---

Farriers’ Qualification (European Recognition) Regulations 2008

My Lords, they would be required to prove that they had lawfully engaged in a business in their home country. It has nothing to do with whether it is regulated. If they claim to be operating as a farrier, even in a country where farriery is not regulated, they must have documents to show that they are lawfully in business and have been so for a lawful period. They have to be able to prove that. That goes beyond what would be required. It is not so much as would be required if they had a competent authority, but they have to show that they are engaged in that practice and have been so lawfully for a minimum period. We acknowledge that UK farriers and horse owners need to be reassured that the competent body responsible for administering these provisions—that is, our Farriers Registration Council—has all the information, support and guidance needed to implement the new arrangements effectively. Guidance has been issued by the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills to all the relevant UK regulators—that applies for other professions as well. The regulators as contact points have the function of providing information to incoming and outgoing professionals and to assist citizens in realising the rights conferred on them by the directive. I agree that we are still in the early days of implementation of the new arrangements. They need to be given time to bed down and their effectiveness properly assessed. A commitment has already been made by the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills to review the implementation of the directive in October next year. Therefore, it is more or less two years after it came into operation. As I speak, we have only one in the queue, and two operating. If sufficient evidence comes to light to show that the welfare of animals is not adequately safeguarded because of a lack of professional training and/or experience in farriery on the part of temporary service providers, we will bring it to the attention of the other department responsible for the regulations. But simply to say that is not good enough: we have the Animal Welfare Act. All the responsibilities of animal keepers are in statute now. We have much tougher animal welfare regulation than ever before. That Act is only one year in being. If we find evidence of the welfare of animals being affected, action will be taken long before the review of these regulations next year. In the final paragraph of a Written Answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, I wrote: "““The amendment to the Farriers Registration Act, providing for registration of temporary providers of farriery services in Part V of the Farriers Register, will have a positive impact on animal welfare because it will enable the Farriers Registration Council to take disciplinary action against those registrants, should this be necessary””.—[Official Report, 6/5/08; col. WA 51.]" In other words, without this regulation—although it arrived here without a long consultation or the possibility of being amended, for the reasons explained by other speakers as well as myself—the UK regulator would have no power to act in those particular cases. The issue raised by the noble Lords, Lord Donoughue and Lord Addington, is that while the regulators have all been informed about this, it behoves Defra to explain the rules, some of which I have touched on tonight—I stuck closely to the script, because I wanted to get it on the record. For example, recent publications said that, because of a loophole in new legislation, unqualified farriers from other EU countries would be able to practise here. On this point, I have said that a farrier must provide a host of documentary evidence to show that they have been engaged in the profession, even if in a country where there is no regulation. The Farriers Registration Council has to scrutinise these qualifications and all the other information that must be provided. It cannot force a competence test, because that is outwith the regulations allowing professionals free movement within the EU. We have a good system in this country—people better qualified than me know that it is a far superior system. However, it is wrong to suggest that all the good work that has been done in farrier training by the farrier community is eroded by a directive that opens up the system to abuse and allows people to injure and lame horses with no redress. If the requirement was that everybody with stables would have to employ a certain quota of temporary farriers from countries without competent authorities, there might be a case to make. However, no one will be forced to employ anyone from an EU member state and insurance companies can provide restrictions or extra barriers. As I have said, some member states with very successful and extensive bloodstock industries do not have the same system as we do, and we should not be worried about farriers in those countries coming here. It will be up to individuals as regards whom they employ. Because of what has been said here tonight and published recently—I will not criticise individual publications, that would be unfair—I think that it behoves us to set out some of the rules and hurdles that people might have to tackle in order to ply their trade here. This should be better explained. We can do a much better job and I will make that my responsibility. I asked yesterday if this had gone through the other place and it has not. I do not think that it was prayed against. This may be our only opportunity for a debate, but I will ensure that we take steps to explain better the rules and regulations to the industry, so that people are no longer fearful about the welfare of their animals, which is the top priority. I understand the issue raised by those whom I call ““my friends in the Countryside Alliance””, although I am not a member. They make a point about public health, which takes us to the other part of the regulation. I understand that there is a public health issue if things go wrong and horses are treated badly. However, we do not have any evidence from the Court of Justice to bring public health arguments into what is an animal welfare issue. I know that the tenuous link can be made, as the Countryside Alliance has done, but there is no force of law behind that, in such terms that the solicitors and lawyers would argue that there was a public health issue here and that therefore we could use the other aspect of regulations. I hope that the debate has been useful, both for those in the industry and those outside who watch our events. I shall take steps to ensure that Defra takes this issue seriously, by way of explaining it better. It will not cost a great deal; we do not have many extra resources, but this is an area in which a few pennies spent on better explanation would not go amiss.