Date laid: 22 February 2016
Parliamentary Procedure: negative
This Order revokes the Code of Recommendations for the Welfare of Livestock: Meat Chickens and Breeding Chickens, issued in 2002, as a statutory code providing guidance to keepers of meat chickens and breeding chickens on how to comply with farm animal welfare legislation. It is to be replaced with non-statutory, industry-led guidance, prepared by the British Poultry Council, in collaboration with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra).
In laying this Order, Defra’s stated aim is to encourage livestock sectors to take a more direct role in raising animal welfare standards, by taking the lead in preparing non-statutory guidance. However, responses to a 2013 consultation showed limited expectations of improved compliance, and hence of higher standards of animal welfare; and the Department itself refers only to the potential for better observance of animal welfare requirements.
In our view, the information presented to Parliament inspires little or no confidence that Defra’s approach will bring about improved compliance. We are concerned that in revoking the existing statutory code this Order may well lead to the imperfect achievement of the Department’s animal welfare objectives. Our role is to report to the House, not to intercede with Government; in this case, however, we think that Defra should give serious consideration to the concerns voiced about this Order and we are writing to the Secretary of State to underline these concerns.
1.We draw this Order to the special attention of the House on the ground that it may imperfectly achieve its policy objectives.
2.The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) has laid this draft Order with an Explanatory Memorandum (EM) and Impact Assessment (IA). The Order revokes the Code of Recommendations for the Welfare of Livestock: Meat Chickens and Breeding Chickens (“the Chickens Code”), issued in 2002. This statutory code provides guidance to keepers of meat chickens and breeding chickens on how to comply with farm animal welfare legislation. It is to be replaced with non-statutory, industry-led guidance, prepared by the British Poultry Council (BPC), in collaboration with Defra.
3.In the EM, Defra says that species-specific farm animal welfare codes, issued under the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968, provide guidance to keepers on how to comply with farm animal welfare legislation; there are ten such codes. It adds that reform of the farm animal welfare codes is a “Red Tape Challenge” commitment, intended to encourage livestock sectors to take a more direct role in raising animal welfare standards, by taking the lead in preparing non-statutory guidance. The primary objective is to ensure that farmers have access to easily understandable, up-to-date guidance on how to comply with existing farm animal welfare legislation, which reflects the latest scientific and veterinary knowledge.
4.Defra explains that the Chickens Code is the first of the ten codes to be replaced with non-statutory guidance, and that it has been drafted by the meat chicken industry trade body, the British Poultry Council (BPC), in partnership with the Department. Defra will work with other livestock sectors to replace the other farm animal welfare codes with non-statutory guidance.
5.In the IA, in explaining its decision not to revise and update the existing, statutory codes, Defra comments:
“This would address the fact that the codes are out of date, but it would do nothing to address the statutory nature of the codes which involve a time-consuming parliamentary negative resolution process to update and does not align with the Government’s deregulatory approach.”
6.We sought clarification from Defra of its characterisation of the Parliamentary process as “time-consuming”. A draft negative instrument such as this Order may come into force 40 days after being laid. By contrast, the Department’s handling of policy formulation in this case appears to have extended over two and a half years, from June 2013, when consultation was launched, to February 2016, when the Order was laid. Defra’s response is published at Appendix 1, and includes the following:
“In hindsight, the reference to Parliamentary processes taking time could have been worded better and unintentionally may have given the wrong impression. This reference largely relates to instances when, in future, there might be a new piece of scientific or veterinary knowledge on a particular issue which would be useful to insert into the species-specific guidance… In future, the guidance can be updated more easily, by industry, in consultation with Defra and the Farm Animal Welfare Committee, as appropriate, as and when new knowledge comes to light.”
7.Defra says that it held a six-week consultation from 27 June to 8 August 2013, on the principle of moving from statutory to industry-led, non-statutory guidance. Comments from 44 respondents were analysed, with the largest number of responses (14) coming from the livestock sector. 20 respondents said they were generally supportive of the non-statutory approach, and 22 agreed that overall it was acceptable for industry to take the lead in drafting. Whilst some industry bodies were enthusiastic about adopting a partnership approach to drafting guidance, others remained to be convinced that this was an appropriate way forward. An interim Government response, published in April 2014, explained that, due to the lack of a consensus view, additional time was needed before making a final decision.1
8.After further discussion in 2014–15 with interested parties, Defra published a final response to the consultation in December 2015.2 In the EM, Defra says that, after receiving reassurance that the Department would continue to provide support in drafting the guidance, several livestock sectors were keen to begin preparing guidance for their producers. Defra also comments that, while there was some concern that non-statutory guidance would have a reduced evidential weight and hinder prosecutions, it sees no evidence that this will be the case. It also says, in relation to assurances sought by some welfare charities, that no changes are being made to the legislation which lays down the farm animal welfare standards; and that a number of measures have been built into the process of moving to non-statutory guidance to ensure that animal welfare standards are maintained.
9.As already noted, only a minority of respondents to the 2013 consultation (20 out of 44) supported the proposed non-statutory approach; and only half of them (22) agreed that the industry should take the lead in drafting the guidance. While the EM does not deal with views expressed on whether the new approach would improve compliance with existing legislation, this is covered in the IA, and the final Government response. Only 15 respondents (one-third) took an unconditional view that there would be improved compliance; nine thought that there would not; eight thought it possible, depending on certain issues; the remainder (12) gave no view on the issue.
10.In the EM, Defra states that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland each have their own statutory welfare codes and have made no decisions on whether to take a similar approach to England. What is not mentioned in the EM, but reported in the final Government response, is the fact that 15 respondents commented on the issue of consistency across the devolved administrations, and that of these respondents 12 saw a risk that inconsistent approaches could be taken where there were differences in policy across the UK, and that there could be confusion around borders if the guides were not adopted universally.
11.In the light of these responses, we asked Defra whether it was confident that the move away from a statutory code would lead to improved compliance with existing legislation; whether it saw a risk of reduced compliance; and how such a risk could be compatible with its commitment to animal welfare. The Department’s full response appears at Appendix 1. This includes in particular the statement that Defra considers that:
“by moving to guidance which is led by the relevant livestock sector that will be using it, there will be increased buy-in and relevance, which will potentially lead to improved compliance. As mentioned in the IA, the assumption that the new guidance has the potential to improve compliance will be assessed as part of the policy review, which will be undertaken 3 years from the date of publication of the meat chicken guidance.”
We note that this leaves open the possibility that compliance will not improve, and that it may be three years until the Department reviews actual experience.
12.Defra’s response also implies that statutory codes on the one hand and guidance on the other are mutually exclusive options. This is not the case. It would be perfectly possible to lay down the fundamental principles in statutory codes which are thus subject to parliamentary scrutiny while leaving operational details to guidance. This would provide Defra with the flexibility and rapid response facility which it says it needs, while maintaining public confidence that fundamental standards of animal welfare were being maintained.
13.In laying this Order, Defra’s stated aim is to encourage livestock sectors to take a more direct role in raising animal welfare standards, by taking the lead in preparing non-statutory guidance. In its December 2015 response document, Defra says that the specific aim of the 2013 consultation was “to check that the principle of moving from statutory farm animal welfare codes to industry-led drafted, non-statutory guidance, meets both the Government’s commitment to improved standards of animal welfare and the practical needs of farmers.”
14.It is clear, however, that the responses to that consultation showed only limited expectations of improved compliance, and hence of higher standards of animal welfare; and that respondents saw a risk that differences in policy across the UK could lead to inconsistency and confusion. In response to our own questions, the Department has referred only to the potential for better observance of animal welfare requirements. In our view, the information presented to Parliament by Defra inspires little or no confidence that the approach which it is following will bring about improved compliance. We are concerned that in revoking the existing statutory code this Order may well lead to the imperfect achievement of the Department’s animal welfare objectives. Our role is to report to the House, not to intercede with Government; in this case, however, we think that Defra should give serious consideration to the concerns voiced about this Order and we are writing to the Secretary of State to underline these concerns.
Date laid: 3 March 2016
Parliamentary Procedure: negative
These Regulations introduce a number of amendments that apply either to both the Non-domestic RHI scheme and the Domestic RHI scheme, or to each scheme separately. These include changing the basis of the annual tariff uplift; and setting the degression triggers for all technologies for degressions for the financial year 2016–17.3
The Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI) scheme is one of several initiatives for which the Department for Energy and Climate Change relies extensively on complex secondary legislation to maintain and amend implementation. While the Explanatory Memorandum to these Regulations is lengthy, it falls short, in our view, by failing to include key information, and also by using terminology which tends to obscure rather than enlighten. We also find it surprising that the Department is currently unable to determine the extent to which the scheme contributes to the UK’s target that 15% of energy consumption is to come from renewable sources by 2020.
15.We draw these Regulations to the special attention of the House on the ground that the explanatory material laid in support provides insufficient information to gain a clear understanding about the instrument’s policy objective and intended implementation.
16.The Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) has laid these Regulations with an Explanatory Memorandum (EM). In the EM, DECC says that the Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI) scheme was introduced primarily to help meet the UK’s target under Directive 2009/28/EC (the “Renewable Energy Directive”) that 15% of energy consumption is to come from renewable sources by 2020; the UK intends that renewable heat will make a significant contribution to this target. The Non-domestic RHI scheme opened for applications on 28 November 2011. The Domestic RHI scheme opened for applications on 9 April 2014.4
17.In amending earlier instruments,5 these Regulations introduce a number of amendments that apply either to both schemes or to each scheme separately. The amendments are set out at length in section 7 of the EM. The amendments being introduced to both schemes include changing the basis of the annual tariff uplift; and setting the degression triggers for all technologies for the financial year 2016–17.
18.As regards the first of these changes, the Regulations change the annual tariff uplift from the Retail Prices Index (RPI) to the Consumer Prices Index (CPI) for all plants on either scheme with a tariff start date on or after 1 April 2016. DECC explains that the RPI was “de-designated” as a National Statistic in 2013, but that the CPI, as an alternative measure of inflation, does have National Statistic status. It adds that CPI is currently lower than RPI and that, if this continues, uplifting tariffs by CPI would lead to savings to the taxpayer over the lifetime of the RHI.
19.In the EM, DECC states that a wider consultation on reforms to the RHI schemes includes the change in indexation, and that respondents are being asked if there is any compelling evidence as to why CPI should not be used in place of RPI. In response to a question about why DECC was seeking views on a change that it was already implementing, the Department told us:
“Waiting until the consultation closed would mean we would lose the opportunity of value for money savings for the tariff lifetime (20 years in the non-domestic scheme, 7 years in the domestic scheme) of those plants accredited in 2016–17 … We are consulting on whether there is any compelling evidence as to why RPI would be a more appropriate measure of inflation than CPI such that, if this were provided, we could reverse the decision before the first CPI linked tariff uplift takes effect in April 2017.”
We are publishing the information provided by DECC in response to our queries at Appendix 2.
20.As regards the second of these changes, DECC says that new degression triggers for each quarter up to 31 January 2017 are being introduced:
“increasing the projected deployment quarter on quarter on a consistent trajectory with the current triggers. In advance of the Government’s consultation in spring 2016 and the refocussing of the scheme in 2017, the purpose of the extended degression triggers is to roll forward the current cost control mechanism to enable continued budget management before wider changes are introduced.”
We sought clarification of this relatively impenetrable explanation, and DECC’s answer is included in the information at Appendix 2. The Department has said that the triggers specified in the Regulations do not form part of the consultation, but enable degression to continue operating on a consistent basis for this year, while it consults on changes from April 2017.
21.As already noted, DECC states the intention that renewable heat will make a significant contribution to the target that 15% of energy consumption is to come from renewable sources by 2020. In response to our question about what contribution the RHI scheme was making to meeting the UK’s target, DECC has told us that it “track[s] an estimate of renewable heat produced as a result of the RHI. We are currently finalising the methodology for determining this from scheme data.” It is not at present able, however, to say what contribution is made by the RHI scheme. Given that the Domestic RHI scheme was launched two years ago, and the Non-domestic RHI scheme was launched more than four years ago, we find it surprising that the Department is unable to determine the extent to which the schemes contribute to the renewables target.
22.DECC is responsible for a number of policy initiatives and schemes in the areas of energy efficiency and renewable energy. The Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI) scheme is one of these for which, as for others, DECC relies extensively on complex secondary legislation to maintain and amend its implementation. While the Explanatory Memorandum to these Regulations is lengthy, it falls short, in our view, by failing to include key information, as set out above, and also by using terminology which tends to obscure rather than enlighten. We consider, therefore, that the explanatory material laid in support of these Regulations provides insufficient information to gain a clear understanding about the instrument’s policy objective and intended implementation.
1 The interim response can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/299897/farm-animal-interim-response.pdf.
2 See: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/486162/welfare-code-reform-consult-gov-resp-final.pdf.
3 Degression is a term for the progressive reduction in tariff levels.
4 Information about the scheme can be found at: http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/domestic/renewable-heat-incentive?gclid=CPXqgfnvtcsCFY4V0wod_FYNrQ.
5 The Renewable Heat Incentive Scheme Regulations 2011 (SI 2011/2860) and the Domestic Renewable Heat Incentive Scheme Regulations 2014 (SI 2014/928).