The Horse Industry (Hansard, 13 May 1999)

§ The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Donoughue)
My Lords, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has maintained its dialogue with the horse industry in respect of the department's responsibilities for animal health and welfare. Moreover, we have actively encouraged all parts of the industry to collaborate to promote the wider economic interests of the horse industry. The setting up of the British Horse Industry Confederation in early March this year was a major step in that direction, which I was able to welcome in a speech at the National Equine Forum on 25th March.

§ Baroness Wharton
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response. I also thank the Government for the steps they have taken to help set up the British Horse Industry Confederation. However, given the fact that over 100,000 people are employed in the industry and some 2.4 million people in this country ride, why has no government department accepted responsibility for the horse, particularly given MAFF's involvement now with the BHIC?

§ Lord Donoughue
My Lords, the short answer is because no department has been offered the responsibility or asked to take it. This is a complex area involving a whole network of departments. MAFF deals with some aspects of welfare and a lot of veterinary matters. The Home Office deals with the racing industry, which includes betting regulation and off-farm welfare. The Department of the Environment deals with rating and planning issues involving the horse industry and what might be called the "right to roam " of the horse. Customs and Excise are also involved. It is a complex area. The Government are actively concerned with this question and are looking to see whether they can resolve it. My impression is that the Prime Minister, for whom alone this is the decision, has had other matters to engage him of late.

§ Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior
My Lords, is the Minister aware of the concerns of the British Equine Veterinary Association and other bodies, such as the Federation of Veterinarians in Europe, that there is 1290 urgent need to review the regulations concerning the provision of equine medicines, both in this country and in the European Union?

§ Lord Donoughue
My Lords, we are aware of a number of concerns in this area, particularly relating to the European situation. I suspect that the noble Lord, with his great experience, has in mind the problems with the minimal residual levels and the 1990 directive which attempted to ensure that there were not veterinary products in food. Of course, on the continent the horse is seen as a food animal but here it has higher ambitions. We certainly do not want, for instance, our race horses to be prevented from using veterinary products, of which Bute is a prime example. We have been pressing this in Europe quite strongly. I assure the noble Lord that in 1990 we had a statement, but not entrenched, that Europe would be sympathetic to our position. The German presidency has submitted a paper on this matter. It has been considered by a working party which is looking at possibilities such as indelible marking of horses which are clearly not for eating. We hope that that will be discussed at next week's meeting of the Agriculture Council. We are still lighting hard for the British position and the position which our vets have so strongly argued to us.

§ Baroness Trumpington
My Lords, following on from the supplementary question of the noble Baroness, Lady Wharton, does the Minister agree that the horse concerns MAFF only if it can be eaten or worked'? Apart from that, the Ministry of Agriculture has absolutely no responsibility for the horse. Any of the ministries mentioned by the Minister could equally well have answered this Question. Does he agree that other European countries have ministers for horses? This surely is not a difficult matter for the Prime Minister to decide.

§ Lord Donoughue
My Lords, it is true that most other European countries which have a serious horse industry have ministers for the horse who, it so happens, are normally ministers for agriculture. That is a logical position. It is equally true that our problem is that the 1947 Act defined the agricultural horse as being one that works on the farm or is involved in food production. If it is not as defined in the Act, it is not treated as a horse in that way. These complex issues are being considered. I felt that the noble Baroness was going to ask why on earth I was answering the Question. I have to say that the same thought crosses my mind most times I am at the Dispatch Box!

§ Viscount Allenby of Megiddo
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the majority of cruelty cases have been dealt with under the 1911 Act, and that that Act is now in need of revision? Can he say what plans there are to revise that Act and, in particular, equine welfare matters?

§ Lord Donoughue
Yes, my Lords. The noble Lord raises an important issue. The International League for the Protection of Horses is one body which has been to see us. The concern is that the existing Act may be too narrow and requires waiting until there is terrible existing evidence of cruelty to horses before action can be taken.
1291 It is argued that it would be better if it were possible to take action to protect the horse where the behaviour of the owner or manager is such as to raise serious questions that cruelty would arise. That is being considered. However, that is a question for the Home Office, not for MAFF.

§ Lord Cope of Berkeley
My Lords, I have a non-financial interest to declare as the new confederation's representative on the horse and pony taxation committee. Like the Minister, I welcome the creation of the confederation. Whoever the proper Minister to answer the Question may be, I would welcome him. I am grateful to the noble Lord for the work he has done to help bring about the confederation. However, can the Minister say whether, like me, he was disappointed that from start to finish the rural England discussion document did not mention horses? That was a grave omission. Does the Minister think that there is any chance of that omission being remedied?

§ Lord Donoughue
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for reminding us about interests. Perhaps I should declare that I own a small, and certainly a rear, part of a very good jumper. However, on rural matters, it is true that our statement in March contained very little reference to horses. Indeed, it could be argued that the horse is a very important part of our rural economy and of rural society. I can assure the noble Lord that we intend to take it much wider. That statement, especially the parts relating to the right to roam and access, was about access on foot. We are considering legislation in the area of rights of way, including bridleways. We hope to produce a consultation paper next month and will look to legislation in the future. This is a very important issue. Indeed, the number of accidents on the roads involving horses amounts to anything up to eight per day. I believe it is most important for horse to have the same right of access to the countryside as human beings.