Animal Welfare Bill

I hope that I can give an adequate response to the noble Baroness. I agree with much of the thrust of what she said. I do not think that she is questioning the power itself but rather why it applies only to farm premises. As I say, I hope that I can give an adequate response on that point. The main thrust of the noble Baroness’s remarks concerned how the power would be exercised. In my previous incarnation at MAFF I received many complaints about the number of inspectors jumping over farm gates. That is a real hassle for farmers. We understand the concerns about complexity regarding the delivery of policy on animal health and welfare. We are committed to simplifying that where it is necessary and possible. We are conducting a review that should be completed by about the middle of this year, which is not far away. The power in Clause 27 does not undermine the commitment to simplify. As I say, the noble Baroness questions the existence of a separate power and separate visits. Council regulation 1782/03 requires compliance with a range of EC legislative provisions ranging from nitrate run-off to calf welfare. Member states are also obliged to develop some additional standards relating to maintenance of land in good agricultural and environmental condition. This is commonly known as cross-compliance. To fulfil our obligations under that regulation, there will be inspections; that is inevitable. However, these will be risk-based and visits will be paid only to a small sample of farms each year. The enforcement authority, or ““competent control authority””, will depend on the subject matter of the obligation. In the case of animal identification it will be the Rural Payments Agency, in the case of animal welfare—part of cross-compliance from 2007—it will be the State Veterinary Service, and in the case of nitrates it will be the Environment Agency, though acting as an agent of the RPA. In many cases, inspections are already being carried out to ensure compliance with these obligations. As powers of entry to inspect for the purpose of completing the relevant control reports did not exist in relation to all cross-compliance standards, these are provided, specifically for cross-compliance purposes, by SI 3459/2005. I hope that the Committee will agree that it is not the formal power of entry which is important, but the number of separate inspections. We have thought about this. While it is obviously important to combine inspections in one visit where possible, this is not always the best thing for the farmer. To date, the Rural Payments Agency and the Environment Agency have tried to carry out their inspections over the same period so far as possible. As regards the animal welfare requirements which apply for cross-compliance purposes only from 2007, consideration will be given to what is best for farmers and to the practicalities of co-ordinating inspections. So it might be possible for the State Veterinary Service and the Rural Payments Agency to arrive at the same time to check ear tags and welfare in a herd of cattle. On the other hand, this might be inconvenient and the farmer might appreciate two separate visits to concentrate on these two separate issues. I cannot for the life of me think how it could be convenient for the farmer to have two visits where one would do, even if they comprised visits from two different bodies. However, there may be circumstances where it is convenient to have two visits. I fully accept that it depends where the relevant animals are located. Clause 27 does not contain any draconian new power. It would be contrary to government policy to introduce such a power. It is largely a re-enactment of Section 6 of the Agricultural (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968. The only new elements to it are the extension of the power to local authority inspectors, and the power to apply for a warrant. The extension of the power to local authority inspectors recognises the modern delivery process in which State Veterinary Service inspectors inspect farms, but on the rare occasions when prosecutions are necessary these are handed to local authorities, which may need to conduct inspections. The power to apply for a warrant in subsection (4) has been included because, at present, there is no power to enter the parts of premises which are a private dwelling, or to use reasonable force where necessary. This power may be important if, for example, a particularly intransigent farmer refuses access and obstructs entry, or hides his sick animals in his kitchen, or if the farmer is simply absent from his premises. Those are the most exceptional of circumstances but it is right that we cover them. It would be rare for such circumstances to occur. We are very sympathetic to the Committee’s concerns. I hope to have spent a little more time on this for my own purposes by Report. I am not complaining that in the past five weeks I have not received complaints from farmers about multiple inspections—they have complained about lots of other things, and justifiably so. It has not been top of their lists, or mine. The main priority is to get the money out. I will discuss this with my colleague Ben Bradshaw, who is obviously the lead Minister on the Bill. As regards inspections, the hassle that farmers are subject to has to be cut down, and where there are new inspections because of the new system there must be more co-ordination. We have to find a way of doing that. We are working on it. The noble Baroness asked me, ““Why farms?””. I do not have an answer for that. I will get one; if not now, that will be done later. I am not sure about the definition of ““other premises””. That might not be defined as a farm. But why, where there is more than one species of animal there for various reasons, would they not be covered? They would probably be covered under the circumstances of whatever business was taking place there. I think that the farms are separated out simply because of the rules that operate under the EU Common Market regulations. That can be the only justifiable reason. The others would be business premises that are not farms. Therefore, they are not covered by EU regulations in that sense and would be covered by the inspection regime that would apply to those animals. I will get a separate note on that issue to confirm that what I have said is correct, and if it is not I will correct it for the noble Baroness.