Sheep (Electronic Identification)
The final item of business is a members' business debate on motion S3M-4150, in the name of Liam McArthur, on the electronic identification of sheep. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes with concern that the EU Council of Ministers has voted to press ahead with the introduction of compulsory electronic identification (EID) of sheep across the European Union; recognises that this decision was taken despite outright opposition from some member states and growing unease among others about the cost and practicalities of such a scheme; doubts that a system of EID can be found that is workable on most of Scotland's sheep farms, particularly those in the Highlands and Islands; further notes that £3 million has been committed to a large-scale pilot to try to find a workable and cost-effective solution, and believes that the European Commission has much to learn from observing the pilot and, should a solution not be identified, that a derogation from a compulsory EID scheme would be in the best interests of Scotland's sheep farmers.
I am delighted that Parliament has an opportunity to debate this important issue this evening. I thank those members who signed my motion, who probably included David Whitton, and those who are present in the chamber for what I am sure will be an interesting exchange. I am grateful to those who took time earlier today to meet Kelvin Pate and a small but boisterous delegation from his flock. Rumour has it that Holyrood Magazine is seeking no more photographs for the caption competitions for the rest of the year.
Important though this debate is, some might question its timing, given the decision by the European Council of Ministers in March to end our derogation and press ahead with introducing compulsory electronic tagging of sheep in the United Kingdom. It could be argued that we are locking the pen after the yowe has bolted, but even if the European Commission does not get its way on sheep EID we stand a fair chance of tracing her. I believe that the debate is still live and that there is a great deal to play for. More important for our sheep farmers, many of our remote communities and rural economies and our environment is that there is much to lose if we do not win the argument between now and 31 December. Success will require a concerted and genuinely collaborative effort over the coming months. I hope that this evening's debate will send a clear message about the cross-party support for such an effort.
As farming representatives made clear to MSPs earlier today, much of the onus lies with the Scottish ministers to act decisively and to stay the course for as long as it takes. Evidence must be gathered, arguments crafted and alliances fashioned with other member states and farming industries. Most of all though, the Scottish ministers must engage directly and urgently with Commissioner Vassiliou, who has offered to consider a more flexible approach. Her officials have reiterated that to the industry; the Scottish ministers must now make the political sell for a voluntary scheme on farm, with controls at various critical points where the risk of disease and the need for traceability are demonstrable.
Much of the legwork has already been done. NFU Scotland and Nigel Miller are to be congratulated on developing proposals that may stand a chance of being workable in the context of how sheep are farmed in this country.
This issue has being going on since about 2003, so can the member explain why it has reached a point now, according to his speech, whereby the Scottish Government must deal with it at the 11th hour?
Absolutely. This debate was kind of pre-empted by yesterday's SNP press releases. The previous Administration sought derogations for unworkable proposals; it is now up to ministers in the current Government to make the sell for, if not further derogations, then at least the flexibility that we now need.
The industry's anger is understandable, not least because of the timing of the proposals. We already face the challenge of trying to stem and reverse the haemorrhage of sheep from our hills and island areas. The economic and social impact of a further loss of sheep from those areas could be devastating for many fragile communities, some of which have lost up to 60 per cent of their sheep since 1999.
The environmental cost, too, must not be overlooked. RSPB Scotland points out in its briefing:
"additional labour and costs implied by the proposed compulsory introduction of electronic sheep ID could contribute to the difficulties in keeping sheep in"
some
"areas and so further impact on biodiversity".
European Council regulation 21/2004 was designed in response to tracing issues that were highlighted by the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak in 2001. Since then, in 2007, we have had a further reminder of the cost and disruption that such outbreaks can cause. I do not think that any member would dispute the need for good traceability of sheep. As with cattle, good traceability of sheep is an essential part of disease control and helps to underpin public and consumer confidence, but any regulation must be evidence based, proportionate and targeted. In all three respects, regulation 21/2004 is defective. Indeed, the 2007 FMD outbreak demonstrated that lessons had been learned since 2001 and that contingency measures were effective in controlling the spread.
As NFU Scotland makes clear in its briefing and has been pointing out for months, the regulation is undeliverable in its current form. There are many reasons for that. The principal ones are the challenge of maintaining individual identity within large flocks; cross-compliance issues that will arise from a failure to achieve high levels of identification in extensive systems; and the high cost of implementation relative to the value and profitability of the sector and the benefit that will ultimately be achieved.
Anyone who has even a rudimentary understanding of sheep farming in Scotland can see the impracticalities of what is being proposed, particularly in the Highlands and Islands. My colleagues Jamie Stone, John Farquhar Munro and Tavish Scott can doubtless provide graphic examples of why the proposals are impractical, some of which may even be publishable in the Official Report. Orkney might not boast the wide untamed expanses of the west Highlands—where satellite navigation rather than EID might be called for—but it presents its own challenges to local sheep farmers.
The North Ronaldsay sheep, which are reared on seaweed and kept off the better-quality grassland by a sea wall around the island, are probably the most famous Orkney ovine. One of my earliest memories after I moved to Orkney in the late 1970s was of my father taking North Ronaldsay—rolly— sheep in his creel boat over to Lingaholm, off Stronsay. As there was no pier and a fairly basic approach to loading and unloading, it is fair to say that the life expectancy of your average tag—EID or otherwise—would have been fairly limited.
The truth is that, from the Borders to the western and northern isles, sheep farming in Scotland is—for practical, geographic and climatic reasons—very different from sheep farming in other parts of the European Union. To reflect that, the NFUS has developed a series of counter-proposals. The Commission has shown itself willing to respond to the demands of other member states for flexibility, and the commissioner has declared her willingness to do likewise in the case of the UK. It is now imperative that, over the coming months, a similar case is made successfully on behalf of Scotland's sheep industry.
The NFUS's proposals identify levels of risk and target accordingly, which has the benefit of reducing the burden on individual farmers, increasing producer acceptance and improving compliance. As a result, high traceability can be more successfully delivered. The basis of the NFUS's proposals is that sheep that are based on the farm where they were born present no health risk and that it is only once they move off the holding that traceability becomes a factor. Until such movement occurs, it is proposed that a simple flock identifier would be the only required form of identification. After that point, various options have been suggested, from full compliance with the regulation through to the use of a single EID under the so-called slaughter derogation, which allows for batch traceability. Those are practical and workable solutions that would deliver disease control and robust traceability and reduce some of the costs to individual farmers and crofters but, as the NFUS makes clear,
"at a political level, this will only work with further pressure from the Scottish Government on the European Commission and on the UK Government and other Member States' governments to re-visit the issue in the Council of Ministers".
Therefore, it would be helpful to know what meetings have taken place or are planned with UK ministers to discuss the NFUS's proposals, and what specific steps have been taken to put and keep the issue on the agenda of the Committee of Permanent Representatives and the Council of Ministers. Has a meeting been sought with Commissioner Vassiliou? If so, when will it take place? What meetings have been sought or secured with other member states to build support and to discuss the impact and cost of introducing such measures?
The threat that the EU's proposals pose should not be underestimated—Kelvin Pate was clear about that earlier this afternoon—and if they are implemented in their present form sheep farmers will leave the industry in droves. The Scottish ministers have the evidence and the counter-proposals from the industry and they have received an invitation from the commissioner. Thanks to this evening's debate, I hope that they will recognise that they have the full backing of this Parliament. It now remains to be seen whether they have what it takes.
I am happy to support Liam McArthur's motion and to add my voice on this important issue. I am especially pleased that our expert, David Whitton, is with us tonight. Members may mock, but his expertise on particular aspects of the sheep flock will be exposed fully in a few moments' time, when he makes his contribution to the debate.
It is easy to understand that at one point some well-intentioned EU official was clear about the origins and intention of the proposals. Of itself, traceability is not a bad thing—the NFUS brief makes it clear that it is important. Disease control is also important. It supports the guarantees that people get for stock that comes from markets that have traceability, which can improve the price in the marketplace. I am sure that someone thought that electronic identification was the way in which to ensure traceability in the modern world, to save paperwork and to ease administration.
I can see how the proposal originated but, as Liam McArthur set out, it is utterly impractical in the Scottish context and adds cost to an already fragile industry that is suffering badly at present. That is cost to the producer, which cannot easily be passed down the rest of the chain. The proposals are impractical because of the terrain in which most of our people operate, especially in the Highlands and Islands. Gatherings can never be complete in such terrain—when people lose stock there, they may never understand how they have lost it. The technology is not yet fully proven. Naturally, people are worried that, if they infringe, there will be cross-compliance issues that will affect their potential income.
For the reasons that I have set out, the UK Government has opposed the proposals for many years. Clearly, it believed—and still believes—that the costs outweigh the benefits. It has questioned the proposals from the outset, with the support of the Scottish Government, and the issue has been raised in the Council of Ministers. The responsible UK minister has met the Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development and urged a rethink; I am sure that Scottish ministers have done the same. At recent council meetings, the UK Government has supported others in urging a rethink and has secured a delay in the proposals' implementation, the phasing-in of certain recording requirements and agreement that sheep under one year of age will not be tagged for slaughter.
As Liam McArthur indicated, at the most recent council meeting, the Commission began to show signs of keeping open the door to greater flexibility on how the proposals would be implemented, if not on whether implementation would take place. I understand that the UK Government is happy to keep raising the issue for as long as it takes to get a resolution.
As Liam McArthur indicated, the NFUS has developed the strategy that it will contribute to the debate. Rightly, it is trying to get the support of other farming unions across the EU, so that those unions can put pressure on their state Governments. As long as the UK, with the support of the Scottish Government, has raised the issue in the European Union, it has done so with little support from other member states. That is a key point. Until we get support from other member states, the hard reality is that we will be stuck with the current situation. However, flexibility is now opening up—we need to walk through that door.
I know that the Scottish Government has been working closely with the UK Government on the issue. I urge it to continue to do so until we find solutions. I know that the UK Government has been active in trying to recruit more support from other member states, but some states have already implemented the proposals. Others, as I am sure Jamie McGrigor will tell us, do not really worry about the issue, because they are below the thresholds at which the proposals apply.
The most worrying aspect is that, unless practical solutions are found, it will be yet another reason for people to leave sheep farming in the areas that we represent, on grounds of cost, practicality, worries about cross-compliance and the like. That would impact on the many other services—including transport, veterinary services and feed supplies—that support the industry and rural communities, and would be another reason for the industry's decline. That is why we need to find an answer; I trust that the minister will indicate what further measures will be taken to secure one.
I call Allan Alasdair, to be followed by John Scott.
Thank you, Presiding Officer—I will give way to Scott John in a moment.
I thank Liam McArthur for bringing forward this pertinent topic for discussion and for ensuring that there were sheep at the door of the Parliament this morning to illustrate the point of tonight's debate. I cannot help feeling that, if we were in the legislature of France, the animals would have been driven into the chamber to make that point.
Maybe next time.
Well, there are sheep.
Only this morning I was contacted by a crofting family, who made it plain that the system of electronic tagging—certainly as originally agreed by Europe—would be the final straw for him and some of his neighbours. In island constituencies such as mine, crofters practise a highly marginal form of agriculture. In general, the number of animals is small when compared with a commercial sheep farm; many of my constituents have only 40 or 50 sheep. Proposals to bring in, from January 2010 onwards, the compulsory electronic identification of sheep will therefore have a huge practical impact.
The delay in introducing the electronic identification of sheep allows the Scottish Government to continue to work with the European Commission and with the Scottish agricultural industry to try to find workable solutions. I know that the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment and the Minister for Environment have already made significant representations on this issue, pressing for a workable interpretation of the ruling to be found.
In the community where I live, people have rightly not been slow to let me know their views. They are simply not convinced of any practical benefits from electronically identifying sheep. The cost burden might be easier to bear if crofters could see some point to the exercise in their setting. The task facing an elderly crofter in a place such as Harris to gather and tag sheep electronically is not to be underestimated—especially when that task might follow in the wake of weeks of associated form filling. I believe that similar examples are being cited from around Europe—or at least from places such as the Pyrenees. That makes the case for geography and culture to have at least some bearing on how European directives are implemented.
The stated aim of the sheep identification proposals is the more effective monitoring of individual animals, for disease control in particular. As others have said, part of the criticism levelled at the proposals stems from real doubts about the effectiveness of the technology. However, as well as the cost implications, there will be a negative effect on the general morale of small-scale crofters.
A number of speakers have concentrated on the Highlands and Islands, but does the member agree that the proposals for sheep identification are a real issue in areas such as West Aberdeenshire and other parts of Highland Scotland?
I have no difficulty at all in agreeing with that point. I have been speaking about my constituency, but the points stand for other parts of Scotland too.
As I was saying, there will be an impact on morale, especially at a time when sheep and lamb prices in island and other communities have been slow to recover from the catastrophic low points of recent years.
Electronic identification and individual movement recording far exceed what is genuinely needed, and the implementation of EU regulation 21/2004 will not, in many cases, achieve the Commission's aims. Instead, the regulation will add cost and inconvenience to an already fragile way of life. Worse, it will dispirit potential new entrants if they are faced with yet another level of bureaucracy.
After considerable lobbying by the cabinet secretary and the minister, high-level meetings have been held with the Commission and with Commissioner Vassiliou to discuss an alternative interpretation of the regulation or perhaps even an opt-out for Scotland. I hope that sense will prevail and that the European Commission will acknowledge that the scheme cannot be made mandatory. It cannot be forced on crofters and farmers against their will and better judgment.
I declare an interest as a sheep farmer and as someone who is directly affected by these proposals. I, too, congratulate Liam McArthur on securing this debate on sheep EID. We should remember at the outset that the alternative to EID is manual recording. However, we are where we are, and the derogations that were sought in the 1990s in relation to tagging, which I helped to negotiate, have now been lost to the UK. However, that was not because Scottish farm recording was found wanting on inspection.
As things stand, the Government is committed to the introduction of electronic sheep identification if it is possible, while 9,000 farmers—led by the Teviotdale Farmers Club, NFU Scotland and The Scottish Farmer—are opposed to it. The minister will concede that that represents significant opposition.
Implementing regulation 21/2004 will give rise to significant challenges for the sheep sector. Among those challenges will be the maintaining of individual identities within large flocks, and the identification and recording of individual sheep in extensive systems. Concerns have arisen to do with tag losses, training and workability on farms, and also to do with the cost relative to the profitability of sheep production. Much of the cost will fall on the primary producer, with the benefits, such as they are, being secured by others—at the very time when the Government acknowledges the problems that face a diminishing sheep industry.
Many farmers and farmers' wives have told me that they will either reduce or completely disperse their flocks if individual recording is introduced. If the minister is to proceed with this project, she will have to make it work, and quickly, or she will face further huge reductions in Scottish sheep-breeding numbers.
In the first instance, if sheep EID is to be introduced, it must work and be able to replace a paper system that everyone dreads. In favour of EID is the fact that paper-based systems that are manually inputted always have an error rate of 10 per cent, and the longer the paper trail, the larger the error becomes. EID, on the other hand, gives more than 95 per cent accuracy on each reading in trials and, if batches are read twice, the accuracy rate rises to 99.9 per cent, which is statistically significant enough for animal disease traceability purposes.
If EID is to be introduced, that must be done at a reasonable cost. It would be pointless to tag breeding ewes or ewe lambs at birth that will not leave the holding until they are five years old or older. Identifying how and where costs can be minimised and made affordable, and where the benefits to the industry can be maximised, is a prerequisite, assuming that EID can be made to work in the first place.
The minister has pledged financial support for the introduction of EID. That money must, at least in part, go towards the establishment of critical control points where readings can be taken to keep producer costs to a minimum. Those will be at markets, abattoirs and larger farms that report their own and, perhaps, others' movements and on docksides. They will also be provided by hauliers and approved agents. Government support must go towards further developing the technology to levels at which producers' fears are allayed and costs are acceptable. Unless and until that is the case, the proposal will encounter only hostility from sheep producers. Derogations must therefore be sought in line with the NFUS proposals and, to be acceptable, they must remove or reduce to a minimum on-farm scanning and recording costs.
If introduced, EID must work easily and effectively, and adequate training will need to be provided. Problems associated with different types of tags, the incompatibility of systems and data transfer will need to be overcome. I understand that the Scottish Agricultural Organisation Society believes that, in time, the system can be made to work. However, today, the ball is in the minister's court. She must persuade producers not only that EID can be made to work but that it can be made to work in producers' best interests. Outright hostility to EID proposals as they stand remain, so a lot of work still needs to be done for that to be overcome. I look forward to the minister outlining in her closing remarks how she intends to achieve that.
I declare an interest as a sheep farmer, like other MSPs, and as a past director of NFU Scotland. I congratulate Liam McArthur on securing this important debate at a time when we need action.
Sheep farming has a long history in Scotland. We have heard about the Highlands and Islands, but the history is nowhere longer than in the south of Scotland, where famous flock names such as the Cheviots came from and where the expertise of husbandry grew. That expertise was taken to the Highlands and into Galloway when they had their clearances and it was exported around the world to New Zealand, where there are many Scots-named farms and farmers. Of course, our premium textile industry also grew up with the sheep industry—it is no coincidence that tweed is so named.
We now face new clearances. The Scottish Agricultural College, the Royal Society of Edinburgh and the NFUS have all recently published figures showing an alarming decline in the sheep stock of Scotland, which directly correlates to the decline in active farming in the hills. We are losing sheep and working people from the hills. There are 25 per cent fewer sheep than there were 10 years ago and the figure is still falling, even with the recent, long-awaited rise in prices due to the falling value of the pound.
The last thing that we need is more unnecessary burdens. Unlike the Conservatives, I am not lying down to electronic ID. The recent pilot project that is referred to in Liam McArthur's motion found three things that we practitioners knew before—the expense of EID, the needless time taking of it and how poor it is for animal welfare. Various electronic readers and tags would need to be bought, and none of those costs would be paid by retail buyers—and I doubt whether they would be paid by the Government. They will all come out of the industry. That is fine when the money is there but disastrous when it is not.
It takes time to insert the tags properly—it is no easy job, especially on a cold, wet morning. Sheep do not normally keep their heads still. Think how impractical it is when a shepherd has 1,500 ewes and a similar amount of lambs to tag by himself or herself. In fact, the job is near impossible. There are neither the spare staff nor the time on farms to implement electronic sheep ID in any form. As Mr McArthur mentioned, our flocks are now larger and more numerous than those of most of our European neighbours. Sheep EID therefore acts as an additional pressure on farmers to decrease their sheep numbers, and the knock-on effect that that has on our rural communities and related industries can only be negative.
There are concerns about fines if the system fails. As Peter Peacock mentioned, cross-compliance is an undue pressure on hard-pressed communities. I have already mentioned animal welfare—necrosis in a sheep's ear is not a pretty sight. It is most unpleasant for the animal, which will be pestered by flies and mackit, although that is perhaps not a problem in the islands. There are also impracticalities in relation to sheep that are affected with yellowsis, and torn ears in hedges.
Those issues are all important, but the main problem with sheep EID is that it is totally unnecessary. We have in place a system that works—if it ain't broke, why fix it? We should consider the madness that will ensue if the system is introduced: a hill sheep will have to be electronically tagged; it will go nowhere from the hills in its working life; and if it still has its microchip and that chip is still working, the chip will not be read until six years after tagging. It is far better that sheep are tagged only when they leave their holding, which is a practice that works and can be audited.
We desperately need a derogation now—our own Liberal Democrat minister succeeded in getting one in 2005, in relation to double tagging. It is now Mr Lochhead's responsibility to achieve what has been achieved before. Article 68, as proposed by the Government, would split the agricultural industry. Failure to achieve a derogation in relation to electronic sheep ID would decimate the sheep industry, which is one of Scotland's oldest industries. I welcome the motion, which highlights this important issue.
I refer to my agricultural interest, which appears in the register of members' interests.
I thank Liam McArthur and all those who have been campaigning to ensure that the issue has remained at the forefront of politicians' minds. They include the Scottish Crofting Foundation, the NFUS and the National Sheep Association in Scotland; people such as George Milne, and Sybil and John Macpherson, from my native Argyll and Bute; and The Scottish Farmer newspaper. They are all fighting hard for our sheep industry.
As my colleague John Scott said, EID offers no real benefit in relation to traceability in Scotland. We in Scotland need to be able to move sheep on a batch basis through markets and between farms, and a tag that includes the UK herd number should be sufficient. The current system is simple, efficient and—crucially—cost effective. The whole concept of EID for sheep is a classic example of how a one-size-fits-all policy can be disastrous for particular European Union member states, and of the real lack of understanding in the EU about the nature of the sheep flock in the UK and Scotland, which will be more affected by these plans than the flock of any other state.
Indeed, 16 EU member states will not have to introduce EID, as their national flocks comprise fewer than 600,000 sheep. Given the rate at which we are losing sheep from Scotland's hills, the number of states that will not have to introduce EID could soon rise to 17. It is hardly surprising that many of those 16 states are voting for compulsory EID, as it helps their sheep industries by putting extra constraints on ours.
Will the member give way?
I cannot.
The extra costs that farmers and crofters will face are significant. As we have heard today, the set-up costs are estimated at £1,000 to £2,000 per farmer, with the cost of tagging one sheep put at £3. That is an extra £3,000 per year for a farmer who has 1,000 sheep, at a time when there is real financial pressure on sheep farmers and when everyone is rightly concerned about the serious decline in sheep numbers. My biggest concern is that EID will simply increase the rate of decline.
I point out to members that the microchip in the proposed tag does not contain the same number as the tag itself, and therefore information from the reader has to be transferred to a computer to ensure that the different numbers coincide with the actual number on the tag. If members find that confusing, they should consider how many items do not register on a supermarket reader when they are doing their shopping. What happens when a sheep does not register? Should we just call for the manager? What happens when the tag falls off? How can a lost tag be traced? We have no objection to EID as a voluntary scheme for those who like it, but most of those are small farmers, whereas many Scottish flocks consist of hundreds—if not thousands—of sheep. The scheme is simply not practical for Scotland.
A constituent of mine from Sutherland, Mrs Gow, who has been a sheep farmer for 45 years, wrote to me earlier this year to say that electronic tagging would bring "death to the industry". She warned that, if the measure goes ahead,
"I will certainly get rid of my sheep and most likely the shepherd as well"—
although I do not think that she means to kill the shepherd.
Many other farmers have the same intentions. Mrs Gow is right. This year, the NFUS carried out a detailed survey of sheep producers and found that 73 per cent would reduce their flock if EID and individual recording were introduced. One in three of those who said they would reduce their numbers said that they might get rid of their flock altogether. That is the stark and frightening reality of the situation.
Does Jamie McGrigor agree that, as well as leaving sheep farming, people might leave remote parts of the Highlands altogether? School rolls would fall, and the small, marginal communities that he and I represent would decline. Electronic identification would be a fatal blow for fragile communities.
I agree. This is not just about sheep. It is about people.
We are looking for ways to keep Scotland's sheep on Scotland's hills for food and environmental reasons, and we have seen a light at the end of the tunnel for the sheep industry. Let us not blow it out now. Even at this late stage, ministers must put pressure on ministers at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to raise the issue again in Europe as a matter of extreme urgency. The future of our sheep sector and the people and communities that depend on it is at stake. We look to the minister.
I, too, congratulate Liam McArthur on securing this evening's debate, despite what he said about my expertise in sheep farming.
As we approach the European Parliament elections, which will take place next week, it is important to note the impact that European legislation can have on vital industries such as farming, including sheep farming, here in Scotland. It is also important to note that British MEPs, including those from Scotland, did not want the introduction of compulsory EID from January next year and worked closely with the National Farming Union to raise awareness of the matter and put pressure on the European Commission and national Governments in the Council to reverse the decision.
As we heard, the latest attempt was a letter to the commissioner, which was signed by British MEPs from all parties as well as MEPs from various member states. The letter pleaded with the Commission to reconsider the matter and introduce voluntary modulation. At last month's Council meeting, the commissioner made it clear that there could be room to explore ways in which to minimise the impact on the UK sheep industry through derogations. I hope the minister was listening to the questions that Mr McArthur posed at the end of his speech.
It has already been remarked upon that it seems strange for a member with a largely urban constituency such as mine in Strathkelvin and Bearsden to take part in this evening's debate. However, there is a substantial rural area within the boundaries of my constituency, and within that are a number of farming interests including sheep farms. Some months ago, I had a meeting with several members of the NFUS, and among other matters we discussed the forthcoming introduction of an electronic ID system for sheep.
Among those present was local farmer Archie McGregor, who has 1,300 black-faced sheep, although he told me that at times the number can be as high as 4,000. He explained in graphic agricultural detail the difficulties that he envisages in wrestling with such a large number of unco-operative ruminants while trying to affix electronic tags to them. Mr Hume also mentioned that. That aside, Mr McGregor's main concern was naturally the cost. The cost of electronic tagging his flock would be about £6,000 in the first year and as much as £4,000 in each subsequent year. As we heard, considerable investment in new technology will be required to make the system work. Electronic identifiers and hand-held and static readers will be required to enable the new system to function.
As members know, my Westminster colleague Hilary Benn, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, was the first to raise concerns about the introduction of the policy with the European Council. The UK Government has managed to have the introduction of the scheme to the country postponed at least until the beginning of next year. Labour continues to hold the view that the cost of implementing an EID scheme in the sheep flock in the UK and Scotland, which represents a quarter of the entire European stock, is disproportionate to the benefits.
Another problem area is rare breeds. Two weeks ago, I had the good fortune to attend the 150th annual Kirkintilloch show to present the prizes. I was pleased to give the best of breed trophy to Mr Alistair Wilson and his Shetland sheep Summerside Jemima. Mr Wilson, who keeps 60 of those sheep on his small holding near Shotts, is not sure what the future holds, as he cannot afford to introduce electronic tagging for such a small number. Indeed, Dr Allan made the same point in relation to the crofting communities. I hope that there is still time to address that anomaly.
As a result, I support Mr McArthur's motion, in particular the reference to a possible
"derogation from a … compulsory scheme"
if
"a workable and cost-effective solution"
cannot be found for Scotland's hill sheep farmers and others, such as Mr Wilson, who are doing their best to keep rare breeds thriving.
I, too, congratulate Liam McArthur on securing this important debate. Last week, Mr McArthur and I had the opportunity to meet many of the sheep that will be affected by the proposals as we crossed the southern upland way during the Poppyscotland hearts and heroes challenge. I was certainly reminded of the importance of sheep to the Borders' rural economy.
The compulsory electronic identification of sheep has been raised with me a number of times by representatives of my local NFU and individual farmers in my Borders constituency. As members have pointed out, the proposals will be costly and impractical for the farmers who will be forced to comply with them.
We should recognise that there is cross-party support in the UK for the view that the EU proposals should be voluntary at most and certainly not compulsory. With nearly 33 million sheep—and 90,000 producers—the UK accounts for one third of the entire EU sheep flock; Scotland has more than 7 million sheep and the nation's sheep farming sector is worth an estimated £150 million to the economy. As a result, the industry plays a vital role in maintaining the landscape and economy of Scotland's hills and uplands.
We should acknowledge the pressures that the industry has faced in recent years. In the past 12 months alone, sheep numbers in Scotland have dropped by 368,000 and, in the past nine years, there has been a 24.5 per cent decline in the number of breeding ewes. With that backdrop, it is clear to me that the regulations make no sense and might actually decimate the sheep industry, devastating the environment and the rural economy.
The additional costs that are involved in the scheme, coupled with the recording requirements, will force many producers out of business while having absolutely no cost benefit. Indeed, much of the cost will fall on the farmers, with the benefits being delivered further down the chain to the markets and processors. Farmers throughout Britain will be expected to cover 92 per cent of the estimated £65 million costs, while markets and collection centres will contribute 5 per cent and slaughterhouses 3 per cent.
The NFU has expressed concern about the standard of the current equipment, which a number of members have mentioned; the available training; and the scheme's workability on farms, where a particular challenge will be to maintain individual identities within large flocks. Some of those concerns will be resolved as the technology develops and as volume production reduces costs, but some concerns about the regulations are so fundamental that it is hard to see how they can be overcome.
I will not repeat what other members have said, but I would be grateful if the minister would respond to the following points. First, like Liam McArthur and other members, I am interested in finding out what discussions the Scottish Government has had with the UK Government and other member states as they attempt to persuade their politicians of the dangers of the regulations. Secondly—perhaps more important—I understand from correspondence with the Scottish Government that the intention is to introduce the regulations in a negative instrument. Does the Government intend to impose the regulations? If not, can the minister explain the Government's strategy in that respect?
Again, I thank Liam McArthur for securing this important debate, which has provided a useful opportunity for us to air the concerns of sheep farmers throughout Scotland.
I congratulate Liam McArthur on securing a debate on what we all recognise is an issue of enormous importance to hard-pressed sheep farmers. Indeed, we should acknowledge at the outset the importance of all sheep producers to Scotland, for example in the retention of population in many rural areas; in rural development, which in many ways hinges on their work; in food production; and in the environmental benefits of that kind of farming.
The Government is committed to supporting the sheep sector through measures including the less favoured areas support scheme. We are also committed to the control and eradication of animal diseases in Scotland. That is shown by our approach to bluetongue, in partnership with industry, and the subsidy of vaccines to the tune of £3 million.
Before I proceed, I ought to put on the record that we recognise the importance of traceability. I think that we all acknowledge that effective traceability matters as a key component of disease prevention and control. However, our approach must be practical or it will not work. During the foot-and-mouth outbreak in 2001, the gaps in our traceability systems led directly to the spread of the disease. If we had had a better system for tracing livestock movements, many farms would have been spared, and it is possible that the outbreak could have been nipped in the bud. The benefits of an improved system were demonstrated in the more limited foot-and-mouth outbreak in 2007, when we were able to lift restrictions earlier.
We cannot be complacent, because we will face critical exotic disease situations in the future. Foot-and-mouth disease remains a threat. As bluetongue demonstrated, it is never the things that we expect that catch us out. Climate change potentially brings new dangers, and if we do not know where animals move to and from, we cannot effectively stem the flow of diseases. If anyone is still unsure about the importance of traceability, they should talk to any Dumfriesshire farmer who went through the trauma of the foot-and-mouth outbreak in 2001.
Traceability is important, but the proposals that we are discussing are something else entirely. With the current EU regulations on EID, we are faced with a system, which previous Administrations agreed to, in which the marginal benefits to traceability are vastly outweighed by costs and bureaucracy. We have therefore fully supported our industry in negotiations to secure a far more workable solution that reflects the unique nature of the Scottish sheep industry. I still wonder whether that is understood across Europe. Although constant efforts are being made to bring the reality home in Europe, one wonders whether people there really see what is happening. It is important for us to have empathy with the sheep production sector and to express that empathy, because the sector faces enough challenges on Scotland's hills without what has been proposed. Peter Peacock recognises that. The danger is that the proposals may be seen, in many cases, as the straw that breaks the camel's back.
The approach that we have taken has secured a number of concessions so far. The Administration has secured a further two-year delay in implementation, from 2008 to 2010, with a phased introduction between 2010 and 2012, and we have secured a derogation for animals that are intended only for slaughter.
Liam McArthur called for more engagement by Scottish ministers. I am sure he knows that, just last month, Richard Lochhead met Commissioner Vassiliou, who agreed to explore further concessions within the regulations. He also knows perfectly well that the cabinet secretary is doing his utmost to turn round the EU juggernaut on the matter. That is not easy; indeed, a number of issues that have been raised today show that it is not simple.
I acknowledge the complexities that are involved and the engagement that has taken place, but Commission officials are saying to the industry that the flexibility for a voluntary on-farm scheme will require a political steer from the commissioner. Therefore, it is imperative that, over the coming weeks, a meeting is scheduled and takes place, evidence is brought to bear, and a decision is taken.
Liam McArthur should allow me to continue a little. We have secured a commitment from the commissioner to explore an option to reduce the recording burden on farmers through the use of critical control points such as markets and abattoirs. Such things are on-going. However, any proposal would need to go to a standing committee on food and animal health.
Jim Hume raised the issue of tagging animals at the point of moving off farm. We are still exploring that issue as a potential way of moving forward. However, there is no doubt that we have inherited an extremely challenging situation. We continue to battle with the Commission to secure the best outcome for Scotland, and we continue to put pressure on Hilary Benn and the Commission to have the regulations changed. Richard Lochhead intends to raise the issue with Hilary Benn when they meet again next week. Scotland and the UK are working together to deliver as much flexibility as possible. However, as Peter Peacock pointed out, the problem is that if the support of other member states cannot be secured, we will, under our obligations, be required to implement the regulations. In those circumstances, it is helpful that the NFU is trying to engage its counterparts in other countries to lobby their Governments. That will provide additional support for the work that Hilary Benn and Richard Lochhead are trying to do.
Whether we like it or not, membership of the EU means that we need to implement EU decisions. Absent an independent voice in Europe, we will continue to stand up to Brussels as best we can, but we need to be aware that, when all the shouting is done and everyone goes home, we will be left to deal with the future. With that in mind, we have committed £3 million to a pilot scheme to find out what sheep EID would mean in practice and what alterations would be required to make it work, if it will work at all. The results of phase 1 of the pilot will be due next month and will, I hope, be available to members. The Scottish industry, from producers to markets and abattoirs, has actively engaged in the pilot. Feedback from the industry and the pilot is highlighting and solving some of the practical and technical implementation issues that will need to be dealt with if we end up being forced down that road.
We remain ready to act on any and all opportunities to engage with the Commission—at official level, as well as politician level—to secure further changes to the regulations. Members may rest assured that we will do absolutely everything in our power to work in partnership with the industry to fight the battle on all fronts.
Meeting closed at 17:46.