Clause 1 - FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE
Animal Health Bill
2:45 pm
Mrs Angela Browning (Tiverton and Honiton, Conservative)
I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Conway. Like others, this is the first time that I have served in Committee under your chairmanship, and I look forward to the experience.
I want to discuss the Bill's use of the word ``immaterial'' and amendment No. 1, which would remove it, because the issue is central. Clause 1 encapsulates the criticisms of those in this House and outside who feel that the Bill is draconian. As has been noted, by inserting in the 1981 Act the phrase
``any animals the Minister thinks should be slaughtered with a view to preventing the spread of foot-and-mouth'',
the Bill will grant the Minister the power to do what he thinks should be done in terms of slaughter. Astonishingly, however, subsection (3)(1A) states that it is immaterial whether animals
``are affected with foot-and-mouth disease or suspected of being so affected'',
whether they
``are or have been in contact with animals so affected'',
whether they
``have been exposed to the infection of foot-and-mouth disease'',
``have been treated with vaccine against foot-and-mouth disease.''
According to the Oxford English Dictionary definition, ``immaterial'' means
``having no physical substance; of no importance''.
When a Minister so exercises his powers, how can all those qualifying factors possibly be of no importance? In terms of balance and natural justice, it beggars belief that anyone could regard the provision as acceptable.
Amendment No. 1, which would replace the word ``immaterial'' with ``material'', is tiny but it is perhaps one of the most important that we are considering. As we have heard, under the Bill as drafted the Minister can think and carry out action that can affect any animal, regardless of any recognisable condition that would justify its being slaughtered.
Mr. Morley indicated dissent.