Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2007

I am grateful to the Minister for the full background that he has given to the regulations. I start by saying that I welcome the regulations, as they are intended to place in a single document the main strands of animal welfare legislation and EU directives in a single set of regulations for farm animals. I am sure that it will be in the main welcomed—if ““welcome”” is the right word with which statutory instruments are greeted—by the livestock farming community, the overwhelming majority of whom are maintaining the highest animal welfare practices, as the Minister said. That is evidenced by the relatively few incidents of mistreatment of animals occurring each year. We know that successful livestock businesses depend on proper care of stock. We also welcome the practical way in which the order attempts to deal with animals on common land, something which has not previously been subject to specific animal welfare protection. I thank the Minister for arranging a briefing meeting yesterday at short notice. It was most helpful in explaining the Government's approach to this piece of legislation, its provenance and interpretation. As many noble Lords will know, my noble friend Lady Byford is retiring from her responsibilities on the Opposition Front Bench after 10 years as Defra spokesman. I am sure the whole Committee would want to place on record the diligence and commitment with which she has undertaken her responsibilities and the skilful way in which she has handled her brief. It was, therefore, particularly helpful for me to have the opportunity to meet the Minister in the company of my noble friend to consider some anxieties we had about the detail of this piece of legislation. If I repeat matters which the Minister was able to resolve for us, I do so only because it will give him the opportunity to place these matters on record. I know that my noble friend the Duke of Montrose has further points that he wishes to raise. I turn to the regulations. In the main, the legislation is a translation of four EU directives plus a carry-over from the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1998, as has been said. En route it sweeps up the welfare of farmed animals regulations of 2000, 2002 and 2003. The overall effect can lead to confusing use of language. I quote: "““These Regulations apply to farmed animals only””." In fact, they apply to all farmed animals, Although I might say that there is no separate schedule for the proverbial sheep or goats or, for that matter, farmed exotics. Similarly, the phrase in Schedule 1, Regulation (2)(2), "““animals … must be inspected at intervals sufficient to avoid any suffering””" is, in practice, plainly impossible. The word ““unnecessary”” might help. We are assured that the Act will be interpreted in the light of what is reasonable, but I still have concerns. The first stems from the fact that enforcement duties will be in the hands of the local authorities unless the Secretary of State directs that he will prosecute either a particular case or cases related to a particular offence. Will the Minister tell us which local authority will have the duty of enforcement? If, for example, the RSPCA gets a complaint, will it contact the legal department at county level, environmental health at borough or district level, or will it go, in the first instance, to the government animal health department? In the event of an infringement of the regulations, will the Minister confirm that a notice will be issued as a first remedy other than in the most serious cases of neglect? Will the Minister also tell us how much funding the Government will provide for the enforcement activity? I presume that fines will go directly to the Treasury. My second concern is that in places the regulations read as though the rule is cut and dried where, in practice, it cannot be. Thus, a person must not attend to an animal, "““unless he is acquainted with any relevant code of practice and has access to the code while attending to the animal””." If the code is in a binder in the farm office and the animal is in the barn across the yard he may comply, but if the barn is in a second yard across a busy main road will he still have access? I recommend that the offending phrase be removed. Similarly, in Schedule 1, Regulation 13: "““Air circulation, dust levels … relative … humidity and gas concentrations must be kept within limits which are not harmful to the animals””." The government vet acknowledged that there are neither measurements nor standards for those and that common sense has to be applied. It would be best to remove the reference to ““limits””. I was pleased to be reassured that the back-up system referred to in Regulation 20 need not be a duplicate of an automated ventilation system, for example. The penalties for contravening the regulations are to be increased. The prison tariff will be doubled. Is there any evidence that that is necessary or that it will be applied or that it results from even one incident where the currently permitted sanction was deemed insufficient? Will the Minister give us his assurance that Regulation 29 of Schedule 1 concerning genotypes and phenotypes will not be used to apply the conclusions of new science without full and proper debate? During the Minister’s briefing meeting, we all agreed that the generality of the regulations should apply to the husbandry of all animals. I am, however, acutely aware that they will be enforced by individuals for whom the words used may mean more than simple common sense. We know that the cost of farming has already reached the stage where farmers are retiring and, in some cases, going out of business with no one to follow them, and we should not make the situation worse. Schedule 1, Regulation 17, for example, contains the statement that animals not kept in buildings, "““must, at all times, have access to a well-drained lying area””." In some parts of the country at the moment that will not be possible. When one adds it to the restrictions on animal movements before testing, after sale and so on, one feels that it may be totally unreasonable if strictly interpreted. I am sure that the courts would get the emphasis right, but I am reluctant to support wording which could lead to a farmer enduring hassle and expense unnecessarily. The replacement of ““at all times”” with ““normally”” would make the rule clearer and more enforceable. What is certain is that the phrase used earlier in Regulation 17, ““where necessary and possible””, could be equally applicable to the ““well-drained lying area”” element. I make no apology for drilling down to the detail of the regulations. We can approve them and move on. However, in implementing these regulations, we demand that others keep them central to their business and working lives. We owe it to our livestock farmers, stockmen, stockwomen and farm workers to make sure that what we ask them to do is reasonable as well as desirable.