UK Parliament / Open data

Animal Health Act 1981 (Amendment) Regulations 2005

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the statutory instrument. I join other noble Lords in expressing disquiet that we are being asked to discuss this regulation, when it seems to me, and the Committee on the Merits of Statutory Instruments, to be the third in a series of three. The Minister is shaking his head, but the reason it is difficult to discuss this one first is that it does not bring in vaccination issues, to which the noble Countess referred, and it would have been much easier to discuss these regulations in the light of vaccination. Nevertheless, I appreciate the need for clarity. If there are any lessons to be learned from the foot and mouth outbreak, from which we all suffered, it is that clarity and speed are of the essence. My main worry concerns the designation of separate production units, because in the report of the 6th Standing Committee in another place from 8 December, the Minister’s said that infected premises were those premises that were confirmed by the Chief Veterinary Office as having the disease present. He says:"““It would not be possible to designate separate production units. That designation has to depend on the circumstances at the time, what animals are kept and where, the biosecurity of the premises and the nature of the outbreak of the disease””.—[Official Report, Commons, Sixth Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, 8/12/05; col. 9.]" I appreciate that the nature of the outbreak might be variable, but surely more forward planning on what constitutes a separate production unit and what farmers might expect in an outbreak would be helpful. The best recent example of that has been the lack of planning apparent from the fact that, until last month, there was no register of poultry keepers. That is incredible, considering that avian flu has been around for the past two or three years. The Government should make an effort to do more work on what the separate production units might consist of so that if we are faced with another outbreak, speed and clarity can be achieved. Finally, the Minister said that the other two measures would be introduced by negative procedure. Why was this one introduced by affirmative procedure? The instrument on vaccination, which I would have thought merited an equal amount of debate, will be introduced under the negative procedure.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
676 c1043-4 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Back to top