The
Committee consisted of the following
Members:
Chairman:
Mrs.
Joan
Humble
Betts,
Mr. Clive
(Sheffield, Attercliffe)
(Lab)
Bradshaw,
Mr. Ben
(Minister for Local Environment, Marine and
Animal
Welfare)
Cooper,
Rosie
(West Lancashire)
(Lab)
Cox,
Mr. Geoffrey
(Torridge and West Devon)
(Con)
Ennis,
Jeff
(Barnsley, East and Mexborough)
(Lab)
Godsiff,
Mr. Roger
(Birmingham, Sparkbrook and Small Heath)
(Lab)
Goodwill,
Mr. Robert
(Scarborough and Whitby)
(Con)
Huhne,
Chris
(Eastleigh)
(LD)
Jenkin,
Mr. Bernard
(North Essex)
(Con)
Owen,
Albert
(Ynys Môn)
(Lab)
Paice,
Mr. James
(South-East Cambridgeshire)
(Con)
Pritchard,
Mark
(The Wrekin)
(Con)
Smith,
John
(Vale of Glamorgan)
(Lab)
Stringer,
Graham
(Manchester, Blackley)
(Lab)
Turner,
Mr. Neil
(Wigan)
(Lab)
Watts,
Mr. Dave
(Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's
Treasury)
Williams,
Mr. Roger
(Brecon and Radnorshire)
(LD)
Glenn
McKee, Sara Howe, Committee
Clerks
attended the Committee
Second
Delegated Legislation
Committee
Tuesday 22 May
2007
[Mrs.
Joan Humble
in the
Chair]
Cattle Identification Regulations 2007
4.30
pm
Mr.
James Paice (South-East Cambridgeshire) (Con): I beg to
move,
That the
Committee has considered the Cattle Identification Regulations 2007
(S.I. 2007, No.
529).
We did not pray
against this statutory instrument as a matter of principle. Clearly,
cattle identification is, as some people might say, a bit of a
no-brainer, given the problems that we faced with bovine spongiform
encephalopathy and then foot and mouth disease. It is essential to have
an effective system of identifying and tracing our bovine population.
The principle is right, and I am sure that the Minister will be anxious
to point out that the statutory instrument consolidates and revokes a
number of other statutory instruments and regulations, and is welcome.
However, it provides a good opportunity to discuss a number of issues
that have been raised with meI am slightly surprised to learn
that they have not been raised directly with the Governmenton
the basis of many anecdotal stories, which are nevertheless
important.
Before
addressing the specific issues, we must understand the fundamental
point that I have just mentioned: the purpose of requiring cattle to
have passports and identity tags is to know precisely where they are at
any particular point and to be able to trace them back if there are
problems with disease and so on, whether they arise when the cattle are
alive or in an abattoir. It is important that that fundamental
principle, about which there is no dispute, is not obscured or
jeopardised by what some people might describe as petty
authoritarianism by those who enforce the regulations. The issues that
I want to raise with the Minister relate to problems that have arisen
on farms and in some cases at abattoirs, involving those who enforce
the regulations and sometimes penalise
farmers.
The first,
fairly general point was raised with me by the National Farmers Union,
so I am slightly puzzled that the Minister has not heard about it
because I am assured that it was raised as part of the consultation. It
concerns the quality of ear tags. It is now some time since the form of
ear tagsto which paragraph 2 of schedule 1 to the regulations
referswas approved. It is important that the Government
periodically reassess those tags, not just to ensure that the logos and
numbers are right and that the computer systems backing up the records
are in place, but to ensure quality. A major problem facing farmers is
cattle that lose their tags. Ensuring that tags are durable is
important, and I hope that the Minister accepts the need for regular
checking and review of the quality standards of tags to ensure that
retention is
maximised.
My second
point relates to replacement tags, particularly when cattle lose them.
Farmers are given
28 days from the date of discovery to replace the tag. Obviously, the
date of discovery relates to when the loss was noticed, which may be a
few hours later or considerably longer, depending on how often the
cattle are caught. When they are out grazing, it might take much longer
to notice the loss than when they are in yards and farmers are in
closer proximity to them.
I am sorry, Mrs.
Humble, I omitted to declare that I possess a few cattle. That is
declared in the Register of Members Interests, but I should
have reminded the
Committee.
If cattle
have particularly long hair, it is often difficult to see whether they
have a tag without catching and examining them. The 28-day period is
fine, and I have no dispute with it. Then, however, we come to the
issue of cross-compliance under the single farm payment system. That
then brings in the issue of proportionality, which, again, I am told
that the NFU has raised with the Department for Environment, Food and
Rural Affairs. A small farm with a relatively small number of cattle
may have lost a few tags or even one per animalI am not
suggesting that an animal is not identifiablebut that will
represent a huge proportion. If the same number of animalssay,
three or fourare short of a tag in a herd of 50 or 100, that
will represent a much smaller proportion. However, the penalty imposed
under the single farm payment system and the cross-compliance rules
will be dramatically higher for the smaller herd, even though the same
number of animals may be without a tag.
I referred to
animals missing one tag, and that is at the root of the
problemit was what I was getting at when I talked about the
fundamental purpose of the regulations. If an animal still has one tag,
it is, frankly, identifiedthere can be no dispute about that.
Although animals are required by regulation to have two tags, it
damages the whole cause to persecute a farmer because an animal has
only one or because tags have not been replaced on time, with
over-zealous inspectors rejecting animals that have only one tag. If an
animal has one tag, the purpose is still met, because the animal is
identifiable and traceable, and I hope that the Minister will agree
that inspectors should accept an element of common sense and
proportionality in imposing penalties if they find that the regulations
have been breached in the letter, but not the objectivein other
words, when an animal is identifiable and traceable.
The next issue relates to the
rule requiring animals to be tagged within 20 days of birth. Although I
do not suggest that the Minister has responsibility for Scotland, I
want to ask him about the situation there because the English and
Scottish farming press said last week that the Scottish NFU had come to
an agreement with the British Cattle Movement Service. Under the
agreement, the 20-day rule may occasionally be flexible where there is
a risk of injury to owners or herdsmen, particularly of suckler calves,
who are trying to tag an animal. There have been a couple of tragedies
in Scotland, where farmers and herdsmen have been killed by irate
mothers while trying to tag a cow. The proposed concession has
therefore been introduced, and I hope that the Minister can tell us
that it will also apply in England.
That leads me
on to the issue of the 27-day period for the registration of ear tag
numbers with the BCMS and, therefore, for passport requests. I can
guarantee that I
am not the only MP to whom constituents have complained about passport
applications for some of their animals being rejectedin other
words, the animals have, I suppose, become non-animalsbecause
they were received after the 27-day period or, in some cases, not at
all. It is easy to say, as the BCMS does, Well, its
your responsibility. You should have sent it by registered
post. Again, however, that seems like the sort of heavy-handed
bureaucracy that damages the objective behind what we are trying to
achieve.
Mr.
Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con): In one
case that came to my attention, the farmers wife had been given
the form early, but forgot to post it when she got to the post office.
It was left in the car for three weeks and did not get posted, even
though the farmer had filled it in correctly. That is the sort of
mistake that we all make in moments of absent-mindedness, and I am sure
that the farmer should not be penalised. The farmer is perhaps also
tempted to register twins when the next cow calves, which would go
against the objective of having animals
identified.
Mr.
Paice:
My hon. Friend is right. I know of forms that have
accidentally not been posted or that were not received by BCMS despite
people swearing that they have posted them. I referred to my own
interest, and, to be honest, I do my forms on the net and have never
had a problem. However, I am a small producer who registers only one or
two a year.
The
principle to which my hon. Friend refers is right. When this House
introduces any form of regulation, we must examine the issue of
compliance and enforcement, and whether or not the unscrupulous
individual can find a way round it. He has put his finger on the
temptation to be deceitful or dishonest, whatever one cares to call it,
by next time registering twins, even though the animals may have been
born at different timeswho is to know, because after a little
while these things blur?
That is a problem, which is why
I return to the need for flexibility on the 27-day period. I suspect
that the Minister will tell the Committee that this is laid down in
black and white in European legislation and that the Government do not
have any flexibility. I beg to differ. I believe that, within sensible
limits, the BCMS could adopt an element of flexibility in what it does
and does not accept. I am not suggesting that it could accept a
registration six months later, but where there are apparently genuine
reasons for a delay in registration, it should accept them.
I come to the question of
localised movement. I am trying not to stray too far from the motion,
but let us consider sheep. I believe that sheep producers are able to
move sheep within five miles of their base without a panoply of rules
and regulations applying. Such producers simply have to make a more
general declaration.
This is the time of year when
large numbers of cattle are going out to rented grazing, where the land
may not be owned by the owner of the cattle. He has to go through all
the rules and regulations involved in informing BCMS about every
animal, because the regulations are clear in respect of different
holdings.
Again, that seems highly bureaucratic. There should be a way of finding
flexibility in the system, particularly in regard to the immediate
locality.
The six-day
movement rule has been raised with me on several occasions, both by
colleagues who have livestock markets and by farmers and operators of
markets on my frequent visits to them, so I want to raise it with the
Minister. It means that one is not allowed to move animals back into a
market within six days of their being in that market or in any market.
If I have the rules right, it also means that one is not allowed to
move animals on to a farm within six days of others moving on to it.
Again, the point that has been raised with me is that the system is
inflexible and causes many problems. I confess that I understand the
reasons for it, but I would be grateful if the Minister would address
that.
The penultimate
issue that I want to touch on is the Dobbin case, about which the
Minister and I had a brief conversation in another place this morning.
I know that the case is subject to a High Court judgment, so I do not
want to go into the detail. The reports are that although a large
number of animals clearly were not properly tagged, that number did not
constitute the whole herd. The implication is that DEFRA required the
compulsory slaughter of animals that were properly tagged, given that
the whole herd had to be slaughtered. I hope that, within the rules of
sub judice, the Minister will feel able to assure us that whatever the
rights and wrongs of the case generally, there is no justification in
slaughtering an animal that is properly tagged and traceable with a
passport.
That brings
us back to the flexibility of the 27-day rule. If a person finds that
their animal has not been registered within 27 days, it becomes a
non-animal and valueless to the owner. It cannot be sold, so either he
shoots it and buries it quietly without telling anybodythat is
wrong, but one can understand the temptationor it is lost from
the food chain. It is 11 years since the date at which animals were
last kept out of the food chain; pre-1996 births are out of it. It
therefore seems somewhat over the top to continue to keep them out just
because they do not have a
tag.
My final point is
on appeals. When the Government consulted on the regulations, there was
considerable discussion about an appeals mechanism. Indeed, the
Cattle Keepers Handbook, published by the BCMS,
refers to an appeals system, including the use of DNA to prove the link
between a calf and its motherits alleged dam. There is nothing
in the regulations to allow for an appeals mechanism, and if one does
exist I am at a loss to understand why it does not appear. One would
have thought that if there is an appeals mechanism, as there appears to
be, it should be laid down in statute so that it is obligatory and its
conclusions must be applied. Will the Minister explain why, to my best
examination, there is no reference to such a mechanism? That seems
important.
I am
grateful to the Government for arranging for the debate. I apologise if
I have produced a list of issues, but they have all been raised with me
and, as we have heard, at least some of them with other hon. Members.
They need to be addressed, as they have in common the fact that they
could bring the sensible objectives behind the regulations into
disrepute and, in some cases, ridicule. I am sure that none of us want
that, given that we want proper traceability of our cattle for the
reasons that I have given. I hope that the Minister will respond to my
points and I am sure that, if he cannot, he will be courteous enough to
write to me. I hope that he will seek to answer them in the spirit in
which I have raised
them.
4.48
pm
Mr.
Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD): I apologise
to you, Mrs. Humble, and to other hon. Members for being
late for the start of our proceedings. I was attempting to be called to
speak in respect of the statement on Remploy in the Chamber, but
unfortunately time was too
short.
I wish to raise
with the Minister a number of the issues that the hon. Member for
South-East Cambridgeshire raised. First, however, I should like to pay
a compliment in respect of a number of the changes in the regulations,
and particularly the reduction in the cost of replacing lost passports.
That has been an issue for a number of people, with some passports lost
in the post and some applicants claiming never to have received them.
Although interventions by Members of Parliament have occasionally
enabled such passports to be replaced without cost, cattle owners have
sometimes had to pay large costs of £50 a passport for
replacements. Sometimes the loss has occurred in unfortunate
circumstances such as fires, robbery or theft from offices. The
regulations make a real move forward in that
respect.
On balance,
doing away with the temporary calf passport is a good thing, because it
has been the cause of a number of late applications. The rate of late
applications for temporary calf passports is 1.4 per cent., whereas the
rate for the ordinary type of passport is less than 0.5 per
cent.
On late
registration, we still have difficult cases. One that I encountered
involved a person who had sent a number of applications off in one
envelope, and when it arrived at BCMS it was returned because it was 1p
short of the required postage. It was then sent by Royal Mail to
somewhere in Ireland that deals with packages without the correct
postage. It was some six weeks before it got through the system and
back to the applicant. I am pleased to say that that case had a happy
outcome, but it has caused a huge amount of stress and consideration
for the person involved.
Like the hon.
Member for South-East Cambridgeshire, I should declare an interest in
that I am a cattle keeper, although I keep those cattle in Wales and
the regulations apply only in England. However, I am sure that similar
measures will be put forward by the Welsh Assembly when it gets around
to forming a Governmentsomething that is occupying a number of
us at the moment.
A
great number of tags are lost. Not only is that an inconvenience, with
the possibility of cross-compliance problems, but it has a cost. A
replacement tag can cost £4 or £5, and people often lose
80 or 90 per cent. of their large plastic tags in the lifetime of an
animal. Any help that the Minister can give to encourage the
manufacturers of the tags to make them more resilient and maintainable
over the lifetime of the animal would bring him great credit with the
farming community.
The last issue raised by the hon.
Gentleman was the six-day movement rule. I remember that immediately
after foot and mouth, a 20-day movement rule was introduced. The
cost-benefit analysis of that measure pointed to the fact that its cost
and inconvenience were disproportionate to its benefit. With the
improved circumstances in biosecurity, would this be an opportune
moment to carry out a cost-benefit analysis of the six-day movement
rule, to see whether its cost is proportionate to any
benefits?
4.53
pm
The
Minister for Local Environment, Marine and Animal Welfare
(Mr. Ben Bradshaw):
I am grateful to the hon.
Member for South-East Cambridgeshire for prompting the debate through
his and his colleagues early-day motion and their prayer
against the regulations. I am grateful, too, for his clarification that
it is not so much that he is opposed to the consolidation of the
regulations or the principle but that he desires to have a discussion
about some of the other issues to do with cattle identification of
which he became aware after they were raised by members of the public
or farming
organisations.
I
appreciate the hon. Gentlemans comments that the regulations
are important. They are an important part of animal, and potentially
human, disease control, given the history of bovine spongiform
encephalopathy and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. They are also important
to the economic success and future of our cattle industry because of
their critical role in helping to persuade the EU Commission at long
lastlast year, or maybe even the year beforeto lift the
beef export ban.
I
agree with the hon. Gentleman that the regulations are a no-brainer and
I appreciate his recognition that contrary to popular misconception
about Government regulation, this is another example where we have got
rid of nine pieces of regulation and consolidated them into one. I hope
that hon. Members of all parties will appreciate that that is a good
thing.
Mr.
Paice:
The Minister is gracious enough to acknowledge that
I have recognised that, but I would not want him to get too carried
away with the idea that I think that the Government are
overdoing deregulation. An answer given by Lord Rooker, the Minister
for Sustainable Farming and Food, to my noble Friend Baroness Byford
states that
the
department does not have a central database of revoked regulations or
which identifies those that are updated
regulations.[Official Report, House of Lords, 15
May 2007; Vol. 692, c. WA20.]
The
Government continue to tell us that they are reducing the burden of
regulation, but I am not sure how they know, because they do not know
how many regulations they have revoked.
Mr.
Bradshaw:
In the context of both this debate and those on
the Animal Welfare Act 2006, I am confident that I have been
responsible for revoking more regulations than I have been responsible
for introducing. I will see whether I can get the figures for the hon.
Gentleman; I am sure that he would be interested to see them.
The hon. Gentleman went to say
that he was worried about the examples of petty authoritarianism that
he
had come across. I would be interested to see any examples that he may
care to pass on, be they from constituents, interested individuals or
farming organisations. My officials assure me that no representations
have been made to the Government about these particular regulations.
Concerns have been raised on more general issues of cattle
identification, but the regulations have been warmly welcomed by the
industry for the reasons that the hon. Member for Brecon and
Radnorshire outlined.
Similarly, contrary to what the
hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire saidmy officials
assure me of this, but I shall go back and checkthe issue of
the quality of ear tags was not raised during the consultation.
However, we require that the quality of ear tags be approved by
Government and that they are compliant with international standards of
quality. The BCMS is due to write to manufacturers next month to remind
them of the need to adhere to those obligations, which I hope will go
some way to reassure the hon. Gentleman about our commitment to
quality. The reason why two tags will be required is that the animal
will still be identifiable if one is lost. If both tags are lost, the
farmer will have a much bigger problem. There should be a strong
incentive for farmers to ensure that there are two tags and to replace
missing tags
quickly.
Animals being
rejected for human consumption at slaughter because they have only one
tag is an issue of substance. We have taken it up with the Food
Standards Agency, which, through the Meat Hygiene Service, is
responsible for implementing the measure at slaughterhouses. We will
issue through those organisations renewed guidance to make it clear to
official veterinaries at slaughterhouses that there is no reason why an
animal should be rejected when there is a single ear tag and the other
paperwork is in order. The cost of replacing ear tags varies among
manufacturers. Farmers are free to shop around to try to get the best
deal.
On late
applications, as part of the regulations, the Government have provided
some means by which an animals identification can be proved
when the application deadline has been missed. The industry has been
asking for such a measure for some time. We have introduced the DNA
test, which has been used successfully in a number of instances. At the
latest count, farmers were in compliance for 99.8 per cent. of animals,
meaning that 0.2 per cent are missing the deadline. That is down from a
figure of around 7 per cent. when the EU vets made the inspection that
made the Government realise that we had to get to grips with the
problem to be confident of getting the beef export ban lifted. There
may be exceptional circumstances, and I am pleased that the case in the
constituency of the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire was
resolved.
On the
appeals process, paragraph 1(2) of schedule 3 makes it clear that
Ministers may issue a passport out of time if they are satisfied of an
animals identity. DNA testing will help us in that
regard.
I can confirm
to the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire that on safety, we
have made it plain that if farmers have concerns, they should speak to
the BCMS, which will consider cases in the same way as the Scottish
system, although I am not quite au fait
with the system in Scotland. The BCMS is prepared to take safety issues
into account.
The hon.
Members for South-East Cambridgeshire and for Brecon and Radnorshire
both raised the issue of the general cattle movement restriction and
the six-day standstill. I am sure that both hon. Gentlemen will be
aware that the livestock farmer Bill Madders has been conducting a
review of livestock movements, as part of which those issues are being
considered. His recommendations to relax and simplify the movements
rules are under active consideration by Ministers and we expect to make
a decision on them fairly shortly. The proposed livestock movement
units that he recommended would address the concerns raised by hon.
Members. It is important to remember, however, why the restrictions
were introduced. They were considered a very important animal disease
control measure, given the role that animal movement clearly played in
the spread of foot and mouth during the disastrous
outbreak.
The hon.
Member for South-East Cambridgeshire referred specifically to the case
of Mr. Dobbin, in which potential legal proceedings, to
which he alluded, are pending. I must say to hon. Members, however,
that it is important that one does not always believe everything that
one reads in newspapers, or at least does not take it at face value.
Mr. Dobbin is well known to enforcement officials at
Cheshire trading standards, the state veterinary service and DEFRA; he
has previous convictions for offences relating to the keeping and
moving of livestock and is currently under investigation for a number
of offences under cattle identification regulations. I do not wish to
prejudice future proceedings by discussing details of the case, but I
can assure the hon. Gentleman that we do not exercise lightly the
compulsory slaughter of
cows.
5.2
pm
Mr.
Paice:
I am grateful to the Minister for addressing all
the points that I raised. It is most
welcome.
Mr.
Bradshaw:
It saves me
writing.
Mr.
Paice:
Yes, it does, although I shall not let the Minister
off entirely, because he did not quite address proportionality and
cross-compliance, to which both I and the hon. Member for Brecon and
Radnorshire referredmissing tags in a small herd can lead to a
higher penalty than the same number of missing tags in a larger
herd.
I have one other
question, after which I shall happily give way, if that is the right
format. The Minister referred several times to DNA, as did I, and I am
obviously pleased that that system is in operation. However, I am
slightly puzzled about something. I am grateful to him for pointing out
that paragraph 3(2) of schedule 3 gives the Secretary of State the
power to
provide a
replacement...passport if he is satisfied that he can accurately
reconstruct the movements of the animal since birth or
importation.
Is the
Minister certain that that provides a sufficient legislative base for
the use of DNA? I am no legal expert, but that seems to be a slightly
bland statement for a scientific development such as the use of DNA,
but if he is happy that that is an adequate base, fine; it is a sensible
way forward. Coupled with that is the appeal mechanism. If the Minister
feels that such provision is a sufficient legislative base for the
appeal mechanism as well, that, too, is fine. Again, it seems a fairly
bland statement to embrace a fairly substantive aspect of the
enforcement of the regulations.
I do not know whether the
Minister wants to reply to those points, or whether I am obliged to
give way to allow him to do so. I am not sure about the proceedings at
this stage, Mrs. Humble.
The
Chairman:
If the Minister wishes to make a comment, he is
more than entitled to make a second
contribution.
Mr.
Paice:
In that case, I shall sit down and see if the
Minister wishes to do
so.
5.4
pm
Mr.
Bradshaw:
On the hon. Gentlemans question about
DNA, we believe that the wording in the regulations is sufficient. I
take his point on cross-compliance. Such issues have been discussed
recently between DEFRA and the Rural Payments Agency, but I emphasise
again that as long as the missing tag is replaced within 28 days, the
farmer is not penalised under
cross-compliance.
Question
put and agreed
to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has
considered the Cattle Identification Regulations 2007 (S.I. 2007, No.
529).
Committee rose
at five minutes past Five
oclock.