) Regulations.

Those who took part earlier in the year in the passage of the Employment Bill, now the Employment Act 2002, will be very familiar with the subject matter of these regulations. We had many good debates on the provisions, and many points were raised which clarified our thinking and led either to amendments to the Bill at that time, or indeed helped to inform the eventual drafting of the regulations which we are considering today. I record my gratitude to all those who took part in those debates.

I begin with the maternity regulations. These regulations will improve maternity rights for up to 300,000 working mothers a year, and they will simplify the arrangements both for them and for their employers. We are increasing paid maternity leave, to which all employed women are entitled, from 18 weeks to 26 weeks, and we are increasing additional unpaid maternity leave to a 26-week period following immediately after ordinary maternity leave. This will give most mothers the possibility of up to one year off work in total. At the same time, negative procedure regulations will increase the standard amount and duration of statutory maternity pay and maternity allowance to £100 a week for up to 26 weeks.

The new maternity regulations will benefit employers as well as employees. Employers will now be given earlier notice of a woman's planned leave, and the period of that leave can be determined in advance, rather than, as now, calculated only once the woman has actually given birth. Employers told us this should make it easier for employers to arrange cover for the absent employee and help retention of women in the workplace, saving costs on recruitment and training.

The second set of regulations, the paternity regulations, give new benefits for fathers. For the first time, eligible fathers will have the right to two weeks' paid paternity leave in the time shortly following their child's birth or—in the case of the partner of an adopter—after a child is placed with them for adoption. Pay will generally be at the same standard rate as statutory maternity pay. This will give fathers more time to care for and build a relationship with their new child and to offer support to the mother.

Paternity leave is available only where the employee in question will share responsibility for the upbringing of the child, and is taking time off for the purposes of supporting the mother and caring for the child. In the majority of cases, of course, this will be the child's natural father; but the regulations do not rule out a new partner of the mother—or, as the case may be, the adopter—if he or she satisfies these fundamental tests.

We have made the system as easy as possible for employers to administer. We have followed employers' suggestions and, wherever possible, have designed the scheme to reflect the existing operation of statutory maternity pay, making it easier for those who need to administer it. We have also taken the opportunity to make some improvements, including an ability for firms to reclaim payments from the Inland Revenue in advance, thus easing cash-flow difficulties. Recent changes to the threshold for Small Employers Relief ensure that an ever-increasing number of smaller firms qualify for reimbursement at a rate of more than 100 per cent of the statutory payments they make.

Adoptive parents, who are covered by the third set of regulations, have sometimes in the past been considered as some kind of second-class parents. I am particularly pleased that—following the decisions of this House earlier this week on the Adoption and Children Bill—today's regulations will, for the first time, give an adoptive parent a statutory right to paid time off work after a child is placed with them for adoption. This new right recognises the valuable contribution that adoptive parents play in society, and allows them to take time off work to establish a relationship with their new child. One adoptive parent will be entitled to the full adoption leave; the other will be eligible for paternity leave, on the lines that I have just mentioned. That will, we hope, reduce the rate of disrupted placements and thus ensure a better future for many children who are leaving the care system and seeking placement with a family.

Adoption leave is broadly equivalent to maternity leave, set at six months' paid leave at the standard pay rate, followed by six months' unpaid leave, giving up to 12 months off work in total. We expect that to benefit up to 4,000 adopters in 2003 who will be up to £2,600 better off than before.

These regulations form a key component in our package of statutory support for working parents. They have been designed in the closest possible collaboration with all interested parties and are, I believe, not just right in principle but practical in detail. I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 24th October be approved [39th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)

My Lords, I begin by thanking the Minister for the characteristically clear way in which he introduced and explained these three interlocking statutory instruments.

It is hard to think of any event in a person's existence that gives greater joy than the arrival of a new child. That is as true for adopted children as for new born ones. Regulations designed to enhance that sense of joy and improve bonding between parents and new arrivals command instinctive sympathy. But on this, as on so many matters of public policy, there is a balance to be struck between the enhancement of private happiness and an increase in public cost, be it to the taxpayer or to the employing firm.

I said that I was grateful to the Minister for having explained the instruments so carefully because they are not in themselves an easy read. That is particularly relevant given the wide impact that they will have, involving, as they will, every employee and every employer, large or small, in every part of the country. It is because of that wide impact that, before I turn to the issues directly involving the regulations, I hope that the Minister will forgive me if I address the process and timetable that his department has followed for their promulgation.

When I was asked at the beginning of last week to speak to these regulations I went to the Printed Paper Office on 29th October, a week last Tuesday, to get copies of the regulations. I was told that they were not yet available in print. They were finally made available on Thursday, 31st October, exactly seven days ago. Today we discuss them and they come into force on 24th November, a fortnight on Sunday, and on 8th December, although it is perfectly fair to say that a number of the provisions take effect only in April of next year. This is too short a period of time between publication of the final regulations and the debate here today and, indeed, in another place on Tuesday. It is too short a period in any case but particularly so when the regulations have such far-reaching implications.

The Minister's colleague, the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House, has often chided us on the need for the House to become more professional and businesslike in its approach. I hope that the Minister will forgive me if I say that I do not find that timetable businesslike or professional. Nor, indeed, is it likely to provide a framework within which genuine concerns or objections about the final regulations can be raised, ventilated and discussed; that is to say, the carrying out of the proper essential function of your Lordships' House as a revising Chamber.

The Minister could, and probably will, argue that there has already been wide-ranging consultation. The Explanatory Memorandum that accompanies the regulations signed by the Minister's colleague, Mr Alan Johnson, stresses that. That is a perfectly fair point. However, few, if any, of the interested parties in the wider world know the result of the consultation as they have not yet had a chance to see the final documents. For example, I spoke to the Engineering Employers' Federation to seek its views on the final regulations. It recognised the scale of the consultation and referred to what the Minister had done. These extremely heavy documents certainly meet the weight test if nothing else. However, the federation said that it had no idea of the outcome as it had not yet seen the regulations. That is no doubt paralleled in other bodies and interest groups. It is not a satisfactory situation.

I turn to the issues raised by the regulations. My first broad point concerns the drafting style of the regulations. It has been put to me that in earlier drafts, and perhaps in the versions that are now before us, the terminology and definitions of terminology do not precisely match. The Maternity and Parental Leave (Amendment) Regulations and the Paternity and Adoption Leave Regulations had at that time different terminology from that in the Statutory Paternity Pay and Statutory Adoption Pay (Weekly Rates) Regulations. That probably arose because the first two regulations are the child of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the other is the child of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, which means that they fall under different departments: the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department for Work and Pensions.

The major concern outside the House has been the unmeshed terminology and rules for maternity, paternity and adoption leave, as opposed to maternity, paternity and adoption pay. Will the Minister reassure the House that those discrepancies have been ironed out? It would add enormously to the burden of the regulations if there was not clarity and consistency.

As the Minister pointed out, the Government have made a genuine and great effort to tidy up and synchronise different rules in the regulations. I refer, for example, to the harmonisation of dates and efforts to build on the existing operation of maternity pay in the administration of the new regulations. I congratulate the Government on that. It would be a pity if, as they cleared up one set of inconsistencies, another set was created.

My second general point is about the impact of the legislation on smaller firms, especially very small firms: those that employ only a handful of people. For such firms, the regulations represent a real burden. I accept that the Government have prepared an impact assessment to accompany the regulations. However, because of their very nature, such statements are broad brush and cannot identify where the shoe particularly pinches. Consider the position of a firm with half a dozen employees when one member of staff wishes to take the full leave entitlement of 52 weeks. The firm would have lost one-sixth of its workforce and would have to provide cover for that post. If, at the end of the 52 weeks, the original employee wanted to return, the replacement employee would have completed one year's service. He or she would therefore, as I understand it, have certain protections within employment legislation. I assume that I am right about that but if I am not, I am sure that the Minister will correct me. The small firm either has to have seven employees—an increase of 15 per cent—or face a redundancy cost.

When the question of the cost of the regulations on small firms in particular was raised in the other place, the Minister, Mr Alan Johnson, focused entirely—as did, I am afraid, the noble Lord the Minister—on changes in Inland Revenue regulations; that is, on the cash impact. When one reads the debate in another place, the Minister's response reveals how little the Government really understand about real business life at the sharp end, especially in smaller firms. I know that the noble Lord the Minister can be exempted from that criticism because I have heard him talk from the Dispatch Box about his existence in the lighting industry. The burden of regulation, as he knows, is not just about cash and cash flow; it is about form filling, administration, making sure that the boxes are ticked and that the money is properly identified and recorded, arid that proper notification is sent out to employees on the right date.

Various extensions in that latter category will be imposed on firms by these regulations and, moreover, by the hundreds of other regulations that are increasingly burdening smaller firms and blunting their entrepreneurial drive and competitive edge. At some point, somebody somewhere is going to have to step back and look not at the individual regulations, most of which have thoroughly worthwhile motives, but at the overall burden that they represent. At some point, the threshold for small firms will have to be addressed. Eventually, we shall reach the point of unintended consequences.

The regulations are basically intended to improve the life/work balance and specifically to enhance employment opportunities and conditions for parents and for young women in particular. It would be a shame if the result of the burden of regulation was that firms—in particular, smaller firms—became more reluctant to employ women of child-bearing age.

I want to ask the Minister four specific questions about the regulations. The first concerns the notification by employees who intend to return from leave early and not take their full entitlement. Under the present regulations, such employees are required to give notice of their intention to return early; alternatively, the employer can write to them and they are statutorily required to answer. I understand that that is no longer the case and that the firm must depend on the good will of the employee—in itself, no bad thing—to be able properly to plan its manpower. Is that really a sensible way to proceed?

Secondly, I turn to the remuneration position of employees during the second 26-week period if they elect to take additional leave. I understand that they are not to be paid, but what about year-end bonuses, entitlement to holidays and other fringe benefits? Can the Minister clarify that position?

Thirdly, I want to ask about working and drawing. Can the Minister put on record the future employment position with his original employer of the employee who, during the period of leave—whether it is the first or second period of 26 weeks—elects to go to work for another firm and then returns to the firm by whom he or she was originally employed?

Finally, I turn to the position of adopting parents. Of course, one understands the excitement of such people, but they are in a different position from birth parents in at least two senses. First, a natural mother will have gone through the physical trauma of a birth from which she needs time to recover. Secondly, the adoption may be of a baby, in which case the perils of natural birth are fairly close. But the adoption may be of a school-age child. In the documents circulated by the adoption agencies, which many of your Lordships will have seen and which tug enormously at one's heart strings, many of the children listed as being available for adoption are of school age. In such circumstances, the need for longer periods of leave does not seem to be as pressing. Can the Minister explain the Government's decision to give the same leave entitlement for all adopted children, irrespective of age?

In conclusion, as I said at the beginning, we have to strike a balance. No one could fail to be excited by the exhilaration of parents—natural or adoptive—with a new child. But, in supporting these regulations, we have to look at all aspects of what is implied. I look forward to hearing the Minister answer the points that I have raised.

My Lords, from these Benches we accept the three sets of regulations. We have always supported the introduction of these benefits and are therefore pleased to see their implementation and the fact that next year they will be in operation. The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, was right that a balance must be struck in these matters. On this occasion, we believe that the balance has been broadly correctly struck. However, the points about small businesses are ones that we must always keep under consideration, and no doubt we shall return to them.

As the Minister made clear in his introductory remarks, it is a very happy coincidence that, in the week in which we completed consideration of the Adoption and Children Bill, we are agreeing that the benefits which have previously been available to birth parents should also be available to adoptive parents. Although I understand the point raised by the Conservative Front Bench about the differences, I believe that in order to give support and assistance to adoptive parents—an issue raised during our earlier consideration of the other measure—again, the balance has been properly struck.

However, in responding to the debate, perhaps the Minister will say something more about the point made in the Explanatory Memorandum concerning the summary leaflets which have been produced and which will be made available so that people will know of the benefits that they are about to receive. On these Benches, we very much hope that the orders come into effect.

My Lords, I want to make two points which arise principally from the interesting analysis of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbots. There is no doubt that statutory instruments which are regularly brought forward on matters akin to this are of great importance. They affect the lives of real people and small and large businesses and so on. They have a positive impact in transforming the labour market in the sense that many people are able to run what some call a post-modern existence more readily because of such regulations. There is a downside and an upside, as has been said.

The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, also commented on the process and audience of statutory instruments. I am a member of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, and the problem occurs in the following way: people say, "Let's have an in-depth examination of how this is received out there", and, "This is a much more generic matter than one particular statutory instrument". There is a need for a generic inquiry about how statutory instruments can be made more easily comprehensible. If one asks for a more generic inquiry, people will say,"Give us evidence of one example of a difficult situation", and the one example may concern slaughtering sheep or whatever. That is a difficult exercise. I leave that thought with the House because a question arises, but procedurally it is hard to know how to take it further.

My other observation is that this presents challenges to employers. The great advantage of the procedure that entails social framework bargaining, some of which comes from Brussels, such as the Social Chapter—I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, would not agree with this—is that the CBI, like the TUC, is part of it. Participants in Social Chapter negotiations comprise one organisation from the employers and one from the trade unions in each country. That is not the small businesses; the small businesses have much smaller membership and of course they are all snapping at the heels of the CBI. That is not surprising.

I emphasise that the regulations have been received more readily by industry and business as a result of the involvement of the social partners in drawing up the frameworks against which those detailed regulations are put forward. The only other conclusion that one can reach is that some people would de facto advocate a two-tier labour force. If one works for a small firm, one does not have the same rights as if one worked in a large firm. As I had occasion to remind the House once before, I remember the former Prime Minister Mrs Thatcher discussing the problems of small firms. John Monks said to her, "Prime Minister, why not consider saying that small firms do not have to observe the 30 mph speed limit?" to which she said, "That's a good idea; make a note of that", to a civil servant.

One cannot have a two-tier labour force on basic rights like this, so there is a balance to be struck. With regard to the difficulty of introducing such provisions, there is a more generic issue relating to statutory instruments, but that is not for this debate; it is a matter for future consideration.

My Lords, a potential problem arises with the new concept of paternity leave and paternity pay that for obvious biological reasons cannot apply to maternity leave or maternity pay. What happens when a man has two or more children by two or more women in the course of a year at, say, for the sake of argument, intervals of three months? If the picture of contemporary Britain painted by the tabloids is in any way accurate, that must happen with increasing frequency. In such a case, is the man entitled to paternity leave and paternity pay in respect of each child? If so, that seems more than a little unfair to the employer—in particular, the small employer cited by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson—and more than a little unfair to the taxpayer.