asked Her Majesty's Government:
Further to the Written Answer by Lord Rooker on 6 May (WA 50) concerning the Farriers' Qualification (European Recognition) Regulations 2008 (SI 2008/646), whether they consulted the United Kingdom farriers industry before introducing the regulations; and, if so, what were the results of that consultation.
A written consultation on these regulations was launched on
The consultation paper made it clear that we were not consulting on the principles underlying directive 2005/36/EC. Its main provisions had already been transposed by the European Communities (Recognition of Professional Qualifications) Regulations 2007 (SI 2007/2781) ("the DIUS regulations") and came into force on
The Farriers' Qualification (European Recognition) Regulations 2008 (SI 2008/646) amend the Farriers (Registration) Act 1975 to give full effect to the DIUS regulations and to provide for registration of providers of temporary farriery services so that the Farriers Registration Council can regulate them.
Concerns were raised during the consultation exercise that the directive's provisions, as concerns the freedom to provide services on a temporary and occasional basis, undermine the standards of farriery in the UK and threaten animal welfare. However, the provisions that determine whether a farrier from another EU member state is eligible to provide temporary services are covered by the DIUS regulations. DIUS consulted with the Farriers Registration Council on these regulations.
Regarding the Farriers Qualifications (European Recognition) Regulations, some concern was expressed about the value of registering temporary services providers because it was thought they could escape disciplinary proceedings in this country by returning to their home country or another EU country. However, the directive imposes an obligation on competent authorities to exchange information about disciplinary action taken with each other which provides a safeguard against this. The Farriers Registration Council agreed that registration of temporary providers of farriery was the most appropriate way of managing them.
In response to concerns raised, Defra explained that anything that stems from the wording of the directive is not amenable to mitigation, and cannot be changed. We also explained that the UK must transpose the directive in a way which is compatible with principles of EU law as derived from the treaty and case law of the European Court of Justice (ECJ).