division_name: TSE (England) Regulations 2002
motion: <p pid="a.378.1/1" pwmotiontext="moved">rose to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Regulations, laid before the House on 27th March, be annulled (S.I. 2002/843).</p>
  
  <p pid="a.382.0/1" pwmotiontext="moved">rose to move, as an amendment to the Countess of Mar's Motion, to leave out from "That" to the end and insert&#8212;</p>
  
  <p pid="a.382.0/2" pwmotiontext="moved">"this House calls upon Her Majesty' Government, in relation to the regulations laid on 27th March (S.I. 2002/843):</p>
  
  <p pid="a.382.0/3" pwmotiontext="moved">(a) to give an undertaking that the period of time in which a veterinary inspector issuing a notice of intended slaughter shall permit representations to the Secretary of State shall be no less than seven days;</p>
  
  <p pid="a.382.0/4" pwmotiontext="moved">(b) to consider bringing in further regulations setting up an independent appeals adjudicator nominated by the British Veterinary Association; and</p>
  
  <p pid="a.382.0/5" pwmotiontext="moved">(c) to keep the regulations under review in the light of scientific and technological developments relating to TSE."</p>
  
  <p pid="a.384.0/1" pwmotiontext="moved">rose to move, as a manuscript amendment to Lord Livsey of Talgarth's amendment, to leave out paragraph (a) and insert&#8211;&#8211;</p>
  
  <p pid="a.384.0/2" pwmotiontext="moved">"(a) to give an undertaking that they will consider ways of ensuring that representations can be made against a notice of intended slaughter issued by a veterinary inspector;".</p>
  
  <p pid="a.415.6/1" pwmotiontext="considered">On Question, Whether Lord Whitty's manuscript amendment to Lord Livsey of Talgarth's amendment shall be agreed to?</p>
  
  <p pid="a.415.6/2" pwmotiontext="divided">Their Lordships divided: Contents, 95; Not-Contents, 16.</p>