rose to move, To resolve that this House calls on Her Majesty’s Government to revoke the regulations laid before the House on 10 March (SI 2008/646).

The noble Lord said: My Lords, one or two words of explanation are probably called for on why I am moving this Motion. I would not be called one of the usual suspects in this House when discussing equine activities, but I happened to be in the right place at the wrong time to get myself involved in this. A good start is living in Lambourn, which, to those who do not know it, is to jump-racing what Newmarket is to flat-racing. I happen to have a wife who rides and a child who has a pony, and they happen to have a farrier, one Pete Baker, who is an influential member of the United Kingdom Horse Shoers Union. He asked my wife for advice, as she works for an MP in the House of Commons, and then about what should be done in this place. A conversation ensued—and then I realised that there was something in what he said, something of concern that should be addressed.

The basic concern, before we go into detail, is that farriery in this country is regulated by an Act that goes back to 1975. It sets out certain criteria by which this practice can take place and a legal framework that guarantees—as closely as possible; let us not overhype any qualification in this context—or gives a degree of certainty at least that the person undertaking that activity knows what they are doing, no more, no less. Members on these Benches are not usually the ones who cry against European regulations as a matter of course. We are quite enthusiastic about Europe, as a rule. But these regulations interfere with that certainty and that level of reassurance acquired by a long-established regulation that allows for an apprenticeship scheme to be gone through and allows people to qualify by other means for farriery. Should we be worried about this? We should if we do not understand what exactly is going on.

We are not asking to cross-reference qualifications. In many other parts of these regulations we accept that somebody can become qualified through practice. I have become dangerously familiar with the 1975 Act over the past few weeks. I have established that this principle of “You have been doing the job for a long time; there is no protest against you, so you should come in and be able to do it” is accepted. However, two years would seem to be a very short space of time.

What does training usually mean? It usually means that you are capable of addressing a series of problems and are prepared to deal with things as they happen. Horses are half a ton of nervous muscle, full of flight-and-fight response, which occasionally kill people—not that many, but people get hurt around horses all the time. Farriery means that you are using blades to cut around a part of a horse. There are sharp nails, and bits of hot metal are applied to that horse. Things can go wrong, but the better and more convincing the training, the less likely that is to happen.

What do the provisions address? Somebody after a very short period of experience potentially could come in and start practising. Even if we take into account the emotion that the horse may well be a family pet, it is several thousand pounds-worth of livestock that could be damaged. The person who makes a mistake is immediately at risk. One kick can kill, even one from a comparatively small pony. The person holding the animal is at risk. If the farrier has made a mistake and the person is riding that horse on the road, for instance, the animal may well shy and there is a danger that it may slip.

As an aside, I say that the community now accepts hard hats and back protectors. I have a little ongoing fight with my wife that as my five year-old starts to jump she will have to wear a gum shield, as do the jump jockeys. That apparently is a cultural step too far for part of the equine community. But there is a risk. Anything that enhances that risk should be regarded very seriously.

So what do we have? We have the principle of the free movement of labour against whether these people can be safely allowed to do the job. Let us not pretend that the whole of Europe is full of limping horses. There are places where farriery is carried out properly. The concern here comes in the nature and the size of the task, those who have to implement it and the timeframe and resources available for them so to do. You have to cross-reference the skill level across the rest of Europe—the 26 nations—or to go for entrance by experience. That may be two years, but you will be lucky not to have made a mistake within two years of practising something from a very basic level of skill. If you have been dealing with the same horses on a regular basis you may well get away with it over the two-year timeframe. I do not say that you always will, but the danger is there.

We are trying to preserve the reliability of the qualification and name of farrier. Will the Government tell us exactly how they intend to allow us to know how they are implementing this procedure? I have ignored those who have six years’ experience and are registered under other parts of the Act; the temporary matter is probably the most immediate. Will the Government allow us to know the processes by which, first, these people are being cross-referenced and, secondly, they are reporting and paper-trailing back those who are qualified through experience?

How should this take place? The Government may say that it is all on the website. If I wanted to hide something I would stick it in the middle of a website. It would be nicely and safely tucked away without a reference to where it is—“Oh, you can find it; just keep on clicking and you will get there”. It was suggested in the meetings with various officials that it would not be unreasonable for the Government to undertake to tell us where this information will be stored—not us here but those who are the consumer group, through the relevant publications. Horse and Hound stands out; I am afraid to give out the advertising but it is more or less the bible of the equine community.

The information should be signposted. What is the process we are following? What is happening to the Farriers Registration Council and have the Government assessed exactly whether they have enough resources to carry this out? This group draws its fees from the farriers themselves. It is rather odd that we should pay to allow competition in, but Europe is a funny place and this means the farriers can go across to other nations and practise themselves. How is this going to take place? Will the Farriers Registration Council have sufficient resources to make sure that this change takes place? There is the cross-referencing, the layering and the different types of qualification out there. Which one is better or worse? It may well prove that we do not have the best qualifications. We may have the best registration system but qualification moves on. We do not know and certain places do not have any qualification.

Can the noble Lord show us where the signposts will be and will he make sure that the general public know, so that there is more faith in the new system about where people are coming and going in the process? It should not be too many people. If the Government take a proactive step now, the slightly chaotic mess we have got into may be averted. What is required is information and clarification. Others may disagree about the nature of these qualifications but I think that, as a minimum standard, the Government must say what they are going to do about signposting information so people can understand what is going on. If there are major problems, everybody will know and we stand a chance of raising sufficient noise to get them corrected.

I hope I have not gone on too long about this. The fact is that there is a real concern in a large part of our leisure sector, where people are dealing with pets and valuable livestock at the same time, and their own safety. If the Minister can tell us how he proposes to minimise any risk of greater integration, I will be very relieved at the end of this debate. I beg to move.

Moved, To resolve that this House calls on Her Majesty’s Government to revoke the regulations laid before the House on 10 March (SI 2008/646).—(Lord Addington.)

My Lords, my reading of the regulations is that they allow individuals who have practised farriery but who do not possess a registrable qualification in their own country to come to the United Kingdom and practise farriery provided that, during any period of two years before the date of application, they have been regularly and gainfully engaged in shoeing horses other than as an apprentice or one undergoing a course of training. I should declare an interest in that I am a member of the Worshipful Company of Farriers and hence have a specific interest in this.

In this country, there are three grades of qualification in farriery. First there is a diploma of the Worshipful Company of Farriers; secondly, there is an associate of that company; and, thirdly, there is a fellowship. All involve intensive apprenticeship, and it takes several years before a person can be recognised as a fellow. Consequently, we have a high level of competence in the farriery profession in the United Kingdom.

I recognise that these regulations are part of the treaty of Rome directive on the recognition of professional qualifications. The Explanatory Note accompanying the regulations comments that a full impact assessment has not been prepared as no significant impact is evident, but I completely differ with that assessment of the regulations. As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, mentioned, shoeing horses is by no means a simple or easy procedure. Substantial harm can occur if horses are badly shod. This instrument could also have a significant impact on sectors other than horses. Donkeys, for example, require farriers. They do not wear horse shoes, or donkey shoes, but if they are working on soft ground, their feet need to be looked at periodically. Indeed, the training for donkey farriery is much more rigorous and extensive than that for horses.

The way to avoid the problems which the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and I have identified is to allow only persons holding approved farrier qualifications that are recognised in the United Kingdom to be recognised here. Hence I join the noble Lord in asking the critical questions about policing that he has asked of the Minister. How will this be looked at and regulated? What harm might occur to horses that have been shod by perhaps incompetent individuals who have not gone through the apprenticeship schemes that our farriers in this country have undergone?

My Lords, in rising to support the Motion to revoke proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, I ask the House to forgive the fact that I missed the first two or three minutes of his speech. I was detained elsewhere. I declare an interest in that I am a member of the Countryside Alliance, which has some interest in this subject.

We are looking at something that has fallen between two major government departments, the DIUS and Defra, and is borne upon by European Union directive 2005/36 on mutual recognition of professional qualifications. All of that adds up to a classic example of the law of unintended consequences. As one picks one’s way through the barbed wire entanglement of regulations and statutory instruments, one comes to a point where the result could not have been intended or imagined and is certainly unacceptable.

I should like to dwell on the two words “rider” and “horseman”. Riders are people, often with considerable competence, who sit on top of a horse and generally do not fall off. Horsemen know a good deal more than riders about the animal on which they are riding. All horsemen have known for some centuries the four-word truism which is as true today as it was centuries ago: “No foot—no horse”.

To the uninitiated, a horse stands on a lump of bone which has underneath it a piece of metal to protect its feet from the road. Nothing could be further from the truth than that. As all horsemen know, the hoof conceals one of the most complex physical systems in the animal kingdom. Not only is the hoof involved, but underneath it, near to the ground, is the very sensitive sole and the frog. Inside the hoof you have a complicated, complex system of laminae and blood vessels; above that, suspensory ligaments; and, then, a very complicated system of bones that makes up the lower leg. All of that can be made or marred by the farrier. “No foot—no horse” is true, as I have already said, and yet farriery appears to be now classified in the basket labelled “metalworkers”. That seems quite ridiculous. There is clearly, in the minds of officials, a confusion between blacksmiths on the one hand and shoeing smiths on the other, to use the old cavalry definition. A farrier operates in that middle ground between skilled metalwork and considerable veterinary knowledge.

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Addington, on his diligence in researching this matter and on pressing for time to have a debate on it, because the House ought to consider it. I should declare an interest, because my daughter is a veterinary surgeon involved in equine reproduction. I have no financial interest, merely a concern for the welfare of horses generally.

When I first looked at this issue, I was struck by the way that the European directive operated. I have complained on many previous occasions that the Government go around gold-plating European directives. This seems to be the other side of the coin. The directive’s effect is actually to undermine the position with regard to the regulation of farriers. The other thing that surprised me somewhat was the way in which the matter had apparently been looked at by our statutory instruments committee, which decided that there was nothing of particular interest to which it should draw attention. The reason for that is probably to be found in the memorandum produced and submitted to that committee, which is available to your Lordships. On the policy background, it stresses strongly that the purpose of the Farriers (Registration) Act,

“is primarily to prevent and avoid suffering by and cruelty to horses arising from the shoeing of horses by unskilled persons”,

and,

“to establish a Council to regulate and register persons engaged in farriery”.

However, the memorandum does not indicate the kind of concern that has been expressed this evening. If I understand it correctly, the main concern is that whereas we have a regulatory system which requires people to undergo training and, effectively, to have qualifications, it is proposed that those from other parts of the European Union with no more than a number of years’ experience can carry out permanently the task of a farrier. Indeed, if they are to do that on a temporary basis, they will need only two years’ experience. Experience is no guarantee of competence; they may have gone around other European countries for that period and been grossly incompetent.

None of that emerges from the Explanatory Memorandum, which contains a very strange paragraph that points out that there have been consultations with various bodies involved with these issues. It states:

“Concerns raised during consultation on these Regulations centred on the level of competence of temporary service providers. In particular, that the Directive significantly undermines the progress made since the introduction of the FRA in ensuring that all those who carry out farriery in GB have been properly trained and have passed a test of competence as a pre-condition to registration”.

So far, so good. The memorandum continues:

“However the FRC accepted that the introduction of provisions for the registration of temporary service providers was the best way of handling applicants wishing to provide services on a temporary basis”.

That is a total non sequitur. The memorandum reflects the fact that concern has been expressed but in no way states how it is to be resolved. Apparently, we have gone along with the proposals in the directive and are implementing it in a way involving dangers that both previous speakers have pointed out. Surely we ought to have an arrangement whereby those who deal with horses in this way are suitably qualified and are subject to registration.

The other matter of concern is that apparently the regulation specifies that no charge may be made for registration. In that case, perhaps the Minister can explain how the process of registration is to be financed. At the moment, that is not at all clear.

Effectively, we should ask the Government where they stood when the negotiations on this directive took place. Were they involved in its drafting? If so, did they support the position that is now in the directive or did they oppose it but were outvoted so that we are now stuck with it? I hope that the Minister can explain the position. Surely we should go back to the drawing board and rethink the matter. It is not satisfactory that unqualified people should be able to register and then practise, with all the dangers that noble Lords who have already spoken have pointed out.

My Lords, I admire the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for introducing this debate. He laughs modestly but I admire the way that he has introduced it because it draws attention to the fact that, once more, we are being saddled with regulations from the European Community that we do not want. That is the sort of point that my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch loves to dwell on and I recommend that he thinks about it.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Addington, I did not ride horses. Being tall, I was always given the largest horse and I found it all rather terrifying, so I never got beyond hanging on to the saddle with one hand. Most people did not think that that was a very suitable way to go riding, so I did not do too much of it.

I declare an interest in that I am a liveryman in the Worshipful Company of Farriers. That is not a pecuniary interest; if anything, it is a reverse pecuniary interest but it is an interest nevertheless.

I am worried about this measure because I think that it will lower the standards of farriering. At the moment, farriering in England involves a four-year apprenticeship. A person is then awarded a diploma by the Worshipful Company of Farriers, the purpose of which is to protect horses and the people who look after them from the attention of unqualified people. As I understand it, a Frenchman registers and then sets about his trade. In the European Union, a qualified farrier is not assessed, he does not have to take examinations and he is not given a diploma, but the United Kingdom diploma is regarded throughout the world as the gold standard that people should try to achieve. It was brought in by the Farriers (Registration) Act 1975 and was set up to protect horses.

I simply ask why we in the United Kingdom should accept lower standards. We have set the highest standard and other people should be trying to climb up to it, rather than our being made to climb down, all for the purpose of some kind of uniformity. Uniformity should be accepted only if it is for the better.

One thing that frightens me about this whole matter appears in the Explanatory Memorandum. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, will know this backwards because he must have read it dozens of times but I shall remind him of it. Paragraph 7.3 states:

“As the UK government is required to implement the Directive, the consultation on these Regulations did not consult on the principles underlying the Directive or those provisions whose transposition into domestic law leaves no room for discretion at Member State level. The purpose of the consultation was to explain why we are proposing to transpose in the way that we are”.

It is a funny kind of consultation that consists simply of explaining what we are doing. I put it to the Minister, who is very wise and understanding, that he is imposing on the farriers and the horse-riding fraternity standards which we do not want in the United Kingdom, which are lower than the ones that we have at the moment and which will not do us as a country—nor, I suspect, the European Union—any good.

My Lords, I, too, along with my noble friend Lord Ferrers, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Addington, on bringing this matter to our attention. I apologise for not being in my place at the start of this short debate. I had not realised how quickly your Lordships would read the Pensions Bill a second time.

As others, including my noble friend, have said, there is great concern among Britain’s 2,500 registered farriers that the regulations have the potential to undermine our high standards. That is an important point because for more than 30 years, the aim of the Farriers (Registration) Act 1975 has been,

“to prevent and avoid suffering by and cruelty to horses arising from the shoeing of horses by unskilled persons … to prohibit the shoeing of horses by unqualified persons”.

It appears that these regulations, which amend that Act, do exactly that.

The noble Lord, Lord Addington, drew attention to the human health and safety consequences of these regulations. He talked about horses killing. I am not sure about that, but as someone who has occasionally parted company with a horse while it was on the move, which is a most unwise thing to do, I, too, have an interest in ensuring that horses are shod comfortably, at least. We do not want any more accidents than can possibly be helped.

The noble Lord, Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, pointed out—and I, too, am concerned—that the regulations do not appear to have been subject to a formal assessment of the impact on animal welfare, which is normal in these cases. There are a number of issues to be looked at carefully, all of which have been detailed by other noble Lords, so I do not intend to go through them. I urge the Government to look again at these regulations. Between them, the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills appear to have let this particular ball drop. I urge them to work with the horse sector to produce regulations that not only safeguard the high standards for which United Kingdom farriers are justly famous, but are, above all, workable. The regulations before the House tonight are not.

My Lords, I should like to add a few words as well, and I have some questions for the Minister. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for bringing this forward; he should not apologise for not being a horse-rider or for not being as knowledgeable as some other noble Lords who have spoken. It is good that someone outside the particular interest realises that there is a problem.

I understand from the memorandum that the consultation was launched on 7 November 2007 and closed on 19 December. Why was it not a proper 12-week consultation? Clearly it was not, and with the run-up to Christmas perhaps there were not as many responses as there might have been. While I have no particular current interest to declare, I, like many other noble Lords, rode horses and ponies from a tiny age and fell off too many times with resulting broken bones. We were always brought up to make sure that we heeded the importance of having horses well shod. Any horse with a slightly damaged foot is much more likely to be jumpy and not such a safe ride. From a young age, we always had qualified farriers who looked after our animals, which was extremely important.

I gather that concerns were raised during the consultation. How many were there and what happened to them? Did they go to Defra directly, the farriers, or the Worshipful Company of Farriers? It is extremely important to know that.

I reinforce what other noble Lords have said about the qualifications being unequal. Clearly, work experience is not the same as proper professional qualifications. Can the Minister tell us how many of the countries that are likely to have people applying to perform farrier work in this country have different systems? I suspect that there are many, and in some countries there are probably no systems at all. It is important for us to have that information if it is available.

The importance of the safety of riding, particularly in a country where riding is becoming increasingly important, lies at the heart of this short debate. Thousands of children aged four, five, six, seven and eight ride ponies and the last thing we want to do is put any of them at risk purely because we have adopted a directive which lowers the standard that we in this country think is so important. One of my colleagues raised the question about the Government’s stance when this was discussed. I hope that the Government lobbied heavily on it. Did they seek a derogation from these proposals? If not, why not? Whereas we normally set the standards and say that everyone must rise to them, it is very odd to have to accept lower standards for those who carry out farrier work in this country.

Lastly, what will happen if someone who comes from abroad is found to be inadequate? Will that person be treated, as our farriers would be, and go to appeal? What happens if that person is found guilty and does not have enough money? I am not sure what will happen if the work is unacceptable—I was going to say shabby—and I seek clarification.

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Addington, on introducing this debate. I am the third noble Lord to apologise for not hearing the first couple of minutes of his opening remarks. I too was caught out on the timing.

This is a rather sad debate. We are discussing something that we cannot change. This is an EU directive and the Explanatory Memorandum says that,

“the consultation on these Regulations did not consult on the principles underlying the Directive or those provisions whose transposition into domestic law leaves no room for discretion at Member State level”.

My noble friend Lord Ferrers is absolutely right about that. Therefore, we are wasting our time talking about it.

We have contracted out our farriery to Europe just as we have contracted out immigration. This is yet another regulation or directive that we simply do not need. It joins the curd cheese regulations, which were debated a few months ago; the drivers’ hours regulations; the ladder directive; the very recent regulations which noble Lords enjoyed on mediums and spiritualists, which drew some comment from the Liberal Democrat Benches when they could not believe that they were actually involved in that—sadly they were. Those are regulations that we cannot do anything about.

This evening, I have been struck by the expertise of everyone who has spoken. The noble Lord, Lord Dear, with his detailed knowledge, must have been head of the Birmingham mounted police force in a previous incarnation. He is quite right to say, “No foot, no horse”. Farriers do an invaluable service and save us a lot of money; with good farriery we do not have to call the vet out as often. This country has had a very good farriery service and we still do. As this debate, although sparsely attended, has shown, we are capable of running our own show when it comes to farriery. Why do we need to import these absurd regulations from Europe? We cannot do anything about them. We can make wonderful speeches and we can move ourselves to tears with our eloquence but, in the end, it will not do any good at all. I am sure that the Minister who is an honest and straightforward man, whom I much admire, will admit that we have to put these regulations or directives into law. We have no alternative.

It is a sad evening when this Chamber, this Parliament, is reduced to asking itself why we cannot run our own farriery industry. I should like noble Lords to think about that and to wonder whether it is right that we should have contracted out so much of our government to an unelected bureaucracy in Europe and sit here willingly to discuss something that we cannot change. It is deeply depressing and deeply sad, which is why, like my noble friend Lord Pearson, I believe that we would be very much better off out of the European Union and running our own affairs. We have a perfectly good Government—let me rephrase that and say we have a good system of government, the highly respected mother of parliaments and an educated electorate. Why do we have to contract out so much to the European Union? Why are we doing it? The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, is quite right: it is time we asked ourselves whether we are going down the right road here. I strongly support the noble Lord, Lord Addington, in what he said in this debate, and all the other speakers were spot on in what they said. However, I am afraid that the Minister will tell us where we get off.

My Lords, it is undesirable that the packed Benches on this side of the House should be silent on this critical issue, so I shall join in by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Addington, on raising this matter. I should declare an unpaid interest as I am a trustee of the charity World Horse Welfare, previously the International League for the Protection of Horses, whose concern is for horse welfare throughout the world, and this is a central issue for us. I shall not elaborate because noble Lords have unanimously expressed their concerns on the main issue of standards. Let us be in no doubt that the result of the regulations will be that standards of farrier practice in this country will be to some extent lowered and undermined. We have the best standards in the world, but those standards are not matched throughout Europe. We know that in some parts of Europe, particularly eastern parts, it is difficult to establish what the standards are, and if people come here with certificates describing experience or qualifications, it will not always be absolutely clear what they mean. The issue of standards is at the centre of this. Lowering standards has implications for animal welfare and, as has been pointed out, animal welfare has links to human welfare because of the threats to human health if bad farrier work has been done. I look forward to hearing what my noble friend has to say as he is always individual and constructive.

I should particularly like him to say something on the important point made by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, about information. This change was slipping through with most of our world unaware of it. When I started speaking to people in the horse industry, most of them were unaware that this was happening. If the regulations proceed, there is an obligation on the department or departments to make sure that everyone in related industries is fully aware. For instance, this morning I spoke to the British Horseracing Authority and suggested to it that it might be helpful if it considered whether part of the conditions for licensing trainers should be that they should guarantee to use fully qualified farriers. It may well be if the information is communicated to other parts of the horse industry they can take measures to try to protect standards and animal welfare. I look forward to what my noble friend—who, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, represents a perfect Government—has to say, and I hope he will assure us that should the regulations go through all parts of the industry will be fully informed of the implications and that the departments will look at every means possible to protect the high standards that we have so long enjoyed.

My Lords, I have no immediate personal interest in this matter. Unlike several of your Lordships I have no horse, nor do I ride. Yet one of my daughters-in-law is an enthusiastic, competitive horsewoman, which I suppose is an interest that I should declare. However, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Addington, as have other noble Lords, for laying this Prayer to revoke the regulations. He laid out the argument extremely well, and our debate has been instructive on the issue. I am sure that the Minister will share the misgivings of the many noble Lords who have spoken in this debate who, without exception, have expressed the view that the Government have got it wrong.

It is certain that these regulations would not have been laid in this form if the consultation period had been more thorough. My noble friend Lady Byford explained that there had been a relatively short period of consultation before these regulations were laid, from 7 November to 19 December. The Government consulted the Farriers Registration Council, the Worshipful Company of Farriers, the United Kingdom Horse Shoers Union and the National Association of Farriers, Blacksmiths and Agricultural Engineers. Yet, as far as I can see, they did not include the British Horse Society, for example, or the Jockey Club, or the racehorse trainers’ association, or the racecourse managers, the Pony Club or anybody else who uses the services of farriers. Nor, for that matter, did they appear to consult the veterinary profession; neither can I find any reference to them asking the Army for an opinion, although as a service the Army has a qualification for a farrier going into civilian life having done service as a trained army farrier.

Do the Government share the view of many in the farrier profession that allowing farriers to practise in the UK without having gone through UK channels of training is a regressive move? What safeguard do the Government have in place to ensure the welfare of a horse at the hands of an unqualified, temporary farrier? Is there any way in which these regulations have taken the horse’s welfare into consideration? To press the Minister further, are not horse owners at risk of having their insurance invalidated if their horse is damaged by an underqualified or temporary farrier?

We are not talking of a minor industry; the noble Lord, Lord Dear, gave the figures. There are 1.35 million horses in this country, and at least 4 million people riding out once a year. The equine industry is worth £4 billion overall, with farriers themselves earning £250 million as a key part of the horse economy. There were 2,455 farriers registered in Great Britain in 2006. These figures emphasise the risks involved, as poorly-shod horses are a threat to animal welfare and public safety. My noble friend Lord Soulsby explained the importance of proper shoeing. The fact that the directive fails to classify the profession as having public health or safety implications prevents the Farriers Registration Council—the industry’s regulatory body—from making competence checks on an individual from within the EU who wishes to practise in the UK before they start doing so. There are no animal welfare or public safety provisions in the original directive, and it shows.

I accept the enormous benefits that the free movement of professionals throughout Europe can bring to the economies of European member countries, but that cannot be at a reduction of professional standards. I hope that the Minister will agree to look again at these regulations, and at how the directive has been implemented.

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Addington, on securing the debate. I hope we will be able to clear the air of some misconceptions. I do not have any interests to declare, although a couple of long-distance friends from the 1960s might have in their loft a photograph of me—dressed in suitable safety equipment—trailing along the lanes of Llanymynech on the Welsh border. They were showing me what the movement of an animal underneath me feels like. That is about the full extent of my experience so I do not have an interest to declare in that sense.

No one has mentioned it but it is worth putting on record that these regulations have been in force since 19 October last year. So we are not talking about something that has just been brought in. I do not wish to flood the House with constituents but it is also worth putting on record the latest figures I have. The total number of farriers on the register is 2,300 and there are 390 farriers without formal qualification or training. So there are 390 UK nationals—untrained, unqualified—doing farrier work. No one has mentioned that. The number of EU farriers on Part 1 of the register is two, and the number of declarations of intention to provide temporary services since October last year, when the regulations came into force, is one. That is the situation in June 2008. I wanted to set that on the record so that one can see the context in which we are dealing with this. There are nearly 400 unqualified, untrained, UK nationals doing farrier work against a total of 2,300 on the register; and there has been a grand total of three EU farriers on Part 1 of the register, including one declaration of intention to provide temporary services, since 19 October last year.

My Lords, I am not doubting the Minister’s figures, but are the unqualified farriers he mentioned attached to qualified farriers—in other words, are they undergoing training—or is he saying that they practise unqualified?

My Lords, they practise unqualified. Basically they have grandfather rights, but they are still untrained and unqualified. I am not criticising them. Regulations come into this country that affect people who have spent 20, 30 or 40 years at a certain activity and one allows them to continue working and not to go through the process. Pesticide spraying is a profession which still retains its grandfather rights. I am just putting on the record that people doing this work are not being trained but have grandfather rights. If they were new to the profession they would have to be formally trained and go through the process. I just want to set the context of where we are to start with.

I do not have a list but the competent authorities in the countries of the European Union vary. I am not saying that the general tenor of the debate is “No foreigners need apply” as that would be wrong and unfair, but the allegation is that because professional farriers working elsewhere can be employed here—they do not have to be—it will necessarily lower standards. I just want to put that in context before I begin the set part of my speech.

My Lords, I would like to press the Minister further on the grandfather rights. Does that go back to before the 1975 Act? In other words, how old is the grandfather? Are we talking about 33 years of practising farriery? That might be considered a pretty long run-in.

My Lords, I will get an answer to that, because I clearly do not have one off the top of my head. I was told that the answer was grandfather rights, but I do not know how far back that goes. That might apply to foreigners coming in, such as Irish nationals. I do not believe the Irish horse industry is using farriers who damage the horses, but it does not have the same regulatory system that we have—far from it.

My Lords, I would like to provide some clarification. I was informed that the Irish had a system that was recognised by us, but they have now stopped it and gone over to another system. That might clear this question up, but it emphasises just how complicated this issue is. The point about grandfather rights is quite right.

My Lords, we have had discussions in the past couple of days about this. I asked these questions, because they are important. I said, “What about the Irish situation, given the importance of the bloodstock industry to them?”. I was told that it was somewhat different, as the noble Lord has just indicated. No one has complained about that.

I understand the concerns expressed about the provision. In fact, my collar was felt about two months ago by my noble friend Lord Donoughue on this very issue before it was even a blip on the horizon. I had long since signed off the Explanatory Memorandum the year before, but I went to find out about it. I want to see if I can put those concerns to rest because we take them seriously, particularly those about animal welfare. There is no way we would countenance any diminution of animal welfare. We are satisfied that the directives provide adequate safeguards. I shall come to that in a moment. I have answered Parliamentary Questions from the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, and the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, in some detail. One of those Answers indicated that there was an advantage for animal welfare in bringing in these regulations.

We have to take care—this is the bit that is expected—that domestic legislation complies with European law. This all goes back to the European Communities Act 1972, as I recall from my early years when I was opposing it. I do not now; I support it. Subject to certain safeguards, someone legally established to practise farriery in another member state can provide the same service in the UK on a temporary basis. I emphasise that because it is important. The UK is obliged to implement directive 2005/36/EC on the recognition of professional qualifications, which goes right across the professions. That works both ways for people in this country. Some of the measures suggested by UK farriers for strengthening the safeguards are simply not permitted under the directive. For example, we cannot require a service provider to undertake a practical test of their competence. Checks can be made with contact points and competent authorities in other member states about the provider’s legal establishment or the relevance to farriery of his professional qualifications, but access to farriery on a temporary basis cannot be delayed or complicated in any way if the person has provided all the required documentation—that is, to prove that they are legally conforming and operating as a farrier in the other member state.

My Lords, the Minister has come on to an important point. I think he said that legally qualified people from another state can come over and practise farriery here on a temporary basis. When does that temporary basis become permanent? Is it when they have passed an exam in England?

My Lords, that is an excellent question. That will be judged on a case-by-case basis by the Farriers Registration Council. I understand that the period cannot be any more than a year, so someone cannot be temporary for longer than that. The Farriers Registration Council, this country’s regulatory authority, will decide on that, based on the evidence provided by the individual concerned.

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister, again, for giving way. If the gentleman concerned does not pass the test of the Farriers Registration Council, can he be, as it were, thrown own?

My Lords, the test is that of supplying the necessary information, not a practical test. It requires documents: evidence from the member state and details from the competent authority. Where there is no competent authority, they have to provide the documents to show that they have legally been carrying out a business and, indeed, are doing so because they are only coming here to provide a temporary service. The Farriers Registration Council can limit that for a year, but if they fail to provide the necessary documentation, they would not be able to provide the temporary service. There is a check and balance here, and another which I will come to in a moment.

The main overall objective of this directive is the reduction of obstacles to free movement. It merely makes possible the pursuit of a profession for which a person is qualified on an employed or self-employed basis, provided the activities are comparable. It introduces new arrangements for migrants who want to provide a service on a temporary and occasional basis with the minimum of bureaucracy and red tape. Here is the key part: it places absolutely no obligation whatever on employers or service users to engage a professional from another member state. To the best of my knowledge—as was mentioned earlier, and as I discussed a couple of days ago—it must be perfectly compatible with, let us say, insurance companies putting in terms and conditions that require one to use professionally qualified competent people to do the necessary work. If not, one’s insurance is at risk. Therefore, these are quite legitimate, but no one is forced to employ professionals from another member state. That is an important point.

The directive was largely implemented last October by the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills through the European Communities (Recognition of Professional Qualifications) Regulations 2007. Many of the provisions are carried over from a previous directive on the recognition of professional qualifications. A lot of this is not new. Europe-based farriers have been able to provide temporary services, under the DIUS regulations, by submitting a declaration to the Farriers Registration Council—the UK competent authority—since last October. As I have said, so far, the Farriers Registration Council has received only one declaration. There are only two European farriers currently registered to practise farriery on a permanent basis in the United Kingdom. I do not know which member states they are from. The directive leaves the registration of temporary service providers up to member states.

Having consulted the Farriers Registration Council, we agreed that the best way of managing temporary service providers would be to provide the regulator—the Farriers Registration Council—with the necessary powers to deal with issues relating to conduct. The Farriers’ Qualification (European Recognition) Regulations 2008—the subject of this debate—therefore provide for consequential amendments following changes introduced last year by the DIUS, and provide a framework for registering temporary farriers. Revocation of the regulations would not affect the entitlement of European farriers to provide their service on a temporary basis, pursuant to the DIUS regulations, but it would hinder the UK’s ability to implement fully its European obligations. In addition, it would remove our ability to manage these arrangements in a transparent way, and to ensure that any problems can be dealt with by the Farriers Registration Council. That is an important point, because bringing regulations into force allows the Farriers Registration Council to be the regulator for the temporary activities.

Farriery is not a regulated activity in some member states. The directive, and the DIUS regulations, set out other criteria that must be taken into account in those situations. Competent authorities—in the UK, the regulators—have an obligation to work in close collaboration with the competent authorities in other member states to facilitate the application of the directive. The directive defines “professional qualifications” as:

“(a) qualifications attested by evidence of formal qualifications,

(b) an attestation of competence issued by the competent authority in a person’s home State … and/or

(c) professional experience”.

Therefore, “professional qualifications” includes professional experience, such as two years’ lawful and effective practice of a profession. You have to provide evidence that you have been doing it and carrying it out, even in a member state where there is no competent authority.

When making a declaration to the Farriers Registration Council, a temporary service provider must include details of any insurance cover, an attestation that they are lawfully established in their home country, as well as evidence of professional qualifications and proof of at least two years’ lawful and effective practice if they come from a state where farriery is unregulated. There are therefore some hurdles even in countries where there is no regulation of farriery. I do not claim that they are as good, but it is not a free-for-all; it is not for any Tom, Dick and Harry to come over here and say, “I’m a farrier. I’ll undercut your prices. I can do the job. I’m OK”. There is a series of hurdles to clear.

My Lords, how exactly would these farriers who come from an EU country which does not have a regulated industry prove that?

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.

My Lords, can the Minister answer the question asked by my noble friend Lord Higgins about what position the British negotiators took in Brussels to ameliorate this situation in any way? Why did this measure come over here in such unpalatable form? Can the Minister answer that here? Perhaps he could write to us on that matter.

My Lords, I shall write if the explanation needs to be better. The fact is that, although there was a short consultation, 18 months of discussions went on before last November. This is not something that has just appeared out of nowhere. We discussed this matter, and some of the concerns raised were not able to be taken into account in how the directive operates. I think that some of the farriers here said that there should be a practical competence test before you are employed, but it is not possible to do that.

Following the discussions in Brussels, we were satisfied about the animal welfare issue, which is the key issue here. There are hurdles—they are not barriers, but hurdles; we have free movement of professions, with some rules and regulations. The temporary issue is important; it involves a temporary period, with a maximum of a year.

This was not an issue on which we discussed an encyclopaedia of rules and regulations, but it was discussed for some 18 months beforehand, and we were satisfied that the animal welfare considerations were fully met in the regulations as the final regulation appeared—and then we transposed it for the farriers.

My Lords, the Minister has spent quite a long time, understandably, giving quite a complicated answer to quite a complicated series of questions. However, there was one point that he missed, with respect. If the standards in the United Kingdom are higher than anywhere else in the world and if we are now going to allow in people who do not come up to those standards, we are lowering those standards, are we not?

My Lords, it is for each individual member state and competent authority to set their standards. We are trying to encourage free movement of professions and we will buy in, as we do in other professions, whether it is medicine, engineering, science or dentistry—there are all kinds of issues like that—with the need to meet certain basic conditions. In this case, the basic conditions are those that I set out: if you are in a country where there is no competent authority you must still meet a set of criteria and prove that you have been practising in the profession for at least two years. You have to show that you are running a lawful business in another country to enable you to come over here on a temporary basis.

It is for others to decide, but there may be the odd one or two farriers who are better than some of our farriers. We have 390 here who are not qualified, in the sense that we are discussing qualifications—those with grandfather rights. One has to ask, who judges those? Are they better or worse than others from other countries? It would not be me who would want to make that decision.

My Lords, I think that this debate has been necessary, because we have drawn attention to concerns. As the Minister said, it is possible that there may even be slightly better regulation or processes, or new and developing processes, in Europe. One hopes, after what the Minister said, that if there are, we will now find out about them and have enough information coming in.

I know that the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, is on my side, but praying in aid the great mother of parliaments when we are discussing this under negative procedure, when we can discuss it only after it has gone through, and slowly, means that possibly we are not that perfect all the time in how we handle secondary legislation. That is the conclusion I would draw. The way in which this was picked up by accident at the last minute, by me, suggests that we should look at that situation more carefully in future.

I should have made one declaration of interest. At a dinner party several months ago it was decided that I had won something in Lambourn that was relevant to the equine fraternity. It was decided that I was possibly the most unlikely person in the town to be a jockey. The noble Lord, Lord Dear, with his wonderful explanation of how a horse’s foot works, might possibly challenge me for that if he turns up.

However, I hope that the Government’s undertaking is to give us information in a way—a nod of the head is sufficient here—that we can actually understand and can get through to the general horse-owning public. If so, many of the fears here may well be allayed. We also have a process of reviewing this in case they are not. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.