Moved by
That the Grand Committee do consider the Animal Welfare
(Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2022.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs () (Con)
My Lords, this instrument makes several minor, technical
amendments to retained EU regulations, correcting deficiencies so
that the legislation operates effectively. These regulations
relate to the protection and welfare of animals during transport
and to official controls on the imports of animals, animal
products, plants and plant products, including food and other
imports relevant to the agri-food chain.
In Great Britain, the Animal and Plant Health Agency issues
authorisations to commercial transporters of animals which can
show that they meet the regulatory requirements, such as having
appropriately trained and competent staff. For long journeys, the
Animal and Plant Health Agency also approves journey plans, known
as journey logs, prior to the journey beginning. Approval of a
journey log depends on the transporter demonstrating that it can
meet the welfare needs of the animals being transported, through
providing appropriate rest, food and water. The requirement for
an APHA-approved journey log extends to EU transporters that wish
to import animals to Great Britain.
This instrument clarifies the role and powers of the competent
authority to grant or refuse requests for journey logs and
transporter authorisations needed for the transport of live
animals into, out of and through Great Britain. This will allow
for better enforcement, as the role and powers of that authority
would otherwise be unclear in some circumstances, resulting in
possible confusion on the ground.
It also clarifies a power of the competent authority to recover
the costs of enforcement action where appropriate; that is, it
provides the competent authority with the discretion to decide
whether to recover costs. The powers of the competent authority
are not affected, and the change is intended to make it clear
that cost recovery is an option for the regulator. The power to
recover costs, without an obligation to do so, enables the
authority to take into account circumstances and make decisions
regarding cost recovery on a case-by-case basis.
This instrument removes defunct references to various EU systems
and organisations—contact points, mutual assistance schemes and
an oversight committee. It also removes the legal requirement to
report annually to the European Commission on long journeys and
animal welfare inspections. Multiple references to “EU member
states” are replaced with “Great Britain”. An outdated
requirement to provide rules on penalties for infringements of
animal welfare in transport regulations by 5 July 2006 is
removed, as those rules were laid by that date and are currently
in force. Finally, outdated references to other regulations,
relating to training for competent authority staff, other
veterinary legislation and animal welfare inspections for animals
destined for slaughter, are corrected, ensuring that the
regulators’ ability to enforce welfare standards is
maintained.
The amendments contained in this instrument are necessary to
ensure that, in line with current government policy, we can
enforce our high animal welfare standards and protect the UK’s
biosecurity. I beg to move.
(Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister very much for that introduction.
We agree that these changes are broadly technical in nature but,
once again, we have an SI before us which, in its own words,
corrects failures and deficiencies in retained EU law which
should and could have been spotted earlier. First, can the
Minister say how these errors came to light and why they were not
identified earlier? Has there been any detriment to animal
welfare controls since the adoption of the withdrawal Act in
2018, as a result of this incorrect wording?
Secondly, the Minister explained the rationale for changing
mandatory cost recovery to discretionary cost recovery. On the
face of it, this seems sensible, but can he say something more
about the types of cases where it would not be in the public
interest to pursue cost recovery? Is there a danger that, if we
now switch to what he described as a “case-by-case basis”, it
could lead to a broader fall in enforcement action, with many
authorities making a financial calculation that the cost is just
not worth the effort, particularly if it is a marginal benefit?
Could there be an overall drop in enforcement as a result?
Finally, paragraph 7.5 of the Explanatory Memorandum says that
the outdated references have been updated to refer to current
legislation, and the Minister gave some examples of that. Are the
current standards now in place equivalent to or better than the
old ones that were there before? As this is quite a complex area
of regulation, will it potentially be revisited as part of Jacob
Rees-Mogg’s bonfire of EU regulations? If so, what will the
process be and when will we hear more about how he intends to
conduct that review? I look forward to the Minister’s
response.
(Con)
I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for her questions and
her understanding of the need for this. She rightly identified a
number of areas that need clarification. I absolutely reiterate
that these regulations do not reduce any current animal welfare
standards. As the noble Baroness pointed out, they make technical
but necessary changes to ensure that existing legislation on
animal welfare during transport can continue to operate
effectively in practice.
In answer to the noble Baroness’s first question, no detrimental
effect nor operational issues have arisen since our EU exit but
this legislation enables operational delivery. However, there is
a need, met by this SI, to ensure that the role of the competent
authority is clarified to avoid any points of confusion. There is
also a need to ensure that the definition of the competent
authority is consistent with that set out in the retained form of
the official controls regulations. The other corrective measures
in the SI, such as the removal of any obligations to report to
the EU Commission and references to defunct legislation, are
tidying-up requirements and so have not created any impact.
Leaving the EU was never going to be an easy job. The legislation
that took us through the retained EU competence process left a
number of anomalies, for which there is a time limit for us to
sort out. This is one of them and is relatively minor. It could
have been done earlier but is being done now. I hope that the
noble Baroness understands.
The noble Baroness talked about the importance of recovery of
costs. By providing discretion for costs recovery, we are
allowing for situations where such actions would be impractical,
uneconomic and not otherwise in the public interest. It is our
view that this measure would enable money-saving decisions to be
taken by the regulator or at least to ensure that the costs are
net zero. We are not amending the powers available to the
competent authority; this change is intended to make it clear
that recovering costs is discretionary for the regulator.
Currently, the competent authority is required to attempt to
recover the costs of any and all enforcement actions undertaken.
This relates to expenses incurred and there will be a de minimis
where the activities exceed the monies recovered. We want to make
sure that we are protecting businesses, not imposing costs on
them. Giving that discretion to authorities is important.
The noble Baroness asked about making sure that the competent
authority has the skills. Any references to other regulations
related to training for competent authority staff, other
veterinary legislation and animal welfare inspections for animals
destined for slaughter have been deleted. They have been replaced
by references to current legislation, which maintain the
standards already in place. The training requirements for
competent authority and veterinary staff are now set out in the
retained versions of the official controls regulations. I hope
that this gives the noble Baroness comfort that the new standards
are at least equivalent, if not better.
On her point about the Government’s deregulatory drive, this is a
key area in which we want to retain high standards. We want this
country to continue to have the highest animal welfare and
environmental standards, which is why it is important that we
take this forward. I do not see that changing in this Government
and I think that there is cross-party support for Britain
remaining a beacon for animal welfare standards, constantly
raising the bar and improving what we are trying to achieve. The
Government’s animal health and welfare pathway is an example of
that and has been broadly welcomed by the farming industry. It is
just part of this picture.
We are proud of our world-leading standards on animal welfare. As
I have outlined, these amendments will ensure that existing
regimes for animal welfare during transport continue to operate
effectively.
Motion agreed.
