Examination of Witnesses (Questions 40-59)
14 MAY 2003
MR ELLIOT
MORLEY MP AND
MS MANDY
BAILEY
Q40 Mr Wiggin: But you are not leaving
it.
Ms Bailey: The first point I would
like to make is in that respect it is not very different from
collection which knackers and renderers would undergo now in terms
of we would expect certainly large stock to be picked up within
24 hours. The idea of this is that there would be a central call
point and that they would quote their membership number, because
it would be done on a membership basis, and then they would be
allocated a local knacker or renderer to go and collect, and that
is how it would actually operate. It is a bit like the RAC.
Mr Morley: It is like a motoring
organisation!
Q41 Mr Wiggin: That is fine so when
I ring that number and say I have got a dead cow in such and such
a place, how do you know it is my cow and my farm if I am the
only member of the scheme?
Ms Bailey: By your number.
Q42 Mr Wiggin: I do not mind if I
am doing it for my neighbour, and that is why you are not getting
enough subscriptions.
Mr Morley: There are cattle passports,
thank goodness.
Ms Bailey: There would be cross-checks
within the administrative arrangements.
Q43 Mr Wiggin: But nothing will have
gone wrong. The cattle will have been disposed of properly and
the farmer will be able to account for the number and the fact
that they were disposed of properly, but that farmer who actually
owned the cattle would not have been the person who gave the number
to the scheme.
Mr Morley: But why would he not,
unless he was not paying the subscription?
Q44 Mr Wiggin: He would save £100.
Mr Morley: There are ways of cross-checking
on that. You can never say that people will not try to defraud
a system but, generally speaking, I think this is a very workable
system and, of course, if that was widespread the scheme would
not work and indeed it would be a sign that the scheme is got
going to go ahead.
Q45 Mr Jack: My constituent, Mr Tom
Fair (?), a pig farmer, would have some severe doubts about the
efficacy of your livestock database. Although you have said people
have written in and you have written round, it raises some fundamental
questions about how accurate this database is. When was it last
updated?
Mr Morley: We try to keep our
databases updated all the time. I know what you are alluding to
in the sense that we do not have statutory powers or any kind
of national agreement for the unsubsidised sector. It is something,
as I was saying, in our current Animal Health and Welfare Strategy
that we are trying to address. We do also have an Agricultural
Census to keep our databases up to date. The last one was 2002?
Ms Bailey: The last full census
was in 2000 and then there was a sample survey in 2002.
Q46 Mr Jack: Given the very point
that you have made about animal health and welfare and given that
we are well over a year away from the ending of foot and mouth
outbreak, do you not think you should have got an accurate livestock
database, supported or unsupported, sorted out by now because
how on earth, if there were to be a major disease outbreak, would
you know that your communication was getting through to the very
people that ought to hear from you?
Mr Morley: We do think it is accurate
in relation to the survey and, of course, the supported sector
have them all registered.
Q47 Mr Jack: My friend Mr Fair, the
pig farmer, rings me up and tells me that he wants to vote for
your scheme and he knows that others in my part of Lancashire
have not had this notification. Mr Fare is a zealous man wishing
to support your scheme and yet he is casting severe doubts over
the accuracy of your database.
Mr Morley: We think it is accurate.
If he is a member of the FAB Pigs scheme, he is part of the quality
assurance, and our SVS inspects the farms so we would have them
on a database. I know that not everyone is part of a quality assurance
scheme and I know that there are potential gaps, which is why
I am personally very keen on making sure that we have a much tighter
database system than at the present time.
Q48 Mr Jack: I personally would find
it very helpful if your Department could write to this Committee
and lay down in clear terms with a timetable when this database
is going to be as near accurate as human beings can make it.
Mr Morley: I am happy to do that
but I must stress that we have databases and we do have good records
in relation to livestock holdings. At the moment this is done
by DEFRA without any statutory responsibility or authority to
do so and I would like a tighter system.
Q49 Mr Jack: I think we would all
agree with that. Just for the record in conclusion, I would address
this question to Ms Bailey. You said a moment ago that this was
to be a UK-wide scheme, how much would it cost in your estimate
to run the UK-wide scheme once it is up and running? How much
do you expect the devolved assemblies, the Parliament in Scotland
and DEFRA to put in and how much are you looking for from farmers?
Ms Bailey: The estimated total
cost of the scheme on a UK-wide basis was calculated as just over
£50 million. That £50 million includes cattle and, as
the Minister has explained, there is already a collection system
for cattle for BSE testing purposes which takes up about £30
million of that £50-odd million money, so we were—
Q50 Mr Jack: So the extra bit we
are talking about is a nationwide £20 million scheme.
Ms Bailey: Around £20 million.
I have to say "around" because you must understand this
is based on estimates.
Mr Morley: The more that join
the lower the costs, of course.
Q51 Mr Jack: I appreciate that but
I want to hear this simple breakdown so I can get in perspective
the numbers that were given earlier. So £20 million is the
national number we are looking for, is that right?
Ms Bailey: That is correct. Therefore
we calculated the subscription rate that would be required to
raise a significant sum of money from the industry and we said—
Q52 Mr Jack: What do you mean by
"significant"?
Ms Bailey: Can I just say what
we said in terms of our contribution. DEFRA said that we (that
is covering England) would put in in the first year an additional
cost of up to £5 million. I say "up to" because
we were thinking that would depend on the number of subscriptions.
The devolved administrations also agreed to put in sums of money
and we therefore said—
Q53 Mr Jack: So what are those sums?
Ms Bailey: I am sorry, but I cannot
give you those exactly because that would need to be agreed by
Ministers.
Q54 Mr Jack: How do we know how much
farmers are supposed put in then?
Ms Bailey: Can I just finish the
story.
Q55 Diana Organ: Why should taxpayers
pay for it?
Ms Bailey: The devolved administrations
agreed to commit sums of money which would have brought the total
UK government commitment to somewhere in the region of £10
million.
Paddy Tipping: On top of the £30
million.
Q56 Mr Jack: Wales and Scotland we
can put down as £5 million?
Ms Bailey: I cannot tell you exactly
how much from the devolved administrations.
Mr Morley: They have only just
been elected.
Ms Bailey: We are waiting for
Ministers' approval in those administrations.
Mr Morley: We cannot speak for
them.
Q57 Mr Jack: I am trying to get an
idea.
Mr Morley: It is a very rough
idea.
Q58 Mr Jack: A rough idea of £5
million.
Mr Morley: As you will appreciate,
we cannot speak for the devolved administrations, they have to
agree that themselves.
Q59 Mr Jack: That leaves us, roughly
speaking, with £10 million to find from farmers. How much
have you got signed up so far cash wise?
Ms Bailey: I cannot give you the
figures for Wales and Scotland and Northern Ireland yet because
they are still working on the figures. The Welsh closing date
was later than the English closing date in terms of responding
to the letters. On the basis of the responses we have had so far
it would be in the order of about £2.7 million.
| 
