Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee

Meeting date: Wednesday, September 21, 2016

Official Report 610KB pdf

---

Subordinate Legislation

---

Prohibited Procedures on Protected Animals (Exemptions) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2016 [Draft]

Welcome to the fourth meeting in 2016 of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee. Everyone is reminded to switch off their mobile phones. No apologies have been received before the meeting.

The first item on the agenda is evidence on the draft Prohibited Procedures on Protected Animals (Exemptions) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2016. From the Scottish Government, I welcome the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Economy and Connectivity, Fergus Ewing; Mike Palmer, who is the deputy director of fisheries at Marine Scotland; Andrew Voas, who is the veterinary adviser; and Barry McCaffrey, who is a solicitor.

The instrument has been laid under affirmative procedure, which means that Parliament must approve it before the provisions can come into force. Following today’s evidence, the committee will be invited at the next agenda item to consider a motion to approve the instrument.

I invite the cabinet secretary to make a short opening statement on the instrument.

Thank you and good morning. The statement is, of necessity, fairly detailed. I welcome the opportunity to explain to the committee our proposal for amending the prohibited procedures on protected animals and hope that committee members will concur with the rationale behind and requirement for the secondary legislation.

We need to change the current legislation to allow for the operation of the beef efficiency scheme, as is explained more fully in the accompanying policy document. The beef efficiency scheme was developed with NFU Scotland and has broad support from the sector. It aims to improve the sustainability of beef production through improved breeding stock and, in particular, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The scheme represents a major investment of £45 million in the Scottish beef sector to improve the efficiency, sustainability and quality of the Scottish beef herd. It will help to increase herd profitability, will form part of our world-leading approach to tackling climate change and will benefit our environment both locally and globally.

A key element of the scheme will entail tissue tagging of 20 per cent of farmers’ calves for genotyping, which will enable genetic data on the herd to be built up. The tags punch out a small tissue sample into a sealed container that can be sent for testing. The tags are different to official identification tags, which do not normally remove a tissue sample from the animal. I have examples of both types of tag with me so that committee members can see what they look like and see the differences. The tagging will enable active use of whole-life data on animals and active planning to help to improve cattle genetics and management practice on farms.

The proposed secondary legislation applies only to bovine animals. Under section 20 of the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006, it is an offence to carry out or to cause a prohibited procedure that involves interference with the sensitive tissues or bone structure of a protected animal. However, Scottish ministers may by regulations exempt a procedure that is carried out for a purpose that is in accordance with, and in such manner as, conditions that are specified in regulations.

Currently, the Prohibited Procedures on Protected Animals (Exemptions) (Scotland) Regulations 2010 as amended include an exemption to enable ear tagging for bovine animals, pigs, sheep, goats and deer for the purposes that I have set out. However, the regulations do not allow for ear tagging for any other purpose, including for genetic analysis. Hence, the statutory instrument is required to allow for the further exemption that would allow tagging of bovine animals for genetic analysis. It is important to note that that would not allow any new procedures to be undertaken in addition to ear tagging, but would simply extend the scope of the current exemption.

The first wave of calves will be genotyped this autumn before they are sold at market. In order to fit in with industry needs—in short, to ensure that as many calves as possible can be captured for tagging in year 1 of the scheme before they are sold on—we are keen to obtain approval for the statutory instrument, if Parliament and the committee so decide, before Parliament breaks for recess on 8 October.

As required under the provisions in the 2006 act, we carried out a short targeted consultation of five weeks’ duration from 26 July to 29 August. The consultation took account of the highly technical and narrow nature of the proposed exemption, and of the fact that we do not propose to allow any new procedures in addition to ear tagging but propose only to expand the scope of the currently permitted procedures so that they can be used for that specific purpose.

There were 21 responses submitted to the consultation, 15 of which were supportive of the proposed legislative change. Those supportive responses represented organisations as diverse as the NFU Scotland and Animal Concern. There were five responses from individuals who are opposed to the measure and one response that made no indication of support or opposition.

Among those who oppose the proposal, reservations were raised about the impact of additional tagging on the welfare of animals. Ear tagging does cause momentary pain and discomfort at the time of application, but there are rarely any longer-term adverse effects on the animal, and the risk of infection can be minimised by storing and applying tags in hygienic conditions. The welfare implications of applying a tissue tag are equivalent to those arising from the application of identity tags, which are already permitted.

Furthermore, as a result of genetic sampling and the resultant improvements in genetic selection, we expect cumulative and permanent benefits to the national herd in respect of growth rates, feed conversion, maternal behaviour, nutritional practice and disease resistance.

I hope that those opening remarks and the accompanying documents that we have supplied explain the background to and the rationale for the proposal. I and my officials will be happy to answer any questions that members have.

Thank you, cabinet secretary. A few of us at the table would like to declare interests before we ask any questions. I declare an interest as a cattle breeder and farmer, and I have used tags in the past.

Similarly, I am a farmer in Aberdeenshire, and I have agricultural interests. I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests.

I have 3 acres on which there are sheep.

That is all right. Now everyone knows that there are members with interests.

I will start with a question for the cabinet secretary. What other methods were considered before it was decided that ear tags would be used? For example, did you consider using hair samples, which have been used for more than 10 years to provide the same information for pedigree breeds?

That is a very apt question, the answer to which I read earlier. I am sure that my officials will locate the details.

The question is a good one because before we approve a change that involves animal welfare issues, we need thoroughly to examine alternative measures for serving the purpose that I described in my opening remarks.

From memory—my official will help me out and mark my answer out of 10—the alternatives were taking hair samples, which involved practical difficulties with cleanliness; nasal sampling, which involved other practical difficulties; and one other method. I am sure that Mr Voas will provide a more comprehensive and authoritative answer.

The other available methods are blood sampling, taking hair samples and nasal swabbing. In this particular case, however, we want a consistent high-quality DNA sample, and the best and most reliable way of doing that is with a tissue-tag sample.

Blood sampling would be a viable alternative, but it would require a vet to come and take a sample, so there would be practical and cost difficulties in arranging for vets to sample every animal. The tissue-tag sample gives a consistent high-quality tissue sample that is suitable for the DNA extraction that is proposed for the BES.

Can I push you a wee bit on that? As far as I am aware, hair samples do exactly the same job, which I say based on what the British Cattle Movement Service requires for identifying animals without passports. Certainly all the breed societies use hair sampling—they find it very effective, and it is somewhat less invasive than an ear tag.

I know that ear tagging has to go on, so the proposal would be a minor change. I would just like to know—as, I am sure, would people outside Parliament—that non-invasive methods have been considered.

The hair sampling method was considered in detail, but there are problems. If a large number of samples need to be taken, as will be the case in this scheme, there are problems with hygiene and consistency of collection. A good sample can be taken if it is done carefully, but if large numbers are to be taken, we need a consistent repeatable method other than hair sampling. Hair sampling can be subject to the vagaries of farmers adopting different techniques, or not doing it in the most hygienic conditions, which could lead to contaminated samples and the need for re-sampling.

The cabinet secretary made something of the fact that the proposed scheme will help our climate change plans. My knowledge is incomplete, but I understand that there is considerable genetic variability in the amount of methane that is emitted from various bovines’ rumens. The variability results partly from diet and partly from the different bacteria that live in their rumens, but there is also a genetic element. When you talk about seeking benefits for our climate change efforts, are you referring to reducing the methane from the rumens of bovines by breeding selectively for those that will emit less methane, or do you have something else in mind?

09:15  

That is certainly an important component of the rationale behind the regulations and the beef efficiency scheme. It is a major scheme that provides £45 million of financial support to the sector, which is a substantial contribution.

I will bring in the experts to give an authoritative opinion, but my understanding from a meeting that I had yesterday with Jim McLaren and Uel Morton of Quality Meat Scotland is that a key component of the quality of our herd is that the stock must be as healthy as possible, and—to put it crudely—healthy stock tend to emit less methane. I hope that I have not misunderstood that. To drive up further the quality of our herd is certainly one of the aims of the beef efficiency scheme. It is not for me to dictate committee business, but I think that the committee would benefit at some point from an exposition by QMS of the wider policy aims of the scheme, and of the considerable advantages that we enjoy at the moment from the relatively low consumption of protein in our herd compared with the international average. The statistics are quite remarkable.

As far as the original question is concerned, I would like to bring in Andrew Voas or Mike Palmer to expand on what I have said.

The scheme is very much about gathering a data bank that will allow us to introduce more efficient farming techniques and management practices that will reduce methane emissions. For example, we will gather data on the sire identity, the calving ease, the calf figure, the calf weight and the cow docility. From the genotyping samples, we will gather phenotypes, which are the traits of the different cattle and, from that, we can put together a metadatabase for the Scottish herd. At farm level, an advisory service will be put in place for each member of the scheme so that the farmer can talk to an adviser one to one and in a group setting to talk through how the data that have been gathered on their herd can be applied for more efficient farming techniques.

We have looked at a very similar scheme that was pioneered in Ireland and which has had successful results. Therefore, we are not going into the scheme blind; we are going into it on the basis of very good evidence from an existing scheme that has shown that gathering the data as I have described gives information that will allow us to improve efficiency and reduce emissions.

Various members of the committee have caught my eye and are lining up to ask questions. I do not wish you to reduce the quality of your answers, but perhaps you could keep them as short and punchy as possible so that I can get everyone in. Otherwise, members will be after me, afterwards.

Stewart Stevenson has a very brief follow-up question.

Mr Palmer mentioned a metadatabase. I understand metadata to be data that describe other data. What do you mean by “metadatabase”?

In that technical respect, perhaps it was wrong of me to use the word “metadatabase”. I meant that there would be a database of the whole herd, as well as data at farm level.

That is fine.

I have questions on the practicalities. Thank you for bringing examples of the tags, because I was interested to know what was going to be printed on them. It appears that the herd number and everything else will be on the tag, but I had thought that it might be more like a management tag, which is a blank tag that farmers can write their own information on.

As you know, I keep cattle, and we actually put in three tags—the third one is a management tag that we write on with a pen. That sort of tag might have been more suitable. If the tags are going to be like the ones we have seen, I am going to have four tags in our cattle—the two that we have to put in, the third one, which is the sample one, and then a management tag on top of that. My suggestion is that a blank management tag would have been more suitable.

Secondly, if the cattle lose the tag before they are slaughtered, will it have to be replaced?

Thirdly, will the farmer be responsible for ordering the tags, or will they arrive on site?

I ask Mike Palmer to answer those practical points.

On the first question, the genotype tag will have the identity of the calf printed on it, to ensure that we have the right calf and that we can trace it all the way back.

Where tags for some reason become dislodged from a calf, we will deal with that circumstance on a case-by-case basis. Obviously, we would then be in communication with the farmer about how to respond to that. It might be felt that, if it is just one calf, we can let that go because it does not affect the bank of data sufficiently to require us to go back and retag or whatever. We would deal with that on a case-by-case basis in a pragmatic and practical fashion.

The third question was on the supply of tags. The tags will be sent out to farmers, who will be told before that which calves are going to be sampled and which have been identified for tagging. The tags will be sent out free of charge to the farmers, and all that they will need to do is apply the tag, take the sample and send it back to the lab. There will be no payment involved for the producer; the transportation and processing of the tags will all be done by the lab.

As you are aware, tags get lost fairly regularly. It would be good if there was a pragmatic approach to that. We are starting with 20 per cent of calves, so I welcome that answer, because it could become very complex if farmers had to apply for the special tags and replace them, as well as all the other tags that we have to replace.

To follow up on that, Mr Chapman has raised a very sensible point, so we will take it away and look at it. I am keen that we should not have any undue penalties. That should not be our approach, although we should ensure that the rules are properly observed. We will take that away and write to the committee about it.

Many of the questions that I was going to ask have just been answered. Cattle already have tags on them, so how many tags will a cow have? Will it be four, three, two or one?

At the moment, cattle are legally required to have two identification tags. As Mr Chapman said, they could well have a management tag and they might have a bovine viral diarrhoea testing tag.

So it is four and rising.

Yes. Also, there may well be a need for replacement tags if tags are removed.

Do we honestly need multiple tags? I declare that I am not a farmer, although I have seen cows from some of our excellent beef cattle herds at the Royal Highland Show. Could the sort of tags that we have just seen replace the other tags or will we actually have cows walking about in fields with five, six or seven tags on them?

The option to take a BES sample from one of the primary identification tags is in the scheme. We could possibly look at that in the future.

I suggest that the tags that I have seen—they look very good—should replace the original tags or the first tag that goes on an animal. At the end of the day, we do not need multiple tags; all that we need is one or possibly two tags. Can I take your silence to be a yes to my suggestion?

I do not think that it is a yes.

No, I do not think that it is a yes either.

It is a perfectly valid question. The proliferation of tags—the question of how many tags it is reasonable to use in terms of animal welfare—is an issue that was raised. It is my understanding that there will not be as many tags as you have mentioned, but we will take away your point and provide a specific answer to the committee—unless we can do so now. Can we, Mike?

I would like to comment, convener. I am sorry to interrupt, Mr Palmer.

When we drive along roads and go out in the countryside, we see cows putting their heads up and down against fences or whatever. The point has been made that some of these tags will come off. Therefore, we have to minimise their use. I agree with the SSI—we have got to take the genetic sample—but I suggest that we do not need multiple tags on a cow.

I will follow up Richard Lyle’s point. There are two mandatory tags. You could then have the tissue tag referred to in the SSI, a fourth metal tag if you have a pedigree herd and you want to keep a registration and you could also have a management tag. It could end up looking better than someone going out on a Saturday night with lots of earrings. From a cow’s point of view, the less they have on the ear, the less the chances are that they will catch on something. I think that you are being asked to look again at the issue, minister.

I will move on to Jamie Green.

Do you want to answer, Mike?

I got the impression that the cabinet secretary did not want to give an answer there, but if he does, he is welcome to do so.

Mike Palmer might be able to provide more information that is of use.

By way of background, we have looked very carefully at that option in developing the scheme. Our aspiration is to reduce the number of tags on cattle as far as we can. Clearly, it would be preferable, more efficient and better for the cattle if we could reduce their number.

Because this is a groundbreaking and new scheme, and genotyping is a new development for cattle, we need to be very careful in scientific terms about the number of variables that we can control. By having a separate tag, we are controlling the number of scientific variables. Our scientists gave us very clear advice that that approach would be advisable at the current time.

To back up what the cabinet secretary said, we are very open to trying to streamline the approach in future years; the scheme will operate for years, so we will look to streamline it.

Jamie, you had a question.

My first question is to Mr Palmer; my second is to the cabinet secretary.

I presume that the point of tagging is the collection of a tissue sample. What is the point of the tag itself? Is it to identify that a tissue sample has been taken? In other words, if the tissue sampling is just a one-off event, surely there is another method of using the ear to take a tissue sample that does not leave a permanent legacy of that sample having been taken. Given that the process is not on-going, what is the point of the tag for the duration of the animal’s life?

To a certain extent, that goes back to the earlier point about alternative methods of taking samples. One could take a hair or blood sample but, as we have discussed, there are various difficulties in doing that. Tagging is the most efficient and reliable way of taking a high-quality sample. It so happens that that means a tag is applied. We have looked at other methods that would not involve a tag, but they are not sufficiently reliable with the current technology.

Also, the tag provides a permanent record that ties that sample definitively to the animal from which it was taken.

My second question is about the scheme. Is it mandatory? Perhaps that information is in the briefing that I have, but I want to double-check with you, cabinet secretary, given that we are looking to tag 20 per cent of each herd. Will all farmers be automatically sent the tags, or will they have to sign up to the scheme proactively? Do they have to sign up? If so, what is the benefit to the individual farmer in addition to the wider benefits of the scheme?

09:30  

The scheme is not mandatory in that we were not obliged by EU law or otherwise to deliver it. We brought it forward in order to promote further the success of the beef sector in Scotland believing, with the advice that we had, that promoting beef efficiency, as has happened in Ireland, is a key method of improving the quality of our stock and, thereby, the profitability and success of the sector in Scotland, particularly in a competitive situation in which cheaper beef is coming in from places such as Argentina and even Ireland. That is the answer to the first question about the scheme. The rest of the questions were of a more technical nature, and I ask Mike Palmer to address them.

Certainly. What benefits do the farmers gain from the scheme? Each member of the scheme gets a yearly financial payment to compensate them for the task that we are asking them to deliver. There are benefits beyond that, which will accrue from the more efficient farming practices that result from the scheme. As the cabinet secretary said, we are confident that that will deliver much higher standards and much better outcomes for our beef herd in the future, and more profitability as a result.

There do not seem to be any more questions. I would just like to push the cabinet secretary on the replacement of the tags should the tag get lost once the information has been gathered and the genetic details of the individual calf have been recorded against the animal on the database that will be kept by farmers.

With the greatest respect, tags get lost probably more regularly than Mike Palmer might accept. There needs to be a really pragmatic approach to whether to go back and re-tissue sample again with the same tag just—the data will not have been used at that stage—for the sake of having a tag in an animal. I push the cabinet secretary to be as pragmatic about that as possible.

Yes, I think I have already indicated that we take the point, which was raised earlier, as being important. It is not a matter that we should brush aside but one that we should look at and consider carefully. We want to take a pragmatic not a penal approach, but we must observe that the scheme requires the rules to be met, otherwise the benefits therefrom will not be realised. The process of inspection that routinely takes place will check the tags and we need to take a pragmatic approach.

Mike, do you have anything to add on the specific issue of the replacement of tags, or should we just come back to the committee later?

No, I have nothing to add. I absolutely agree that we need to take as pragmatic an approach as possible. That is certainly the spirit in which we will deliver the scheme.

Unless there are any other questions, I thank the cabinet secretary and his officials for their helpful evidence.

Item 2 is the formal consideration of motion S5M-01446. I invite the cabinet secretary to speak to and move the motion.

I refer to the remarks that I have made, which were not short.

I move,

That the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee recommends that the draft Prohibited Procedures on Protected Animals (Exemptions) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2016 be approved.

From the questions that have been asked and the responses that we have heard, it seems that the legislation enables tags to be fitted to cows and animals. That should be supported for obvious reasons, but I have a question. Will the minister consider bringing forward legislation to implement a maximum number of tags that can be put on an animal? That is important from an animal welfare perspective.

If the minister wants to answer that, he may, but he and his officials have given a clear indication that that matter will be looked at. Mr Rumbles, your comments are noted because they reflect the committee’s position.

We should support the SSI. Mr Rumbles made the point that I was going to raise. I am sure that the cabinet secretary will take away the suggestion that we look at and minimise the number of tags on animals. I am quite happy that the scheme will benefit the producers of beef in this country, and I support it.

On the basis that no one has caught my eye and there are no further comments, I will put the question.

Motion agreed to,

That the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee recommends that the draft Prohibited Procedures on Protected Animals (Exemptions) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2016 be approved.

Thank you. That concludes the consideration of this affirmative instrument. We will report the outcome to the Parliament. I suspend the meeting briefly to allow the cabinet secretary and his team to adjust before the next session.

09:35 Meeting suspended.  

09:38 On resuming—