Volume 5: Animal Health, 1989-96
5. Cattle-tracking
Further consideration of a computerised tracing system
Formulation of the feasibility study
The Wilson Committee
MAFF's Animal Tracking Project Board (ATPB) and the feasibility study

Formulation of the feasibility study

5.63 Mr Gregg followed up the action requested by Mr Lowson on 22 August 1990 (see paragraph 5.60). On 18 September 1990 he provided a draft note to Mr Long, copied to Mr Lowson, which 'seeks to identify in broad terms existing information needs, how this is collected and used at present, and concludes with proposed terms of reference for a study . . .' On computerisation, the draft note said:

Technically, computerised central records are possible. The main difficulty foreseen is in obtaining the data and ensuring that it is correct and up to date. The scale of the exercise is daunting . . .

To provide the necessary data, farmers would need to supply details of animals born on the holding . . . as well as animals moved on or off the holding . . . Details of deaths on farm and of animals which [lose] their tags would also be needed.

The frequency with which this data should be provided and how it should be provided must be addressed. This will determine the usefulness of the system and it must be recognised that it will not dispense entirely with the need for Veterinary Officers to visit farms and markets to verify the details and initiate disease control measures following tracing. ¹

5.64 The draft note set out possible terms of reference for the proposed feasibility study and recommended that it should not commence until mid-November, so that it could be informed by an EC meeting on the topic (see paragraphs 5.71-5.73) and the Wilson Committee's work (see paragraphs 5.77-5.80). Further, Mr Gregg noted that by that time the AHVG study team should have completed its work (see paragraphs 5.74-5.75) and could be released to undertake the feasibility study. ²

5.65 Mr Lowson and Mr Lawrence met Mr David Maclean on 9 October 1990. On cattle-tracking, the note of the meeting recorded that:

[Mr Lowson] reminded Mr Maclean that the new cattle record keeping arrangements had been introduced on 15 October. However, we were being urged by some to go further, by introducing a computer-based system. This seemed inappropriate at present because our main need - to deal with outbreaks of disease - was adequately served by our current methods. Nevertheless, we had in hand a feasibility study designed to assess the benefits of a computer-based system. ³

5.66 Two days before Mr Curry was due to meet Mr Kent of the Milk Marketing Board (MMB) on 31 October 1990, Mr Lowson provided a briefing paper. He noted that the use of electronic identification systems was an area to be approached with care, and that decisions had to be made taking account of what was happening elsewhere in the Community. He advised that the key point for Mr Curry to make was that MAFF's interest was in having systems that enabled it to carry out disease control measures. Mr Lowson continued:

So far we have managed without a computerised system and it is not clear (although we will be studying this) whether such a system would be necessary to deal with BSE in the event that it turns out to be transmissible (as are most of the diseases for which we have control measures at present, without computers). ⁴

5.67 Under the heading 'Points to Make', Mr Lowson wrote:

MAFF's interest is not in having comprehensive records of all cattle; just in having records that are good enough to enable it to control disease effectively. There is a system of cattle identification and tracing already in existence which, although old fashioned, has proved effective when controlling outbreaks of notifiable diseases. This system has recently been strengthened in view of the problem of BSE.

MAFF already keep some information on computer and a feasibility study is being set up to consider the desirability and cost benefit of further development, in the light in particular of the Select Committee's recommendation . . .

Improved identification systems are also high on the Community agenda in the context of the Single Market . . . It is clear that any action taken domestically will have to take account of what is happening at Community level. ⁵

5.68 Mrs Attridge and Dr Danny Matthews were present when Mr Curry met Mr Kent. Mr Kent suggested it would be worthwhile for MAFF, MMB and the breeding societies jointly to look into the feasibility of setting up a livestock identification register. He believed that such a register would pre-empt any EU harmonised system and would be justified on food safety grounds in the event that tracing was required if maternal transmission of BSE was discovered. The note of the meeting records:

[Mrs Attridge] said that our current system of relying on farmers' records satisfied the Department's requirements for disease control. It would be difficult to justify a computerised system on food safety grounds and any suggestion that it was required for this might cause public disquiet. The cost of the Northern Ireland scheme was also a disturbing precedent. Dr Matthews said that the fast response advantage of a computerised system was not necessary for a BSE traceback. ⁶

5.69 On 1 November 1990, during an informal discussion with Mrs Attridge and Mr Gregg, Professor Peter Wilson, Chairman of the Wilson Committee (see paragraphs 5.77-5.80), gave his opinion on the usefulness of a comprehensive cattle identification system for disease control. Mr Gregg's minute recorded that:

Professor Wilson considered that the Ministry stood to gain from a competitive industry but the major advantage lay in an improved identification and recording system for disease control particularly in relation to parentage for diseases such as BSE and perhaps diseases which have yet to emerge. He put the present certainty of being able to trace the offspring of a BSE cow at no more than 50%. Milk recording was perhaps only 70% accurate as most farmers were looking for a herd rather than an individual index. However some breed societies were achieving 98% by virtue of enforcement using blood type checks. He saw considerable advantage for all in coming up with a standard identification code so that data on individual animals could readily be pooled. ⁷

5.70 Mrs Attridge told Professor Wilson that:

Our animal health data requirements were essentially very basic. There might be pay-offs for us in terms of accuracy, enforcement, rapidity of tracing and an ability to monitor imports, but it remained to be seen whether and how far the existing system needed improvement. There was merit in a single unique identification coding and it was expected that this issue would be resolved at Community level. ⁸

The European position

5.71 Mr Gregg and Mr P Philip, ⁹ represented MAFF at an EC-led seminar on 'Automatic Electronic Identification Systems' held on 17-19 October 1990. On 27 November 1990 Dr Janssen ¹⁰ circulated a note of the seminar's conclusions and recommendations. It stated that reliable identification systems were needed for every animal in all Member States, so as to enable effective implementation of EU veterinary policy on animal health, public health, animal welfare and fraud prevention. Individual identification, registration of movements, and central database facilities were seen as important requirements for a reliable identification system. ¹¹

5.72 Dr Janssen also distributed an information note on identification of farm animals. The note advised that identification systems had to be compatible across Europe, so Community rules for their standardisation were to be introduced. The Community intended to convene a legislation working group to draft the necessary rules. ¹²

5.73 Mrs Attridge told the Inquiry in oral evidence:

It was quite clear that that was the way that the wind was blowing, the Commission was going to go ahead with some form of computerised system. The problem was until they decided which one it was, it was difficult for us to see how best we could latch on to it. ¹³

Main report of the AHVG IT Sub-Strategy Study

5.74 The IT Sub-Strategy Study, which had been initiated in March 1990 (see paragraphs 5.27-5.31), reported in November 1990. The study formulated four options for IT implementation for AHVG management to consider. The preferred long-term strategic direction was a 'business-led' option, which would make IT a major part and essential tool for most staff. However, it was recognised that there was an immediate need for flexible systems to meet existing needs and to respond to EU requirements. Option 5 was therefore formulated, which anticipated that some systems would be developed through intermediate stages, to eventually reach the preferred 'business-led' option. Within option 5, 17 systems were identified as 'candidates' for IT development. AHVG management evaluated the candidate systems and an overall ranking was determined to reflect priorities within AHVG. ¹⁴

5.75 An animal tracing system, for use in 'suspected disease incidents', was identified as a candidate system for computerisation and was given a high implementation ranking. A national animal registration and tracking system was also identified as a potential candidate system. The report noted:

The whole area of animal tagging and registration (from which [the animal tracing system] would draw information) is a major issue within the AHVG, particularly in view of recent events surrounding BSE. As mentioned above, there is some IT already in place, but this is specific to the BSE system and does not meet the overall user requirements for registration and tracking. Because of the large size and wide scope involved, it was originally considered that this system should form a major study in its own right. In the light of the Parliamentary Select Committee on Agriculture's requirement for the Ministry to conduct a study and the decision of the EC to undertake a pan-European study, a decision has now been taken to conduct a preliminary study in this area. This study should be incorporated within the implementation plan. ¹⁵

The Government's response to the Agriculture Select Committee

5.76 In November 1990 the Response of the Government to the Fifth Report from the House of Commons Agriculture Committee 1989-90 was published. After noting that the report urged MAFF to move towards centralised computerisation of cattle records, the response continued:

15. Data about the offspring of known BSE cases are already maintained on computer. To go further, and maintain records of other cattle, would be a formidable task. A comprehensive system would need to identify and locate all female bovine animals (of which there are nearly eight million in Great Britain) and provide data on parentage and offspring. Updating would be needed whenever an animal moved or died.

16. The existing arrangements already provide the foundation for control measures based on the ancestry of progeny of BSE cases. It is of course inevitable that some animals might not be traced using these existing systems. But this would be true even of the most sophisticated computerised mechanisms. The Government therefore needs to assess whether defects in the present system would be so serious as to prejudice the effective control of the disease; and if so, whether computerised systems would in practice improve the situation enough to justify the massive investment required.

17. Among the factors that have to be taken into account are:-

- the fact that the value of the computerised information would still depend on the reliability of the identification system, which would rest on the accuracy and diligence with which farmers recorded the information;

- the size of the financial commitment that would be involved and how it would be funded - taking account of the possibility of industry funding; and

- the need for compatibility with systems that might be developed by the European Community.

18. This is an important issue and the Government is glad that the Report recognises this. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food accepts that a feasibility study is necessary, and intends to initiate one. This study will need to be informed by the results of a Community Seminar in mid-October on electronic animal identification, and by the work of the Wilson Committee, set up by the Milk Marketing Board and the National Cattle Breeders' Association to consider identification systems. ¹⁶

The Wilson Committee

Role of the Committee

5.77 The MMB, in conjunction with the National Cattle Breeders Association (NCBA), established the Wilson Committee in April 1990. It comprised Professor Peter Wilson as Chairman, Mr Tom Kelly of Genus Management, Professor David Leaver of Wye College, Mr Duncan Spring of the Holstein Friesian Society, Mr Chris Bourchier as MAFF observer, and Mr Frank Armitage as secretary. ¹⁷ Amongst other things, it was set up to:

1. review existing systems of cattle identification in the UK;
2. establish the perceived information needs of the industry in the future; and
3. recommend appropriate changes and proposals for how the changes might be structured and funded. ¹⁸

The Committee's recommendations

5.78 The Wilson Committee's work coincided with the Agriculture Select Committee's consideration of cattle-tracking, and associated deliberations within MAFF throughout the latter half of 1990. The Wilson Committee Report was published on 1 February 1991. A news release that day stated:

By 1995 all genetic and production information for dairy and beef animals in the UK should be co-ordinated by a national Cattle Data Centre . . .

By 31 March 1995 the Report recommends that the Cattle Data Centre should take responsibility for the co-ordination of all cattle ancestry recording, milk recording, linear assessment, beef recording and genetic evaluation in the UK. Until it becomes fully operational the Report recommends that the CDC should be funded by the MMB on a diminishing basis so that it is financially independent by 1995. ¹⁹

5.79 The summary of recommendations from the Wilson Committee Report was attached. Recommendations included:

1. The paramount aim of the Cattle Data Centre (CDC) was a profitable and efficient UK cattle industry able to compete internationally.
2. A UK CDC should be established as a matter of urgency. Its task would be to link together and co-ordinate:
   1. all existing cattle databases;
   2. cattle identification within the UK on a unique number basis;
   3. cattle ancestry and its validation within the UK;
   4. all milk recording within the UK to International Committee for Animal Recording standards, including DIY recording;
   5. beef recording within the UK;
   6. genetic evaluation of cattle; and
   7. linear assessment of cattle.
3. The duplication of data collection, collation and authentication should be minimised; and
4. MAFF should be encouraged to promote the formation of the CDC and to assist in obtaining funds to set up the CDC and its constituent database for the public good. ²⁰

MAFF's consideration of the Wilson Committee recommendations

5.80 On 12 April 1991 Mr Lowson forwarded a paper to Sir Derek Andrews, Mr Capstick and Dr Bunyan ²¹ among others. It contained a 'response to the Wilson Report'. It noted that 'Professor Wilson's considerations are heavily biased towards genetic improvement, but he does identify a link with disease control or the "public good" as he calls it'. However, it was noted that the report did not draw any conclusion about a cost benefit of computerised records for disease control, nor did it give an indication of how the database would work in practice. The paper stated that responses to questioning about the report needed to emphasise that:

1. a unique identification number for cattle was an essential need for Community requirements and genetic improvement purposes, and MAFF was engaged in a study of this aspect;
2. the Government's need for information necessary for the control of animal disease was a distinct requirement;
3. the Government had launched a feasibility study into the value of a computerised database for disease control purposes;
4. disease control and monitoring requirements would need to take account of Community developments; and
5. although Government participation in the kind of arrangements envisaged in the Wilson Report was not ruled out, it was premature to discuss organisational issues before fundamental needs were clarified. ²²

MAFF's Animal Tracking Project Board (ATPB) and the feasibility study

The role of the ATPB and its terms of reference

5.81 The ATPB was established to undertake the feasibility study referred to in the Government's response to the Agriculture Select Committee. Members of the ATPB were:

1. Mr Lowson, Chairman;
2. Dr Matthews, Senior Veterinary Officer in the Notifiable Diseases Section of the AHVG's Animal Health and Welfare Veterinary Section, Senior User, Veterinary Group;
3. Mr Philip, Senior User, Veterinary Group;
4. Mr Gregg, Senior User, Animal Health;
5. Mr N Widden, Animal Health (Disease Control) Division, Branch A (Notifiable Diseases), Senior User, Animal Health; and
6. Mr A Matthews, Senior IT.

5.82 Mr Long was the Project Manager and Mr Peter Johnson, an external consultant from PA Consulting, was Project Stage Manager. Mrs P Elliot of ITD was Business Assurance Coordinator and was responsible for supporting Mr Long with planning and business advice and for reporting to Mr Lowson on business aspects of the project. ²³

5.83 The terms of reference of the ATPB were to:

1 Analyse [AHVG] information requirements and dataflows to enable individual animals (initially cattle) and herds/flocks to be traced for statutory purposes. Tasks include:

- comparison of ID, recording and tracing procedures and systems in [Great Britain] with those in use in other EC countries;

- assessment of possible impact of changing EC requirements on the need to identify and trace animals in [Great Britain] (especially post-1992);

- assessment of possible impact of related initiatives both inside and out with MAFF (eg findings of the Wilson Committee).

2 Consider options available for identifying and recording cattle movements to enable the tracing of individual animals and herds, including estimates of likely costs and benefits and the applicability of system options to other species of farm animal.

3 Make recommendations regarding future action, and produce implementation plans:

- in the short term, in respect to disease control in cattle; and

- in the longer term, in respect to identification of all major species of farm animal for statutory, and possibly other, purposes. ²⁴

5.84 On 18 January 1991 the first meeting of the ATPB was held, chaired by Mr Lowson. The minutes of the meeting record that:

1.2 Mr Lowson explained the dual origins of the project. First, the tracking activity was recognised as central to the responsibilities of the Animal Health Division, and the system had been identified as a candidate to be pursued under the recent AH/VG IT Sub-Strategy Study.

1.3 An essential part of disease control was the ability to trace the movement, progeny and ancestry of animals. The Division was concerned with all animal diseases, but only those identified as notifiable by a range of Statutory Instruments were likely to be subject to tracking. Different diseases had different information requirements, and any system would need to take account of the particular disease situation.

1.4 The second origin of the system had arisen through the undertaking made by the Minister to the Agriculture Select Committee after the BSE outbreak. The need was expressed to investigate the possibility of a computerised database to maintain records of animal movement, progeny and ancestry; this was in order to control BSE in the event that it might be found to be transmissible in the future.

1.5 AHVG felt, however, that several of the assertions connected with this perceived need would prove inaccurate or untrue, and that one of the main benefits of such a system would be to the cattle industry in its desire to facilitate improved herd management and the selection of optimum breeding lines. The AHVG group on the other hand was not concerned with this commercial issue, and was interested primarily in the possibility of easing the task of disease control. The Group already had a recently-extended requirement on farmers to keep breeding and movement records, and ran a successful manual system.

1.6 It would be the task for the study to focus on the AH needs for a computerised system, and to compare this requirement with the needs of the industry. Also to assess whether there was sufficient justification for development on either account, and to make recommendations accordingly. Animal Health Division would be responsible for the public presentation and further dissemination of the information in the report. ²⁵

5.85 The ATPB then discussed a Project Initiation Document prepared by Mr Johnson, which had been circulated to members on 16 January 1991. ²⁶ In section 2 of the document, entitled 'Project Objectives and Scope', it was noted that:

The primary focus must be on identifying the system requirements (and possible solutions) necessary to enable the effective control of disease in cattle. However, given that certain diseases can spread between species, the applicability of such a system to non-bovine farm animals must also be assessed. ²⁷

5.86 During discussion of the document, Mr Long, the Project Manager, clarified that as indicated in section 4, 'the audience for the interim report would be AHVG, and that they would be responsible for the public presentation of the final version'. ²⁸ Section 6 of the document set out the project plan, which anticipated that various options would be identified and evaluated. In response to Mr Matthews's query as to whether it was possible that no option would be selected, Mr Lowson confirmed that 'it was quite possible that the conclusion would be to do nothing for the time being, but to await developments in the Community'. ²⁹

5.87 The ATPB's second meeting took place on 1 March 1991. At this meeting a document prepared by Mr Johnson entitled, 'Current System - Description, Problems and Requirements', was considered. The report separately considered identification records, movement records and tracing. It described existing procedures and requirements for each, and identified problems and weaknesses. It concluded:

The current system is labour intensive, slow and often unreliable. It is heavily dependent on good quality information being maintained on farms and elsewhere - this despite the fact that the record keeper usually has no business motive for doing so - and, failing this, the investigative abilities (and stamina?) of the Veterinary and Animal Health Officers in the field. Nevertheless, based on the published statistics for animal health in [Great Britain], the system would appear to be effective in controlling and containing the current crop of cattle disease.

HOWEVER

Were there to be a sudden significant increase in the number of herd breakdowns (TB or Brucellosis), an outbreak of a fast acting viral disease (eg foot and mouth), or a large-scale feed-related problem requiring rapid tracing, it is unlikely that the current system would provide the level of responsiveness or data quality necessary to adequately cope with the situation. It would certainly stretch to the limit AHVG resources in the Regions and current programmes of work would suffer badly. ³⁰

5.88 During the meeting Mr Johnson reiterated that if the EU was to require recording of movement details and the details of all stock held at each holding, a manual system could not cope, 'and would certainly not be able to handle the rapid response needed if there was a major disease outbreak'. ³¹

5.89 The note of the meeting records that Mr Lowson concluded:

. . . that some of the problems identified were practical difficulties posed by the physical identification of cattle in the farm situation and would not be solved by the ability to collect and manipulate data. As far as the IT solution was concerned, the main problem was simply the collection of data in a suitable format for entry on to the system . . .

The elements that needed to be considered were unique identification and how quickly AHVG needed to establish the association between the Identifier and the location which would be dependent on the particular disease requirement. ³²

5.90 On 13 March 1991 Mr Johnson wrote to Mr Lowson setting out his proposed approach to the next stages of the feasibility study. He noted that it was unusual to identify options before the user requirement had been agreed. However, his view was that although AHVG was fairly certain about its own internal requirements on animal tracking, it still did not have a clear idea of which EU and industry requirements it intended, or would be required, to satisfy. Thus, if the study was to proceed, it would have to be on the basis of 'likely outcomes'. ³³

5.91 Mr Long made a similar point to Mr Matthews on 19 March 1991. He noted that 'AHVG want us to look at what is possible and identify options which appear likely to satisfy the emerging requirement'. He suggested that ITD would structure its report so as to present a number of possible requirement elements, indicating the source of each requirement (eg, AHVG or industry) so that AHVG could choose which should be investigated further. It would be for AHVG to 'decide how far down the road they want to go'. Mr Long told Mr Matthews:

I share your concern that we should not seek to determine the requirement on behalf of AHVG . . . our initial aim is to provide information which AHVG can use in deciding on the exact shape of their requirement . . . like you I am keen that we should not waste time going round in circles ourselves, but look to AHVG for a clear lead in these areas. ³⁴

5.92 The third meeting of the ATPB was held on 26 March 1991. Document ATS/91/03 prepared by Mr Johnson entitled, 'User Requirement and Systems Options', was discussed at length. The ATPB dealt with each option identified in the document:

1. Option 1 - Enhance/Improve Current Manual Procedures.This would mean no computerisation but the alteration of the current manual system in an attempt to satisfy EU Requirements for physical animal identification. This option would be unlikely to satisfy EU requirements for tracing, validation and cross-checking purposes;
2. Option 2 - Automate Issue of Bovine IDs.This would mean building on the current system and Option 1 with the introduction of an authorisation system for the issue of bovine IDs. This option would also be unlikely to satisfy EU requirements for validation and tracing;
3. Option 3 - Automate Current Tracing Procedures.This would involve the automation of animal tracing procedures currently used in Divisional Offices. Although this system would be of benefit to the Divisional Offices by removing much of the paper work it would not solve any of the existing problems connected with identification and movement recording of animals;
4. Option 4 - Centrally Record Bovine Births and Deaths.Much of this system would mean relying on the farmer to provide up-to-date information. The main benefits would be to industry and the EU. The high cost involved would give a relatively small return to the Ministry;
5. Option 5 - Incorporate Movement Recording.This system would also mean that farmers would need to provide up-to-date information of all movements on and off their holdings. The tracing of animals would be made much easier with this system but as there would be no records of movements at markets the information could not always be relied on;
6. Option 5A - As above but include Market Movements.This system would add movements at markets but to introduce this aspect would make the installation of such a system very expensive; and
7. Option 6 - Introduce Movement Permit System Based on Health Status.This option would satisfy EU and industry requirements and could be adapted for any animal. It would, however, be very expensive to implement. ³⁵

5.93 Mr Lowson told the ATPB that he thought that to meet AHVG requirements, 'Option 1 was all that was needed with a few enhancements'. He believed that Option 4 would meet the Select Committee requirements and Option 6 would meet possible EU requirements. However, since EU requirements were not yet known, 'it would be unwise to go ahead with Option 6 at this stage'. ³⁶

5.94 It was concluded at the meeting that before a report could be presented to Ministers, AHVG and ITD would prepare and exchange separate papers summarising their understanding of the position to date. ³⁷

5.95 On 12 April 1991, Mr Matthews minuted Mr Lowson with ITD's summary of 'where we have got to and what should happen next'. Mr Matthews summarised ITD's understanding of AHVG's position:

1. the current system, with modifications, was sufficient to meet AHVG's immediate (known) requirements;
2. a system to meet the Select Committee's requirements, particularly on vertical tracing for BSE, would be 'extremely expensive', and would take some time to implement, by which time BSE might not be a problem;
3. EC requirements were still emerging, and the feasibility study's preliminary cost assessments demonstrated that to meet them in an 'ideal' way would be so expensive that efforts should be made to get the EC to 'lower its sights'; and
4. the cattle industry's interest in such a system was driven by a separate and distinct need - to collect information for genetic evaluation purposes. ³⁸

5.96 Mr Matthews suggested that 'on this basis no further investigation work by ITD would be required and presumably you would report to Ministers on the above lines'. However, he went on to state that 'we have considerable reservations based on study activity to date with regard to the existing system's ability to form a base for future development'. This was because:

Firstly, AHVG's own requirement has not, to date, been well defined, particularly in terms of:

- system responsiveness (ie ability to provide information within set timeframes)

- system capacity (ie ability and impact of handling increased volumes of transactions and data without affecting response times)

- system adaptability (eg to cover other species of farm animal)

- system auditability (ie ability to verify data held on the system by means of cross-checking, use of inventories, etc).

Our second major concern is that the various options we have proposed have not been explored in sufficient detail to provide reliable dat[a] on:

- costs

- benefits . . .

- internal (organisational) and external (client) impact. ³⁹

5.97 Mr Matthews's minute explained that ITD believed that the study should inform the reader what automated tracking systems could provide in the way of enhanced ability to identify and trace animals for animal health purposes, and show what the cost and likely impact would be. It would also be necessary to show the impact of not implementing an automated system, including the likely effects on AHVG's animal tracking ability, and MAFF's ability to comply with EU requirements. Mr Matthews concluded:

This leads me to the conclusion that ATS/91/03 with its matrix of requirements versus options is too coarse a document on which to base firm conclusions. My recommendation to the Project Board is to carry the study forward and deliver a report that:

- draws together the work that has been undertaken so far on this study;

- tightens up on the AHVG requirement, addressing the points in paragraph 3 above (with help from your people); and

- recommends further exploration of some or all of the options suggested in document ATS/91/03, if not immediately then when EC requirements are better known. ⁴⁰

5.98 During oral evidence, Mr Lowson stated that Mr Matthew's minute was 'a useful contribution to the discussion that was happening at that time in the project group'. He said:

It is clear that the part of the Ministry responsible for IT development had views about the ability of the system that we had at the time to cope with a substantial increase in tracing activity while acknowledging . . . that it would be very expensive. And whilst recognising, I think . . . that there was an EU constraint as well. The suggestion that Mr Matthews makes in this minute is that the conclusion of this stage of the study should be that further work needed to be done. ⁴¹

5.99 Mr Lowson responded to Mr Matthews's minute on 7 May 1991. He apologised that he had been unable to fulfil his 'side of the agreement' by producing a note of what he believed should be done next. He explained that this was because he was having difficulty 'in trying to define the task which we are asking you and your colleagues to carry out'. He amplified:

In most cases where feasibility studies are undertaken we know what the problem is and we are looking for ideas about how IT solutions can help us to meet those specific problems. In this case, because the initiative for action comes at least partly from outside, the task is much less clear. We are asking how, and indeed whether, IT can help us do the job that we are doing, taking account of how the job is likely to develop in the future. As you imply in paragraph 3 of your minute, this requires a clearer indication of what the essential elements of the job are than we have given you so far . . .

This leads me to a similar conclusion to yours, namely that the work so far lacks a really rigorous assessment of what the requirement is. Once we have got that, the rest of an interim report falls together fairly easily. I can therefore agree to what you propose and to the outline that was attached to your minute. ⁴²

Mr Lowson reports progress to the Permanent Secretary

5.100 In the meantime, on 12 April 1991, Mr Lowson had sent Sir Derek Andrews a 'note setting out the issues as they now appear'. The paper identified three 'quite distinct needs' driving current interests in a national computer database:

1. to respond to the perception that the UK has fallen behind its competitors in the promotion of genetic improvement, which was the motivation behind the MMB and NCBA setting up the Wilson Committee;
2. to consider whether, particularly in relation to BSE, existing data collection and storage systems were adequate to deal with disease and contamination control requirements, and whether new technology could help meet those requirements better; and
3. to be able to fulfil Community requirements, such as having mechanisms in place to enable the tracing of animals back to their original and holding premises, as would be required by 1993. ⁴³

5.101 The paper noted that while the responses to these needs would differ, the common factor was the need for an effective system of unique identification. MAFF's interests were considered:

The Ministry's interests in any national database rest mainly with possible benefits for disease control since genetic improvement would be for producers to develop; we are only concerned with the regulation of animal breeding from the point of view of controls related to animal health . . .

As far as disease control is concerned, the Government's response to the Agriculture Committee's Report on BSE undertook to initiate a feasibility study looking at the question of a computerised database. An external consultant has been retained and work is well advanced with the aim being to present an interim report within the next few weeks. At the same time, discussions are under way within the Community on a common system for the identification of animals (a unique identification number) and a possible common movement records system. It will be important to stress the need for any scheme to be cost-effective, bearing in mind that existing systems have served us well in the past. But there are signs that the Commission and some Member States might envisage systems that could require massive resources. Clearly it will be important for any action taken by Government at a national level to be compatible with what emerges in the Community. ⁴⁴

5.102 On 22 April 1991 Sir Derek Andrews replied to Mr Lowson. He stated that the issue of a national cattle database had:

. . . substantial resource implications. These need to be kept in the forefront of the discussions in Brussels and taken into our own thinking in developing the response to the Wilson Committee Report. I note that there will be an interim report available shortly from the external consultant. As soon as there is a draft of this Report available, I would wish it to come forward for discussion at official level. It is important that the final version of the consultant's Report takes into account all the relevant considerations. ⁴⁵