Animal Health Bill — New Clause 11 — National Contingency Plan — 13 Dec 2001 at 17:45
Patrick McLoughlin MP, West Derbyshire voted in the minority (Aye).
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The purpose of the new clause is to require the Government to draw up, maintain and publish a national contingency plan for dealing with future outbreaks of foot and mouth disease. There is widespread evidence that the Government and their agencies were wholly unprepared for the emergency that broke earlier this year. I have looked at the Government's published contingency plan, which is available on the internet. To say that it is rudimentary would be an understatement. It turns out to be very much what the Minister himself described as an outline strategy. It is our contention that an outline strategy is insufficient to deal with an outbreak of foot and mouth, as we found in the course of this year. That might explain why the strategy was so hopelessly inadequate and had no identifiable bearing on the way the Government carried out their duties in the event of this year's outbreak. An outline strategy was a recipe for chaos and confusion, and I am afraid that that is precisely what we got.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:-
The House divided: Ayes 191, Noes 332.
Votes by party, red entries are votes against the majority for that party.
What are Boths? An MP can vote both aye and no in the same division. The boths page explains this.
What is Turnout? This is measured against the total membership of the party at the time of the vote.
|Party||Majority (No)||Minority (Aye)||Both||Turnout|
|Con||0||133 (+2 tell)||0||82.3%|
|Lab||326 (+2 tell)||0||0||80.2%|
|Hywel Williams||Caernarfon||PC (front bench)||no|