Page title

The welfare of animals during transport consultation on the implementation of EU regulation EC1/2005

3 August 2006

Thank you for the opportunity for FAWC to respond to this important consultation on the implementation of the provisions of EC1/2005. FAWC welcomes the significant advances being made in animal transportation issues through the Regulations, particularly the improvement in transport standards, authorisations, attendant competencies and the significant improvement in enforcement capability.

We propose responding in sequence to the questions posed but, before doing so in detail would wish to draw your attention to some very important implementation issues, coupled with what would appear to FAWC to be important omissions.

Firstly we believe that there is a distinct need for a very high level of harmonisation between England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland in implementing the EC Regulation’s detailed provisions. We would particularly highlight the need for a uniform approach to the determination of the various derogations allowed – it would be a nonsense for example for the 8 -12 hour derogation, and other potential derogations to be treated inconsistently within differing UK country boundaries.

The document is conspicuously silent in respect of journeys through markets / gatherings. FAWC would have expected the consultation to have addressed this issue and indicated how the Regulations would be interpreted and applied. FAWC would welcome an indication from DEFRA on how they propose to ensure that the overall welfare controls envisaged by the EC Regulation are met, whilst animals are temporarily held at a market / gathering. In respect of markets and gatherings we would refer you to the FAWC Report on Animal Gatherings published in 2005 (copy enclosed) which included a number of recommendations where markets / gatherings form an integral part, or interval, in the transportation process.

Whilst recognising that guidance is proposed on ‘economic activity’ it would be of great assistance if total clarity could be gained in this aspect, as this is a fundamental tenet of the controls. We cannot stress strongly enough that clarity is required to assist compliance advice and enforcement. Additionally the same must be said about the correlation between ‘commercial’ and ‘economic activities’. Are they the same? There is a need for consistency and a clear understanding of the terminology being utilised.

In respect of the guidance about registered horses, the footnote requires access to additional sources of information to ensure that the terms ‘registered’ and ‘unregistered’ are clear and that it is only those horses within the stud books of the various registration bodies that are exempt from some of the major controls – journey times, rest and feeding and watering, journey logs etc. Those same organisations might also run passport sections that do not grant the same status and hence have no relevance. It is important that full details are provided of those organisations that comply with EC90/426 and EC90/427, i.e. those that hold registrations through stud-books as compared to those that merely ‘passport’. The Internet would seem an ideal medium for this purpose.

FAWC have concerns that the consultation refers to a neutral impact on enforcement. Whilst it is accepted that compliance can be improved by the very provisions of the Regulations, that inspection and enforcement can be targeted, be risk based and outcomes proportionate, we are of the view that these provisions, which are high profile in nature, will require additional enforcement / inspection input and resources, at least in the short term and probably in the longer term. Legislation, however well made, does not necessarily bring acceptance and / or compliance.

It has been drawn to our attention that laboratory animals (specifically small rodents and rabbits) are transported both within the UK and Europe and we would simply raise the question of consideration of this type of animal transportation within the new Regulations, together with supporting guidance. Such research animals would not appear to be outwith these particular controls and we would ask if specific guidance is available or will be made available for protecting those and any other animal species transported for laboratory use.

Our detailed comment on the particular questions raised in the consultation documents are as follows:

Section 2 – Scope

Q1. Is the guidance proposed on scope clear? Do you wish to recommend any changes?

Q2. In particular, are there other exemptions that need to be highlighted in the guidance at paragraph 2.11?

We would comment as follows on Q1 and Q2:

• What precisely is ‘economic activity’ (please refer to earlier comments).

• Some of the worked examples would appear to satisfy the principle of ‘indirect gain’ – or is the consideration all about financial ‘gain’ in transport and not the activity to which transport gives access. Neither is transparent from the ranges given - inclusion and exclusion ranges include examples of both types.

• One of, the major activity issues will centre around the transportation of horses, but transportation of companion animals should not be forgotten.

• Are movements of animals by charities and animal sanctuaries caught by the Regulations, i.e. are these, ‘economic activities? One could reasonably argue that charities are engaged in economic activity albeit not for profit or financial gain.

• Suggest guidance is formalised by species;

• Para 2.3 – what is meant by ‘veterinary advice’. We would suggest prior contact as a minimum, perhaps even examination, so that the veterinarian is aware that the animal is being transported, to their premises, for attention by them. To aid enforcement and compliance this must be made clear in guidance.

• Para 2.3 – clarity on ‘seasonal stock movement’ is needed.

• Para 2.5 – 2.8 – see headline comments above.

• Para 2.9 – clarity on ‘professional horse racers’ is needed.

• Pigeons – are racing / homing pigeons economic activities?

• What is the legal situation with regard to cash prizes? Are they not an ‘indirect economic activity’?

• Guidance will need to make clear the difference between the pet owner who breeds from their own animals and the pet breeder, both may result in ‘economic activity’.

• Para 2.12 – appears to refer to journeys of under 50k whilst in reality all journeys, whether in fact subject to maximum journey times or exempt from maximum journey times e.g. registered horses, are all constrained by the provision to keep transport to a minimum and cause transport to be undertaken ‘without delay’.

Section 3 - Transporters Authorisations

Q3. Do you agree with the proposals relating to self-declaration and checks on compliance with welfare rules from 5 January 2007? If not, what would you propose?

We would comment as follows on Transporters’ Authorisations:

• Para 3.1 – interpretation of a journey i.e. does transport include loading and unloading or other processes that are part of the transport process (e.g. the crating of poultry within poultry sheds as the precursor to later transport) or when the vehicle literally moves. Definitions with EC1/2005 appear contradictory in this respect – clear guidance is therefore required on the provisions, possibly by species. It is noticed that the draft guidance (construction and use) for livestock and poultry vary in this respect.

• We would repeat our comments made previously about how the 8 hour limit will be applied when journeys are made through markets or gatherings.

• Para 3.4 – there is a need for one comprehensive transporters database, including Northern Ireland.

• Para 3.8 – False declarations are offences and guidance should be explicit in saying so.

• Para 3.8 – Random checks are unsatisfactory. Positive, targeted checks should be made on applications based on all available data, e.g. prosecution and AMES database. This should ensure that authorisations are correct from day one and prevent any requirement to suspend or revoke at a later date, when such actions are always difficult to action. This should certainly be a minimum requirement for long distance authorisations.

• There remains a need for a robust suspension and revocation process that will be utilised when necessary.

Q4. Do you agree with the proposals relating to vehicle approval, self-declarations and checks on compliance with welfare rules as regards GPS and contingency planning, from 5 January 2007? If not, what would you propose?

Q5. Is there anything you would add to the declarations?

Q6. Do you agree with the proposed method of handling the requirements relating to certificates of competence, between 5 January 2007 and 5 January 2008? If not, what would you propose?

Q7. Do you agree that in the absence of an agreed EU wide navigation system, the UK should not recommend the use of any particular systems at this time?

We would comment as follows regarding long journey authorisations:

• Para 3.9a - Timing of authorisation submissions to coincide with vehicle approval facilities and certification documents, how will this be managed?

• Para 3.9b – GPS System only applies to new vehicles first used after 1/1/07 otherwise GPS is not a requirement until 1/1/09. Working mobile ‘phones should not be a problem in this day and age.

• Para 3.9c – Whilst we understand the principles it will be difficult to write a comprehensive and robust plan. Equally problematic will be the basis for any judgement on how suitable that plan might or might not be.

• Para 3.9d – If it is necessary for new applications after 2008 to supply certificates of competence then those applying before that date should be required to also send the relevant certificate when it becomes available or before 2008, otherwise the authorising body will have no competence certificates for some authorised transporters until due for renewal after 5 years. Confirmation of examined competence or otherwise would be formally available to enforcement bodies and would support the requirement to carry such certification during transportation.

Q8. Do you agree with the phased and prioritised approach to authorisations? If not, what would you propose?

Q9. Do you have views on charging for these authorisations?

• Para 3.10 – SVS is the right authority to deal with authorisations (they comply with Data Protection and Freedom of Information Acts). See comments above regarding applications and the positive checking of applications in respect of prosecution history.

• Para 3.10, 3.11, 3.17 – databases must be updated.

• Para 3.12 – authorisations for a period up to 5 years is sufficient.

Q10. Do you agree that authorisations should be mode of transport specific?

Q11. Do you agree that authorisations should be issued covering all species, but that species specific or limited authorisations should be available?

Q12. If not, how would you propose balancing proportionality of the prospect of removing an authorisation, when the offence may only relate to one species?

We would comment as follows:

• We would agree that authorisations should be by mode of transport and issued either for all species or be species specific dependent on the nature of the business of the applicant. We are of the view that whether applications are for single or multiple species this should only attract a single fixed fee.

• There is some concern that authorisations will spawn another range of references for businesses, it is apparent that wherever possible registration numbers should at least be cross referenced to the current CPH (County. Parish Holding no.) system if that is relevant to the applicant.

• Q12 - Offences that are considered for removal of authorisation would either be serious in nature as a one off, or through multiple breaches in which case removal / suspension of all authorisations is proportionate. A new authorisation could then be demanded which would be subject to all authorisation criteria tests.

Q13. Do you agree with the proposal to make transporter names and authorisations available to would-be consignees? If not, what would you propose and why?

• Para 3.17 – is an absolute must for administrative and enforcement purposes;

• Para 3.18 – As third parties must only use authorised transporters such information must be available – the, Internet would be the obvious place, particularly in respect of long journey transporters. Data protection issues could be easily accommodated by a simple question on the application form. Whether these would be capable of extending to all authorised transporters remains a major question. Details on the Internet should not necessarily embarrass any publishing organisation – simply a statement that a transporters has been authorised, amongst many others, through a designated system.

Section 4 - Road vehicle (and container) approval.

Q14. Do you have any information on the number of vehicles and containers that will be affected by the requirement for inspection and approval relating to the different sectors, including those outside farming (e.g. horses, zoos and the pet trade)?

• We are not in a position to provide any verifiable data in respect of vehicles and containers that will be affected by these proposals.

Q15. Are you content with the proposal that vehicle inspection and approval be carried out by any body that can demonstrate its capability and competence to deliver through accreditation with UKAS?

Q16. Do you agree that, in addition to UKAS approved non-public bodies, that it is prudent also to give a statutory body such as the SVS, the power to approve vehicles?

Q17. Are you content with these principles outlined in paragraph 4.14 for a vehicle approval scheme? If not, what would you propose?

Comments:

• Q15 – Yes – We see no reason why vehicle inspection and approval cannot be undertaken in the proposed manner. Accreditation should ensure that any number of organisations will be available to satisfy the need and that they are all working to an approved, certified and verified process.

• Q16 – We have some reservations here. If SVS are to undertake this role (even in remote areas etc.) we are of the view that the same accreditation system should equally apply, otherwise there are other groups who might be as equally well placed to carry out the designated role.

• Consideration should be given to ensure that particular expertise is available for example for horseboxes and in addition other exotic species.

Q18. Are you content with requirements described in paragraph 4.15 for a vehicle approval scheme?

Q19. Do you have any information on the costs and benefits associated with vehicle inspection and approval?

Q20. Would you like to be kept informed about the vehicle approval scheme and the guidance in preparation?

• We would recommend that approval certificates should only be valid for 3 years, a lot can happen to vehicles in 5 years.

• We believe that 30 days to enter details on database is far too long, enforcement and compliance would be more effective and better assisted if this requirement were reduced to 7 days.

• We are not able to provide any verifiable cost data in respect of vehicle inspection and approvals.

• We would be grateful to be kept informed of developments in this very important area of implementation.

Section 5 – Derogations for vehicles on road journeys between 8-12 hours

Q21. Do you agree with the rationale for granting derogations (paragraphs 5.3 and 5.5)?

Q22. Do you agree with the derogations proposed (paragraph 5.4)? If not, what evidence can you supply to refute the rationale?

Q23. Do you agree with the costs assessment and consequent reduction if these derogations are granted (paragraph 5.6)?

Comments:

• Q21 – Yes.

• Q22 – Yes, certainly needs to be the case for younger animals, even though some such journeys will already be excluded on the basis of minimum age. We have reservations in respect of over heating and how vehicles’ temperatures can be controlled to ensure that over heating does not take place.

• Q23 – We have not considered this issue at this particular time.

Q24. Do you support the principle that all vehicles used to transport animals over 8 hr should be inspected and approved?

Q25. Do you think there is a case for derogating from this requirement for UK journeys between 8-12 hrs?

Q26. Are there particular industry sectors affected that should be granted a derogation as opposed to others?

Q27. Do you think derogations (or the current requirements) will pose any difficulties in terms of enforcement?

Q28. What welfare benefits will ensue from approval?

Q29. Do you support or oppose any further derogations available (outlined in the table in Section 5.8)?

We would comment as follows:

• Q24 / 25 / 26 – Yes – we do not see that there is any difference in welfare terms to an animal transported for more than 8 hours within the UK to those transported within the EU or to third countries.

• Q25 / 26 – The inspection protocol for vehicles being approved for over 8 hours but under 12 hours and the specific species can accommodate more minor variations and derogations, whilst still ensuring the vehicle has been inspected as fit for purpose.

• Q27 – Yes, variables within the law always create elements of doubt as to any provisions that should apply.

• Q28 – All vehicles utilised for journeys over 8 hours will have to comply with the same construction standards and accord to the same prescriptions in relation to on-board facilities for the transport of animals whether for over 8 hour journeys within the UK or intra-community trade or export. Journeys across the channel could well take a lesser time than journeys contained within UK.

• Q29 –

  • Roof: A managed ventilation / temperature control system would have a greater effect on welfare than a light coloured roof. However, since heat stress is a major concern a light coloured roof potentially provides a benefit. There could be issues with interpretation, but we would suggest that clear guidance to both operators and enforcers can avoid variable compliance or enforcement. We see no reason why guidance cannot go as far as recommending colours and shades that would satisfy the requirement.

  • Bedding / Feed / Feed Equipment: No need to derogate.

  • Water: No need to derogate, but it is suggested that instead of looking totally at inputs, which are variously technical in nature that the legislation should affect both inputs and outcomes for the animal(s) being transported.

  • Ventilation: Lower end derogation would appear acceptable in the short term for UK journeys. Useful information can be gleaned by the implementation of the requirements to long journeys that can then be implemented at a later date if and where necessary to shorter journeys.

  • Partitions: No need to derogate, whilst some issues are new, this should be capable of being dealt with via appropriate guidance and information to operators and enforcers.

  • Young Animals / Unbroken Horses: No need to derogate, provisions are required in strict welfare terms.

Section 6 - Travel documentation & sea transport

Q30. Do you agree the retention period for ATCs should remain and unchanged?

Q31. Do you agree that Animal Movement Licences should be amended to include journey duration?

General comments to consider:

• Para 6.4 - we are of the view that six months retention is insufficient for traceability and enforcement purposes.

• There is concern that an ATC as proposed does not go far enough in identifying the actual animals. We would agree that journey duration is worthwhile data.

• We consider that the current system of loose-leaf documentation such as AMLS is not robust enough in maintaining traceability in records for whatever retention period decided. Loose documents are easily lost or misplaced. A continuous permanent record does however satisfy that necessary traceability requirement.

• Should format not be species specific particularly in respect of horses?

Q32. Do you agree with the proposal to require the keeper checks the transporters documentation at the place of departure?

Q33. Do you think the proposal relating to adding information on records retention & office checks is helpful?

Q34. Do you agree that as far as practicable the current route plan procedure should be retained following the introduction of Journey Logs? In particular, the 10 day notification period?

Comments:

• Q32 / 33 -We would support both proposals as they provide a tangible reminder to animal keepers as to their responsibilities, a useful procedural check at the outset of the journey and spreads the net wider for actions on non- compliance.

• Q34 – We fully support the current procedure method – and suggest that 10 days is a realistic time for the important data checks to be made on both transporters and animals and ensure that arrangements can be put in place to ensure examination / inspection of the animals before loading and consignment.

Section 7 - Training and competence certification of drivers of livestock vehicles and attendants.

Q35. Do you agree that satisfactory certification of the competence of transporters and attendants, is best achieved by offering both the above options?

Comments:

• We would support a two-tier system, with the higher need emphasised on drivers and attendants for long journeys. It is however necessary to ensure that those undertaking journeys over 65km but under 8 hours are equally placed to undertake that task effectively by at least linking theory with essential practice in whatever learning and competence module is brought forward. Practical competency should test out all of the issues that will arise in preparation, loading, transporting and unloading animals from a means of transport and those problems that may arise during such activities.

• Insisting at this stage that all those over 65k need practical assessment will simply produce process overload. Suggest following options:-

  • Anyone who has passed the theory and then has enforcement action brought on them clearly has not ‘got the message’ and must be required to go through the practical test (just like speed enforcement workshops) or

  • Practical test to be required only for those who transport other peoples animals on the basis that if you own the animal you should be less likely to cause ‘damage’ to or ‘neglect’ your own property.

Section 8A – Consequential amendments

We have no comments on this section - all seem perfectly logical.

Section 8B – Revocation / Retention of National Welfare Rules

Q36. Are you content with what we propose in terms of consolidation and revocation?

Q37. Do you agree that we should retain parts of WATO that are relevant to journeys not covered by EU Regulation?

We would comment as follows:

• The issues of ramps and compartments etc are important elements of transport, it appears to us a backward step in not having ramp gate heights and maximum compartment sizes within vehicles when the stocking density rules are extremely complicated. Gate height and compartment sizes provided a recognisable datum mark that is understood in practice – stocking densities are vague and a lot harder to understand in practice. Guidance, whilst beneficial will leave areas of doubt and mean that unnecessary suffering or similar will be the test as distinct from legal best practice application.

• DEFRA will need to give clear guidance with regard to the measurement of ramp angles as the Regulation does confuse. It is likely that significant numbers of vehicles may be non-compliant when loaded from the floor, some appropriate ‘fixes’ would be helpful.

Section 9 – Enforcement, etc

Q38. Do you agree with the way forward outlined for enforcement, if not what additional measures would you like to see and why?

We fully support the current arrangements within respect to enforcement, i.e. the statutory enforcers supplemented by welfare charities such as RSPCA. FAWC sees no sense in changing these arrangements at this time. We are aware however of the Better Regulation agenda, the Hampton review and the current review in respect of the ‘Animal Health and Welfare Delivery Landscape’ and of course have had a sight of the very recent report from ‘David Eves CB’ that considers the ‘delivery’ topic and recommends both short and long term solutions to the ‘enforcement issues’.

Once again, like the Welfare Bill consultation, the paper refers to a neutral impact in respect of enforcement – and whilst it is accepted that compliance can be improved by the very provisions of the Regulations, that inspection and enforcement can be targeted and risk based and outcomes proportionate, we are of the view that these provisions, which are high profile in nature, will require additional enforcement / inspection input and resources, at least in the short term and probably in the longer term. Again, legislation however well made does not necessarily bring compliance.

Q39. Are there any issues of concern should a system based on the above be introduced – if so please specify?

Q40. Do you agree that no appeal mechanism is required for vehicle approval?

Section 10 – Guidance and Publicity Arrangements

Q41. We wish to provide guidance that can be easily used. How can the new guidance be best structured?

Q42. Can you suggest alternative or additional distribution routes? Are there other Government Departments of DEFRA agencies that you have contact with?

Q43. Do you have any evidence contrary to the Farm Practices Survey to suggest that a significant proportion of farmers would find the over 8hr leaflet helpful?

Q44. For the non-farmed sectors, can you suggest any alternative approaches to get the message across to your members?

Q45. What type of guidance would you find particularly helpful?

• In addition to sector specific, species specific guidance and publicity is required for the principal species, particularly livestock, horses and poultry, but additionally as wide as possible for example exotic species where different requirements apply.

• We would agree that because of the different rules and requirements, journey category, is a clear basis on which to make guidance available as is the additional requirements for construction, sea vessels and roll-on-roll-off ferries, rail and air and of course any particular enforcement issues.

We trust that FAWC’s comments will be of value as you bring forward implementation of EC1/2005. For our part we would welcome any feedback and offer any additional assistance that would aid that process. We would request, in particular, a specific response on how market / gatherings will fit into the new legal framework.

Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC)