Volume 5: Animal Health, 1989-96
5. Cattle-tracking
The Agriculture Select Committee revisits the issue - 1994

5.150 On 30 June 1994 the Agriculture Select Committee announced that it would be undertaking an inquiry into methods of identifying farm livestock. This followed the Select Committee's inquiry into health controls on the importation of live animals, during which 'it became clear to us . . . that there were sufficient important questions left unanswered to justify a separate inquiry into the identification and registration of farm livestock'. ¹ Two issues on which the Select Committee advised that it would concentrate its enquiries were:

the desirability and practicality of identifying and registering individual animals and establishing a centralised national database;

the information to be included on any central database and its potential uses. ²

5.151 MAFF submitted written evidence to the Select Committee on 7 October 1994. The paper briefly set out MAFF's conclusions on the Select Committee's 1990 recommendations on a national cattle identification database, and the reasons supporting them. It also set out the possible uses of a database, including disease tracing, genetic information, ear tag control, subsidy checking, export certification and import checks, and the perceived drawbacks of such a database. ³

5.152 Before the Select Committee finalised its report, the Bovine Animals (Records, Identification and Movement) Order 1995 came into force on 30 January 1995. ⁴ It revoked and replaced the 1990 Order, and implemented the provisions of Commission Directive 92/102/EEC. ⁵ The identification and recording obligations upon farmers did not change, though the new computerised Ear Tag Allocation System (ETAS) was introduced. Cattle born after 1 April 1995 had to be identified with the new tags (article 8).

5.153 On 22 March 1995 the Select Committee published its report entitled, 'Identification and Registration of Farm Livestock'. On the issue of establishing a computerised database, the report said:

For diseases with very long incubation periods, such as [BSE], MAFF argued that there would also be little or no benefit in the short-term of a central database. As MAFF pointed out, it would not contain the necessary historical data. For a system to be of value in combating an infection of this type it would need to have been in operation for a number of years prior to the problem occurring. With cases of [BSE] in decline, and no conclusive evidence of horizontal transmission of the disease or of vertical transmission from dam to calf, it seems unlikely that a database would be a worthwhile investment on the grounds of [BSE]. Should a disease with a similar aetiology to [BSE] ever occur in the national herd again, a database established now could of course be a valuable tool. It would, however, mean making a substantial investment now in order to see a return perhaps decades in the future.

Whilst we accept that the justification for a central database for disease purposes under current circumstances may be slim, this takes no account of disease problems that may emerge in the future. The disease tracing problems we have already studied, including those involving foot and mouth disease, sero-positive cattle and [BSE], illustrate both the dynamic nature of animal disease and the unpredictability of the problems the livestock industry must face. These problems have highlighted the way in which MAFF can be taken off-guard and how the systems currently available have struggled to cope with extraordinary events. Professor Wilson also noted the problems of anticipating new diseases and cited [BSE] and Aujeszky's as examples of diseases that had developed unexpectedly. . . We believe that MAFF's ability to cope with future disease problems, should they arise, would be enhanced by the introduction of some form of central database . . .

We find it disturbing that MAFF appears to have operated an ad hoc policy in respect of its own database system. There has been little evidence of a cohesive approach. As a problem has presented itself - such as [BSE] or ear tag allocation - MAFF has established a new database as a one-off solution. Whilst this may have been a reasonable practice in the past, a more co-ordinated approach is now needed. We recommend that MAFF take appropriate steps to merge all the valuable information already contained in its own existing separate cattle-related database systems into one central MAFF database.

. . . It is evident that no single use to which a national database might be put would justify the high costs of its establishment, but the sum of uses, particularly as time goes by, will make the case for a national database increasingly compelling. While preparations for a national database are in train, we favour enhanced co-ordination of existing industry computer databases: the networking solution. . . . ⁶