The answer to that last question is that this amends primary legislation, whereas the others do not. I am surprised to be criticised for the Government having chosen to introduce a particular statutory instrument by affirmative rather than negative resolution. One of the other two does not have to come before Parliament at all.
I shall do my best to answer all the questions. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. There are three statutory instruments because they represent incompatible powers and parliamentary procedures. We want to use domestic powers, where possible, so that most of the directive is implemented by order under the Animal Health Act. Those powers are not sufficient for vaccination under the directive, so there is a second statutory instrument. We have used the affirmative procedure because it amends primary legislation. For that reason we need a third statutory instrument.
The noble Duke asked why we had laid the instrument now. The amendment will not apply anyway until the other statutory instruments are in place, and we have laid this early to allow for a quicker transposition with a longer lead-in time for debate.
There will be no change to the existing definition of ““infected premises””.
Animal Health Act 1981 (Amendment) Regulations 2005
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Bach
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 12 December 2005.
It occurred during Debates on delegated legislation on Animal Health Act 1981 (Amendment) Regulations 2005.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
676 c1044 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 23:06:19 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_285678
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_285678
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_285678