Volume 5: Animal Health, 1989-96
5. Cattle-tracking
Computerisation
The tracing systems in place in 1990
Use of IT in the AHG and SVS
The Agriculture Select Committee's recommendation for a new computerised database
Initiation of MAFF's feasibility study

The tracing systems in place in 1990

5.23 Before turning to the Agriculture Select Committee's recommendation, it is helpful to briefly set out MAFF's tracing systems in place in 1990. MAFF's main sources of information on the location of farm animals were its annual census data, and the 'VetNet' database. The VetNet database comprised data submitted by veterinarians in the field following regular tuberculin and brucellosis testing, and other disease control activities. However, as Mr John Wilesmith, Head of the Epidemiology Department at MAFF's Central Veterinary Laboratory (CVL), explained:

What neither of those databases contains are the identities of those animals. One knows what the herd mark is because that is an identifier of the herd as well as the county parish holding them. You do not have a list as it were of all the animals on that farm . . .

If you have an animal in front of you that you want to get its history, then you have to do a physical tracing. ¹

5.24 In the event of a disease outbreak, the farmer's identification and movement records provided much of the basic data required to determine the origin of the disease and possible sources of infection. ² To uncover the history of a particular animal, physical tracing involved examining the market records and farm movement records to discover its origin.

The BSE database

5.25 MAFF kept details of all BSE cases on a database at the CVL. The database was developed during 1987 to record and analyse data collected via a detailed questionnaire devised by Mr Wilesmith and his colleagues. Mr Wilesmith described its development in his evidence to the Inquiry:

By 11 August, 1987, I was satisfied that we had established the required set of data for each case and affected herd, together with the likely on-farm sources. On 14 August, 1987 responsibility for routine data collection (using the questionnaire we had compiled) was devolved to colleagues in the VI Centres. My department commenced development of a computer based epidemiological database on BSE during August 1987, to record and analyse the data collected in response to the questionnaires. ³

5.26 During oral evidence, Mr Meldrum explained that when the SVS investigated a suspect case of BSE, the visiting Veterinary Officer (VO) would fill out the questionnaire, the details of which were then put on to the computer. ⁴

Use of IT in the AHG and SVS

5.27 The 1988 MAFF Information Technology (IT) Strategy Plan identified the AHG as a 'priority area requiring early attention' for a study of information systems requirements. Officials from MAFF's Information Technology Directorate (ITD) carried out a scoping study for the AHG and SVS during January and February 1990, with its report issued in February. The scoping study's purpose was 'to ascertain the time and resources required by the . . . ITD to carry out a full study of the Animal Health Group/State Veterinary Service'. The scoping study recommended that a staged study should be undertaken to address the organisational and management IT needs of the AHG and SVS. ⁵

5.28 A Sub-Strategy Study was carried out in five stages between March and November 1990. In August 1990 the AHG and parts of the SVS were merged and renamed the Animal Health and Veterinary Group (AHVG). The study's overall objective was:

[I]n close cooperation with the client, to analyse the business functions of the AHVG, define information systems necessary for the efficient carrying out of the business, assess how . . . IT could best contribute to the operations of the group and devise a strategic plan for implementing the required IT opportunities. ⁶

5.29 The five stages of the Sub-Strategy Study were:

1. information gathering;
2. corporate modelling and analysis;
3. identification and description of candidate systems (IT opportunities);
4. evaluation of candidate systems and development of alternative options for their implementation; and
5. production of an implementation plan for the preferred option. ⁷

5.30 The Project Board responsible for overseeing the study comprised:

Mrs Elizabeth Attridge, Chair;

Mr G Davies, Senior User, Technical;

Mr Richard Gregg, AHD, Branch C (Imports and Exports), Senior User, Administration;

Mr Raymond Long, Senior Technical, Infocentre; and

Mr K Robey, Senior Technical, Development. ⁸

5.31 The 'Main Report' on the IT Sub-Strategy Study for the AHVG was produced by the ITD in November 1990. In July 1990 the Agriculture Select Committee had its recommendation on cattle-tracking and computerisation. We now turn to discuss this recommendation, before turning to the recommendations in the IT Sub-Strategy Study report, which themselves acknowledged the Select Committee recommendation.

The Agriculture Select Committee's recommendation for a new computerised database

Evidence received by the Committee

5.32 In its memorandum to the Agriculture Select Committee, the National Farmers' Union (NFU) said:

We have . . . asked that the keeping of breeding records be required, and this is now a matter of MAFF consultation. We believe this is essential if the cattle industry is to be able to trace blood lines in the event of an inheritance factor being proven. ⁹

5.33 In its memorandum, the Meat and Livestock Commission (MLC) viewed 'the need to improve the identification of all calves as a clear and necessary prerequisite to better control of this disease'. ¹⁰

5.34 The NFU and MLC gave oral evidence to the Select Committee on 20 June 1990. Although the NFU agreed with MAFF that change was necessary, the President of the NFU, Sir Simon Gourlay, told the Select Committee that changes going beyond those proposed by MAFF were needed:

We are not so much disagreeing [with MAFF's proposals], we are going beyond what [MAFF] are currently suggesting, because they suggest that farmers should have to keep the records for ten years. If you are going to trace the breeding records, the dams, of any animal it is to my mind a totally impracticable thought to think that in three years' time you can get individual farmers shuffling through their records to identify this animal. If it is on central computer, that animal every time it is moved, we believe, with a pretty short time delay, can be put onto computer, and therefore that animal's dam can be traced by the computer. ¹¹

5.35 The Meat and Livestock Commission (MLC) also expressed full support for the measures proposed by the Government. Mr Colin Maclean, Technical Director of the MLC, told the Select Committee:

There is a computer system established for the progeny of [BSE] affected cows now, it is running, and the Government will know where they all are. The development of a wider system, of which there is an initial model in the Northern Ireland Agriculture Department which actually does monitor, from a health point of view, what is going on in that country, could be deployed, modified, in this country, although that would take some significant time. It is too cumbersome at the moment. So some of the mechanisms are there, if the money is actually there to deploy them.

. . .

The progeny of all cows that have been affected with BSE are currently recorded by the Central Veterinary Laboratory at Weybridge. The unique ear tag and its herd number is being logged. That animal will therefore be traceable. ¹²

5.36 Sir Simon responded that although 'Mr Maclean is absolutely right that currently all animals that have been affected and their progeny are recorded, it is difficult to trace back on those animals that are yet to be confirmed cases, to trace their progeny historically'. ¹³

5.37 Mr Meldrum also appeared before the Select Committee, and was asked to comment on Sir Simon's suggestion that it was not always possible to find offspring of infected cows. Mr Meldrum said:

I believe we have something in excess now of 7,000 cattle recorded on our computer being the female offspring of BSE infected cows. There are a few males as well but mainly we have been recording the female offspring. We are limited to the information given to us by the farmer at the time of the inquiry; he may not be able to cast his mind back one or two years to know all the offspring. Certainly all the female offspring which are reported to us are recorded on computer, therefore we have the unique identification number of that calf. If we wanted to trace those calves, we would start on the farm where the case of BSE was confirmed, and we would move forward using their movement records, which they have to keep by statute, until we find the cow when it has been sold on to market, because they are uniquely identified for all their lives. When we trace for other reasons, for break-outs of tuberculosis and brucellosis, we have had a very high success rate of finding them when they have moved off the farm. ¹⁴

5.38 On 27 June 1990 MAFF submitted a supplementary memorandum to the Select Committee. Under the heading, 'Recording Ear Numbers of Offspring of BSE Affected Cattle', the memorandum read:

Ear numbers of offspring of BSE affected dams have been recorded on computer since 9 June 1987. However, retrospective information has been recorded where it is available. This includes details of the presumed earliest cases in 1985. At the time of writing, details of 7,321 female offspring are stored on the computer. ¹⁵

5.39 On the same day, Mr Gummer appeared before the Select Committee, and was also questioned about the NFU's evidence that the current tracing system was unlikely to produce complete records. Mr Gummer answered that:

. . . we do have detailed computerised records of the offspring of all BSE dams. Those are held by the CVL - the Central Veterinary Laboratory. All farmers have to maintain records of animal movements for three years. We do have that information. We use that information very effectively in dealing with other kinds of diseases which are different in their effect . . . I think it would be wrong to say we did not have an effective method. What we are concerned about . . . is BSE, if we are dealing with maternal transmission . . . [t]hree years is not a long enough period to keep the records. We have extended the period records have to be kept to ten years and we -have been recording the ear numbers of BSE infected dams since 9 June 1987 . . . I believe we have now got a system which is an effective one. We have extended the time. I am looking at the possibility of using a similar system to that which is used in Northern Ireland but so far it does not seem to be the right answer. ¹⁶

MAFF officials discuss the issue

5.40 On 2 July 1990 Mr John Maslin, of AHD Branch A (Notifiable Diseases), circulated amongst various MAFF officials ¹⁷ the responses received during consultation on the proposed changes to farmers' breeding and movement record requirements. In his covering minute, Mr Maslin noted that the NFU had raised the 'computerised system' issue with the Agriculture Select Committee. He said, 'I believe we should arrange a meeting with them to discuss it as soon as possible and persuade them that it must be looked at after the current proposals are enacted'. ¹⁸

5.41 Mr Iain Crawford, Director of the Veterinary Field Service (VFS), replied two days later and commented, 'Retaining and updating breeding records centrally would be a very large commitment and the first question would have to be, what is the purpose and can it be justified'. He therefore agreed that 'the NFU should be advised that it is a topic for consideration at a later date'. ¹⁹

5.42 On 10 July 1990 Mrs Attridge suggested to Mr Meldrum that:

On the identification system the important thing is to ensure that the records will be adequate to check back and get the information needed. There are attractions in a fully computerised system but I expect it will be some time before this is a practical reality. ²⁰

The Agriculture Select Committee's recommendation

5.43 The Agriculture Select Committee's report was published on 12 July 1990. It noted:

If vertical transmission were proved to take place, the policy implications would be substantial. The slaughter of the offspring of BSE-infected cattle or a ban on breeding from these offspring might be warranted on precautionary grounds. ²¹

5.44 However, it was concluded that the 'available scientific evidence is inconclusive whether vertical transmission of the disease is likely: it is certainly not a development which any expert seemed prepared to rule out'. ²²

5.45 On cattle-tracing, the report stated:

Suppose in two or three years time research demonstrates conclusively that maternal transmission of the BSE agent is possible? The Ministry will need to act swiftly, in the light of such a conclusion, to identify, examine and, if necessary, slaughter many thousands of cattle which may have been affected by this route. If it does not have the necessary information, it will not be able to do this satisfactorily: a comprehensive system for identifying and tracking animals is needed. MAFF is seized of this point - which Sir Richard Southwood has also emphasised - and has consulted the NFU and other interests about possible ways of achieving this.

At present what is proposed is:

1. an early amendment to the Movement of Animals (Records) Order 1960, requiring farmers to keep cattle records for 10 years rather than the present 3 and maintain fuller breeding records; and
2. a comprehensive revision of that Order.

We welcome these proposals but urge MAFF to move towards the full centralised computerisation of the relevant information and not rely on a complicated paper-chase through farmers' records. Some computerisation is already in place, in that the ear numbers of offspring of BSE-affected dams have been recorded on computer since 9 June 1987. But there is a danger of settling for some sort of half-way house in which only first generation offspring of known BSE cases are monitored effectively. Cows can have calves when they are less than two years old so, because the disease's incubation period is much longer than that, a cow can be a grandmother and great grandmother several times over before her sickness is diagnosed . . . The logging of the parentage and movements of all cattle, and the retention of that information in a central database, must be the objective of any scheme MAFF introduces. Every individual bovine animal should be traceable from birth, in much the same way that a car is.

Such arrangements already pertain in Northern Ireland and we believe that, with the technology now available and the expertise held by bodies like the Milk Marketing Board, MAFF can have no excuse for not introducing them in the rest of the United Kingdom at an early opportunity. They will form a useful adjunct to the control of BSE and other diseases of cattle and funding for this purpose should be made available without delay, with the initial costs being met by MAFF. ²³

5.46 In a statement to the Inquiry, Mr Meldrum suggested that the basis of the Select Committee's recommendation was that if maternal transmission of BSE were to be proved, MAFF would need to 'act swiftly to trace, identify, examine and, if necessary, slaughter many thousands of cattle'. He said, however, that the recommendation 'failed to take account of the time needed to set up any system and that it would be very difficult to capture retrospective data'. ²⁴

5.47 Sir Derek Andrews (MAFF's Permanent Secretary 1987-93) said in a statement to the Inquiry that the Select Committee's 'assumption, and the analysis on which it was based, were not endorsed by MAFF's advisers'. ²⁵ Ministers were advised via the SVS paper forwarded by Mr Lowson in February 1990 (see paragraph 5.13) that even if maternal transmission occurred, slaughtering the offspring of affected cattle was not necessary to control BSE:

To maintain an epidemic of a fatal disease in a population it is necessary that each case gives rise to at least one more before dying . . .

Maternal transmission alone is incapable of maintaining the epidemic. It has been calculated that only one in five calves born is kept for breeding. On average each BSE cow will have produced 2 ½ calves . . . , so even if maternal transmission were to occur invariably the disease would, on this scenario, be self limiting, although the number of cases would be greater and the time taken longer than if there was no maternal transmission. ²⁶

Initiation of MAFF's feasibility study

MAFF's reaction to the Agriculture Select Committee's report

5.48 On 17 July 1990 Mr Lowson, Mr Capstick, Mr Meldrum, Mrs Attridge and others met Mr Derek Andrews to discuss the Government's response to the Agriculture Select Committee's report. The note of the meeting records that in respect of the Select Committee's recommendations:

It was concluded that when recording parentage it was only necessary to identify the dam. This point would need to be explained to the Select Committee. It was considered that in the longer term there would be electronic identification of cattle. In the meantime one would need to tighten up the present arrangements where it was possible. This point would need to be covered in the advice to Ministers. It was agreed that [MAFF's ITD] should be asked to initiate a study into a computerised system for identifying and tracking animals. This study should be referred to in the response to the Report. ²⁷

5.49 Two days later Mr Lowson circulated a draft submission for the Minister, to Mrs Attridge and others, 'on the points on which decisions are required before a response can be published to the Select Committee Report'. Mr Lowson noted in his covering minute that:

I am conscious that many of the items covered raise issues outside my own area. I would be glad if other Divisions could therefore scrutinise it very carefully (especially . . . a study on computerisation (ITD) . . . ²⁸

5.50 The final submission was put to Mr Gummer on 24 July 1990. On the computerised system proposed by the Select Committee, Mr Lowson suggested a feasibility study should be implemented:

The value of the computerised information would still depend on the reliability of the identification systems and of the data recorded by farmers. These considerations mean that commitments about a computerised system should not be taken lightly; and in the absence of a European standard for electronic identification (without which the manpower requirement would be even larger than it will in any case) firm decisions would be premature.

Furthermore such information may never be needed for the control of BSE . . . But if in future a control programme were found to be necessary, it might well require comprehensive tracing of affected lines, which would be a formidable task if based on written records held at each farm . . . it would therefore be worth initiating a study of possible alternative systems of data management - though without commitment in view of what could be very heavy resource costs. This could take account of other possible requirements for data manipulation in the Single Market context, and of systems already available. ²⁹

5.51 Mr Lowson noted that ITD was already studying an IT strategy for the SVS and the AHG (see paragraphs 5.27-5.31). He therefore recommended that ITD 'incorporate within this an appraisal of the possible data requirement for a disease control system and of the best way of meeting this need'. ³⁰

5.52 On 25 July 1990 Mr Gummer met Mr Andrews, Mr Lowson, Mr Capstick, Mrs Attridge, Mr Meldrum, Mr Crawford and others, to discuss Mr Lowson's submission. It was agreed that the Government's response to the Select Committee report would indicate that a feasibility study into the proposed computerised system was being set up, 'whilst going into some detail about the considerable practical difficulties which the recommendation involved'. The response would also refer to the question of who would pay for the system. ³¹

First steps in initiating a feasibility study

5.53 On 3 August 1990 Mr Lowson circulated a minute that summarised the action necessary following the meeting with Mr Gummer. He asked Mr Derek Selwood of the ITD for advice on how to set up the study into computerisation of animal record-keeping and noted it was 'clearly a topic which needs to be pursued with some urgency'. ³²

5.54 On 7 August 1990 Mr Long of the ITD presented to Mr Selwood his suggested approach for the 'study to be referred to in [the Government's] response to the Agriculture Committee's report on BSE'. He noted:

Probably the most logical approach would be to use someone from the AHVG Study Team currently in place at Tolworth. In effect, this would be the first 'candidate system' we would look at in detail (the study team has already identified it as such, although with hitherto low priority). We have already promised to start work on identifiable systems as soon as possible, without necessarily waiting for the end of the study. But you should be aware that Mrs Attridge is not enthusiastic about animal tracking systems - she surprised us on Monday by stating that, at a meeting at the end of last week, it had been decided that such a study should not be recommended. This contradicts the documentation we have seen, and will need to be clarified. In any event, any decision to hold up the Sub-Strategy Study itself or the work which would follow on from it so as to give priority to this new exercise would likely be unpopular with our AHVG clients, for the usual reasons. ³³

5.55 The following day Mrs Attridge emphasised to Mr Lowson the costs of a central computerised system:

Since all farmers will have to keep the records we will have to assume that many of them will not have computers and that they will rely on normal paper records. This in turn would mean that any fully computerised system would require the farmer's paper records to be translated on to computer, presumably by the Ministry, and this would have a considerable clerical cost. Any study of a computerised system must therefore take into account the practicalities of setting it up and not be enticed by the more elaborate arrangements under consideration by the MMB [Milk Marketing Board], MLC and Professor Wilson [see paragraphs 5.77-5.80 below]. No doubt Mr Selwood will be very conscious of the costs and benefits of any computerised system and you will need to be in close touch with him as to its objectives. ³⁴

5.56 On 9 August 1990 Mr Selwood advised Mr Lowson on how to establish the study. He said that he shared Mrs Attridge's reservations, 'and I am glad that the question of who should pay for the system has captured the Minister's attention'. Mr Selwood continued:

Useful terms of reference for an initial study would include: investigate the options available (i.e. do nothing, put in a full tracking system, do something in-between); look at systems used by other countries; estimate the likely costs/benefits; and make recommendations regarding future action. The resulting report . . . wouldn't answer all the questions, but would provide a useful basis for discussion on whether or not, and if so how, we should go forward . . .

The most logical approach would be for us to use someone from the AHVG Study Team currently in place at Tolworth. In effect, this would be the first 'candidate system' we would look at in detail. (The study team has already identified it as such, although with hitherto low priority.) We estimate that a useful report could be produced over about two months by diverting someone from the overall study, which would then take a little longer to complete. ³⁵

5.57 On 13 August 1990 Mr Anthony Matthews of the ITD replied to Mr Long's minute of 7 August. He suggested that a feasibility study of the user requirement was needed, but 'exactly what the user requirement is may not be fully agreed on at the moment, even at the high level'. Mr Matthews thought that Mrs Attridge's attitude to animal tracking systems, as reported, was 'also interesting'. He suggested that all interested parties needed to meet at management level as 'I suspect that there may still be one or two fundamental issues to resolve about what actually is required before it will be possible to focus clearly on terms of reference'. ³⁶

5.58 Three days later, on 16 August 1990, Mrs Attridge minuted Mr Selwood about his minute of 9 August to Mr Lowson. The minute was copied to Mr Long. She said:

As you know, I chair the Project Board for the scoping study currently being undertaken at Tolworth. I am concerned by the suggestion in paragraph 5 of your minute that the Study Team should be diverted to produce the overall study if this means that the already delayed finish of the project would be further delayed. It is already 20% over cost and 6 weeks over schedule. I really feel we must get it completed and that if necessary we should go back to the Minister to find out just how urgent and how detailed a study he requires. My own impression from the meeting with the Minister was that he needed to indicate to the House of Commons Committee that he was fully aware of what computerisation had to offer but there is quite a lot of work, both in the EEC and through a Group chaired by Professor Wilson dealing with breed societies, MLC, MMB etc [see paragraphs 5.77-5.80 below], that would need to be taken into account. I doubt therefore whether any useful work can actually be done until we have some input on possible EC systems and the work of Professor Wilson's Group and I would not wish the Study Group work to be further delayed simply in order to go through the motions. ³⁷

5.59 On the same day Mr Long minuted Mr Selwood about the proposed study. He commented that Mrs Attridge's view, which 'I think we'd all agree with', was that if the proposed study was 'so important then ITD ought to be given extra resources to mount it'. Mr Long thought that whilst Mrs Attridge was enthusiastic about the sub-strategy exercise, she 'maintains that the animal tracking study is pointless at the moment'. Further, Mr Lowson, who Mr Long noted appeared to be under greater pressure than others, 'appears negative about everything we are doing'. ³⁸

5.60 On 22 August 1990 Mr Lowson minuted Mr Philip Davies, AHD Branch D. He noted that Mr Gummer had agreed that the Government's response to the Agriculture Select Committee should indicate that a feasibility study was being set up, and also explain some of the practical difficulties in establishing a computerised tracing system. Mr Lowson suggested to Mr Davies that the outcome of discussion with relevant colleagues should be a draft note for Mr Lowson to forward, setting out the terms of reference, cost of the study and timing considerations. He concluded:

The starting point should be to establish a very clear description of what information is required for disease control purposes and how this is collected and used at present. The purpose of the study would be to consider how computerisation could help in fulfilling the purposes for which we require information and what it would cost. ³⁹