Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments Twenty-Third Report


APPENDIX 2

Memorandum by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

SHEEP AND GOATS IDENTIFICATION AND MOVEMENT (INTERIM MEASURES) (ENGLAND) ORDER 2002 (S.I. 2002/240)

Article 2(1) defines various expressions used in the Order "unless the context otherwise requires". Identify the provisions in which the defined expressions are intended to have another meanings.

1. The Department agrees that the inclusion of the wording of this drafting convention are superfluous in this Order.

Article 9(1) is expressed to be subject to paragraph (3) of that article and to article 10. Explain how those provisions qualify article 9 (1).

2. The effect of article 9(1) is to require a sheep or goat which is being moved to be marked as described in one or more of the sub-paragraphs (a) to (f).

3. This requirement does not apply in the circumstances set out in paragraph (3). A sheep or goat being moved to or from a show is required to be marked with an individual identification number together with the Mark which was applied at the same time. This may or may not amount to an identification as described in one of the sub-paragraphs in article 9(1). For example, a sheep or goat marked in accordance with article 9(1)(b) could not be moved to a show, notwithstanding that article 9(1) was satisfied, since it would be lacking the individual identification number required by article 9(3).

4. Paragraph 9(1) requires an animal which is being moved to be marked with one or more from the list of six Marks or identifying combinations described in sub-paragraphs (a) to (f). This does not however allow an animal to be marked with an unlimited number of these identifiers. Article 9(1) should be read with article 10 which restricts the maximum number of marks by prohibiting a person from applying an S Mark to an animal which already bears two or three of certain specified marks.

Explain why the subdivisions in article 9(4) are numbered (a), (c) and (e) instead of (i), (ii) and (iii).

5. We agree that the sub-divisions in article 9(4) were incorrectly numbered on the signed copy of the Order and should have been numbered (i), (ii) and (iii). No other provisions cross-refer to article 9(4). Since no change of substance is involved we propose to correct the errors on the printed copy.


 
previous page contents

House of Lords home page Parliament home page House of Commons home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2002
Prepared 25 March 2002