Mr.
Paice: All I was doing was referring to what his noble
Friend had said. On 3 June, he
said: “No
one has mentioned it but it is worth putting on record that these
regulations have been in force since 19 October last
year.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 3 June
2008; Vol. 702, c.
140.] One
Minister is right and one is
wrong.
Jonathan
Shaw: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands that
it is a matter of the different aspects of the different
regulations.
I have
outlined how the Government have engaged with the Farriers Registration
Council. We have to implement this directive, and we will do so. We
will ensure that horse owners and employers are aware of the different
parts of the register so that they can make informed choices. I have
said that colleagues in DIUS will be keeping the matter under review
and will consider it in October 2008. It is right that we, along with
other member states, have a capable and highly able farrier industry.
If sufficient evidence comes to light that shows that the welfare of
animals is not adequately safeguarded because of lack of professional
training and/or expertise in farriery in relation to temporary service
providers, we will consider this evidence in conjunction with our
colleagues in the Department for Innovation, Universities and
Skills.
9.59
am
Mr.
Paice: I would like to come back on a couple of points the
Minister has made. I am grateful to him for responding to the various
points that have been raised, but I cannot, in all honesty say that he
has assuaged my concerns. His remarks about informing people that these
temporary provisions would be, for farriers, on a different part of the
register is a piece of bureaucratic-speak that does not relate to
realities on the ground. It may be that a trainer in my constituency
with 100 horses may well have the back-up systems to be able to know
the difference and in any case, a trainer is likely to have his own
farrier, but as my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire said,
myriad horses are owned by individuals up and down the country, from
children’s ponies to the horses we see on bits of paddock all
around our towns and cities, whose owners will not have the ability to
know what all the different bits of the FRC register mean. The Minister
referred to accepting DEFRA’s responsibility to inform them, but
to the best of my knowledge, there is no formal mechanism to inform
them and I think there is a lot of wishful thinking in
that. The
second point that I wanted to pick up is the issue of a competent
authority. The Minister said that the directive requires there to be a
competent authority and I have never disputed that, but that authority
will not, to the best of my understanding, judge the competence of the
individuals who seek to come to this country. That is the real issue.
We have absolutely no concern—I respond to the hon. Member for
Hampstead and Highgate—this debate is about xenophobia. It is
not about trying to keep out foreign competition; it is about
maintaining standards. Of course we accept that there are farriers in
other countries who have very high standards, but we are concerned that
these regulations allow people to come to this country after just two
years in business—and I stress that phrase “in
business”. It does not say “two years solid experience in
farriery”, but “two years in business”—they
could have been doing something else for three quarters of the time,
but practising a bit of farriery as
well.
Jonathan
Shaw: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it is in
farriery, not in other
businesses.
Mr.
Paice: I am happy to accept the Minister’s
assurance, but again, without going back over it all, that is not what
his noble Friend said in the House of Lords 10 days ago when he kept
saying “in business”. He never referred once to it being
in farriery, but even it if is in farriery, it is only a two-year
period and our concern is that, when they come to this country with
just two years’ experience, no qualification, necessarily, there
is no check on their competence before they go out and practise. While
my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire and the hon. Member for
Hampstead and Highgate are perfectly correct to refer to caveat
emptor—it is a standard philosophy for people on the Opposition
Benches at any rate and I am pleased that the hon. Lady adopts it
too—that must be balanced with the ability of the individuals,
the emptor bit, the buyer, to make the assessment. It is too late when
somebody has come and messed up your child’s pony and possibly
ruined it for life, to find out that you have got it wrong. Where you
have a system of registration of competence, which we
have for people practising in this country, it is right that people
coming in should also be able to demonstrate that competence and I do
not believe that simply saying “two years’
experience” is
sufficient. I
made the point in an intervention about why farriers are not included
in the list of occupations involving health and safety and I heard the
Minister’s defence of why veterinary nurses were included. I
accept everything that he says about veterinary nurses—they are
highly experienced and trained and competent people—but I think
he underestimates how much damage an inexperienced farrier can do to a
horse. That is a theme that runs right through
this. Finally,
unless I dozed off for moment, which I doubt, I do not think the
Minister responded to the point that I and the hon. Member for Brecon
and Radnorshire raised about the inability of the FRC to make any
charge for carrying out the process. The British registered farriers
will therefore have to absorb it in their own fees. I am happy to give
way if the Minister wants to
intervene.
Jonathan
Shaw: If I cannot furnish the hon. Gentleman with that
information today, I will ensure that all members of the Committee
receive it in
future.
Mr.
Paice: I thank the
Minister.
Mr.
Williams: Perhaps when the Minister writes to the hon.
Gentleman on the issue of charging, he will also consider whether
people coming into this country and getting on that part of the
register have to be insured. That is an important point not only for
the farriers but their
clients.
Mr.
Paice: That is an extremely good point and I am grateful
to the hon. Gentleman. Overall, while the Minister has made a brave
defence of the order and has tried to assure us that he intends to keep
the whole thing under
review— Alan
Keen (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op): I have tried my
best to find a point at which it is 100 per cent. relevant to
intervene. To illustrate that we do care about horses, does the shadow
Minister recall the story before the Mexico Olympics when there was
great concern about the athletes having to compete at 6,000 or 7,000 ft
above sea level? A well-known gentleman, who married particularly well
in this country, addressed the athletes before they left and told them
not to worry because he had played polo in Mexico City the year before.
Chris Finnegan, or his brother—another great boxer—showed
his concern by asking what the horses thought about
it.
Mr.
Paice: I am grateful for that intervention. I have not in
any way tried to insinuate that Labour Members do not care about animal
welfare. I would not dream of doing
that.
Jonathan
Shaw: No, we have introduced lots of
legislation.
Mr.
Paice: Indeed they have. I certainly do not wish to imply
that they do not care. But perhaps they do not fully understand the
implications for horse welfare of the proposal. That is the fundamental
reason why my opposition to these regulations remains.
Question
put:— The
Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes
3.
Division
No.
1]
Question
accordingly agreed to.
Resolved, That
the Committee has considered the Farriers’ Qualifications
(European Recognition) Regulations 2008 (S.I. 2008, No.
646). Committee
rose at nine minutes past Ten
o’clock.
| 
