My Lords, I suppose Defra is not responsible for the postal system. In that case, the Minister will have to listen a little more carefully to understand the point, if he has not had the benefit of my letter.
Before I come to that, I want to ask the Minister a brief preliminary question. The whole concept of these orders is that entitlement to compensation arises, and the measure of compensation is fixed, at the date when the animal was identified as a reactor. That is the philosophy of Article 3(5) of the order, and is the reason given by the Ministry for having to withdraw its previous order in favour of the replacement. I am therefore somewhat surprised to find in Article 6(1) that the saving relates only to an animal for which compensation has been calculated prior to 1 February 2006. Will the Minister confirm that that is merely a verbal infelicity? I do not seem to have the noble Lord’s attention.
Cattle Compensation (England) Order 2006
Proceeding contribution from
Viscount Bledisloe
(Crossbench)
in the House of Lords on Friday, 10 February 2006.
It occurred during Debates on delegated legislation on Cattle Compensation (England) Order 2006.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
678 c959 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 13:56:36 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_300164
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_300164
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_300164