Volume 5: Animal Health, 1989-96
5. Cattle-tracking
The adequacy of existing regulations
Existing legislation
Problems with existing requirements in relation to BSE
SEAC supports the proposals

Existing legislation

Legislation in force at the time BSE emerged

5.4 Prior to the emergence of BSE, the legislation governing the identification and movement of bovines was the Movement of Animals (Records) Order 1960, ¹ made under the Diseases of Animals Act 1950, and the Tuberculosis (England and Wales) Order 1984, ² made under the Animal Health Act 1981.

5.5 Article 3(1) of the Movement of Animals (Records) Order 1960 provided that 'any person who moves, or permits to be moved, an animal to or from any premises shall enter in a record in the form set out in the Schedule to this Order such particulars relating to the movement of the animal as are specified in the headings of the several columns in that Schedule'. The schedule required that the records show the breed, age, sex, ear tag number, date of movement and addresses of premises between which the animal moved. Article 4 of the Order provided that:

(1) every entry in a record shall be made in ink or indelible pencil within thirty-six hours after the movement of the animal required by this Order to be entered in the record; and

(2) every entry in a record, required by this Order to be made by any person, shall be retained by him for a period of three years, in the case of a bovine animal . . . from the making of the entry and shall be produced by him for inspection at all reasonable times on demand to any inspector of the MAFF or of a local authority . . .

5.6 Article 16 of the Tuberculosis (England and Wales) Order 1984 provided:

(1) Subject to paragraph (2) below, the owner of a bovine animal kept on any premises shall mark or identify the animal in a manner approved by the appropriate Minister and shall thereafter maintain such a mark or identification so as to be clearly legible, and

(2) The requirement in paragraph (1) above shall not apply in relation to any bovine animal less than 14 days old that is not removed, or is removed only to a slaughterhouse from such premises, within such period of 14 days.

Legislation introduced after the discovery of BSE

5.7 Article 6(1) of the Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (No. 2) Order 1988 gave veterinary inspectors power, where BSE was suspected, to 'take such steps as may be necessary to establish the correctness' of that suspicion. For the purposes of such an enquiry, under article 6(2)(c), a veterinary inspector could 'mark for identification purposes any bovine animal or carcase on the premises'. ³

5.8 This power was wide enough to allow MAFF to mark the offspring of suspect BSE cases so that they could be identified. However, when the provision was introduced, MAFF gave an undertaking to the industry that these powers would not be used in the absence of proof of maternal transmission. ⁴

Problems with existing requirements in relation to BSE

5.9 The first concern over the adequacy of the existing Regulations in the context of BSE was expressed on 17 August 1989 by Mr Alistair Cruickshank, Head of the Animal Health Group (AHG), in a minute to Mr Robert Lowson, Head of Animal Health Division (AHD). He said:

[W]e do need to be quite sure that we can effectively identify the offspring in question, so that if maternal transmission is established we shall be able to take effective action at that time. Would it be possible to produce an assessment of the reliability of the movement records so that we can form a view on the need for any further action to tighten up our arrangements? ⁵

5.10 Mr David Curry, MAFF Parliamentary Secretary, reiterated this concern to Mr John Gummer, the Minister of Agriculture, on 6 September 1989. He noted that if BSE could be transmitted from animal to animal, which was the worst case scenario, 'we will be hampered by the absence of comprehensive records of animal breeding and movement'. Accordingly, Mr Curry had 'asked officials for a note on how we could tighten and extend those records which are held without legislation'. ⁶

5.11 On 19 October 1989 Mr Lowson provided the note requested by Mr Curry. He explained that there was, as yet, no evidence of maternal transmission, and that studies to resolve the issue would not yield results for some years. Further, he said it was 'not yet known whether horizontal transmission of BSE can occur in the field and the evidence from other transmissible encephalopathies is contradictory'. Mr Lowson then discussed various implications that transmissibility had for the control of BSE:

The main problem in pursuing a slaughter policy in the event of maternal transmission would be in tracing the offspring of cows that develop BSE. As part of our epidemiological studies we record the known offspring of all cases of BSE but cannot identify those born while the cows were in previous ownership. Currently we are aware of some 3,500 offspring of BSE cases.

The BSE (No 2) Order 1988 has provision for the SVS [State Veterinary Service] to restrict the movement of any animal and to mark offspring of suspect BSE cases so they can be identified. An undertaking not to use these powers in the absence of evidence of maternal transmission was given to the industry when they were introduced. The identification of offspring would therefore depend on the epidemiological records collected by veterinary officers and kept by the Central Veterinary Laboratory and on breeding and movement records kept by farmers.

Farmers are required to keep movement records showing breed, age, sex and ear tag number of animals moved under the Movement of Animals (Records) Order 1960 (except for those going for slaughter). These are generally sufficient to enable the movement of a specific animal to be traced, but they have to be retained for only 3 years. Because BSE has a long incubation period we might need to trace back further than this. Some records that might be needed in future have no doubt already been destroyed. But it would nevertheless be prudent to amend the Order to require retention for a longer period, and this is recommended; as one case has been identified of a 9-year old cow showing the disease, a 10-year period would be reasonable.

There is also the question of identifying the offspring themselves. There is no legal requirement for farmers to keep breeding records and only a minority of non-pedigree herds do so. Without such a legal obligation we could not guarantee to identify all offspring. At first sight this is unlikely to present a major problem as it appears that a very high proportion of offspring remain for a considerable time on their farm of birth. Officials will however examine further whether it would be appropriate to require farmers to maintain records of progeny. ⁷

5.12 In conclusion, Mr Lowson invited Mr Curry 'to agree to a change in the Movement of Animals (Records) Order 1960 to require farmers to retain appropriate records for 10 years rather than 3'. ⁸ Mr Lowson was informed of Mr Curry's agreement to this on 6 November 1989. ⁹

5.13 Pursuant to Mr Gummer's request during a meeting on 6 February 1990, ¹⁰ Mr Lowson provided a note on 22 February 1990 about 'the action that could be taken in advance of conclusive evidence about the transmissibility of BSE'. A paper prepared by the State Veterinary Service (SVS) was annexed, which canvassed alternative courses of action. This included slaughtering the progeny of affected animals and restricting breeding from the progeny of affected animals. The paper discussed the implications for cattle identification:

Many of the measures which will be considered depend on the accurate identification of the offspring of affected animals. Such records are readily available in pedigree herds, but in commercial herds the identification of calf to dam is dependant on the farmer's interest and management practices. There is no statutory requirement to make or keep such records: only to identify cattle in the ear within 14 days of birth (and sooner if moved off the farm) and record the details of animals sold. A requirement to keep details of the identity of the offspring of every cow, and to retain those details for at least 10 years, would provide accurate information on which any future action which proved necessary could be based. This action is recommended, irrespective of any other measures adopted. ¹¹

5.14 In his note on cattle identification, Mr Lowson said:

Existing requirements relating to farmers' keeping of records are inadequate in the context of BSE . . . and whatever action is taken in response to possible maternal transmission it is recommended that the necessary changes should be pursued. Ministers have already agreed that the period during which farmers are required to retain movement records should be extended, but it has not yet been possible to pursue this because legal advice is that ideally this amendment should not be made without a comprehensive revision of the legislation for which time has not been available. The SVS paper recommends that we should go somewhat further and require records to be kept in respect of animals which do not leave the farm. Work to update the legal requirements should now be given top priority. ¹²

5.15 On 14 March 1990, Mr Keith Meldrum, the Chief Veterinary Officer (CVO), Mr Cruickshank, Mr Charles Capstick, ¹³ Mrs Elizabeth Attridge, ¹⁴ Mr Lowson and others met the Parliamentary Secretaries - Mr David Maclean and Mr Curry - to discuss the proposed improvements to identification of calves. Mr Curry noted that the improvements were 'strongly recommended' by the SVS paper. Mrs Attridge was concerned about farmers' poor reputation for keeping records, while Mr Cruickshank said there was a need to consider whether the resources were available to do the job effectively and whether the cost would be proportionate to the benefits. Mr Meldrum explained that the proposed requirement to keep records on the identity of calves would apply to all offspring of all cows and would supplement existing movement records. Therefore, he said, it would not be a major step to require a proper breeding identification system. The meeting endorsed the need for an improved identification system for calves, in principle, but recognised that there was a need to explore further the question of resources and practical implications to ensure effective results were achieved. Mr Curry requested that a paper be prepared to explore these aspects. ¹⁵

5.16 In response to Mr Curry's request, on 5 April 1990 Mr Lowson sent Mr Maclean a further note on the proposed changes to movement and breeding record requirements. On the current arrangements, Mr Lowson wrote:

In the light of the possibility that BSE may be found to be transmissible from cow to calf, these requirements fall short of the arrangements which might be needed to deal with the disease, because

(i) there is no legal requirement for farmers to maintain breeding records, ie, those which would enable an individual calf to be related to its dam; and

(ii) because of the long incubation period of BSE, the requirement to maintain movement records for 3 years is insufficient. ¹⁶

5.17 Mr Lowson proposed:

1. to require farmers to maintain records that showed the breed, sex and ear number of each calf, its date of birth, and the identity of its dam; and
2. to require that such records, and movement records already required to be kept under the 1960 Order, be retained for ten years. ¹⁷

5.18 He explained that the changes could be implemented by introduction of a new Order for the breeding record requirements, and an amendment to the Movement of Animals (Records) Order 1960. Mr Lowson noted that:

By making these changes we would be laying down a framework which in theory should enable us to identify and trace all calves born to BSE cases. In practice the extent to which this objective is achieved will depend on the industry's marking animals and keeping records properly . . . Nevertheless, short of applying a separate mark to BSE offspring, which would involve considerable extra manpower and would still not be foolproof (eg, if a cow goes down after producing several calves) the proposed changes appear to be the most practical solution. They would certainly facilitate the tracing of a much higher proportion of offspring than is at present possible. ¹⁸

5.19 Mr Lowson was advised 12 days later that Mr Maclean agreed with the proposals. ¹⁹

SEAC supports the proposals

5.20 MAFF's proposals to impose more stringent requirements to secure more comprehensive cattle records were endorsed by the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee (SEAC) on 17 May 1990 in their advice to Ministers on breeding from offspring of BSE-affected cows. ²⁰

5.21 SEAC's report on BSE controls was published on 12 July 1990. SEAC noted that any future disease control strategy involving the removal of particular animals might be based on removing potentially infected breeding lines rather than individual animals. It said that such a measure would be greatly facilitated 'if present arrangements for maintaining breeding and movement records were improved, and we welcome the Government's intention to do so'. ²¹

5.22 Before the Government introduced legislation to implement these proposals, the Agriculture Select Committee initiated an inquiry into BSE on 16 May 1990. Its stated intention was 'to gather the relevant evidence and present the House with an early assessment of the available facts' about BSE. ²² In the event, the Select Committee's consideration of cattle-tracking during its inquiry, and subsequent recommendation on the establishment of a computerised tracing system, required MAFF to consider issues that went beyond its initial proposal to improve the records required to be kept by farmers.