British Cattle Movement Service
The final item of business is a members' business debate on motion S1M-3766, in the name of Murdo Fraser, on the British Cattle Movement Service. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes the widespread concern amongst the Scottish farming community in relation to the operation of the British Cattle Movement Service (BCMS) and, in particular, the volume of administrative errors and the delays by the BCMS in dealing with correspondence; further notes that, as a result, the operation of the service has contributed to financial hardship in the farming sector at a time when farming incomes are already at desperately low levels, and considers that the Scottish Executive's Environment and Rural Affairs Department should institute an amnesty for all farmers that have been alleged by the BCMS not to have accurately and timeously supplied cattle record information and make representations to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs that a thorough review of the operation of the BCMS should be instituted with a view to eradicating the difficulties that have been identified.
The British Cattle Movement Service exists to operate the cattle-tracing system—CTS—which is a necessary function, particularly in the wake of the BSE crisis. It is based in Workington and operates the CTS on behalf of Scottish, Welsh and English ministers. It processes an average of 60,000 cattle movements every day and, although it is located in England, it is answerable to Scottish Executive ministers whose responsibility is rural development.
All cattle now have their own passports, which allows each beast to be identified and tracked. When an animal is sold or transferred off a farm, the farmer sends a movement-on or movement-off card to the BCMS, which allows the BCMS to update its records in much the same way as sales of motor cars are tracked by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency. The facility now exists to update records online, with the CTS online service.
It is vital that the records that the BCMS keeps are fully accurate. That is because the CTS database is now used by the Scottish Executive environment and rural affairs department to crosscheck farmers' subsidy claims. Previously, such crosschecks were carried out during on-farm inspections, but they are now made against the database. That is important because, if there are discrepancies between the subsidy claim and the database, the farmer will be penalised by having subsidy payments withheld or sums recovered that may have been overpaid in error.
The principle of the system is fine and it should work well; indeed, it would work well if the level of errors within the BCMS was at a minimum. However, the evidence suggests that that is not the case. I have received numerous letters from farming constituents in Mid Scotland and Fife, complaining about the BCMS's record keeping, the difficulties in obtaining responses and the impact on their businesses as a result of penalties being imposed due to errors originating within the BCMS.
To give a flavour of those letters, I will quote from a letter that I received from Christopher Dunphie of Bridge of Cally—a version of it appeared in Scottish Farmer in June last year. He wrote:
"My dreaded cross-checking letter accused me of seeking Suckler Cow Premium in August 2001 for four cows which had been culled for Foot & Mouth in Cumbria in April 2001, fifteen months after I bought and moved them to Perthshire. I have just spoken severely to the cows. They all assure me that they are alive and well, with splendid calves to show for it. Indeed they were rather offended that BCMS refuses to issue passports for their calves, despite countless letters and phone calls. Another cow wandered up and reminded me that it had taken a year to get her a CTS document because BCMS said she was a stot. After seven months frustration I had to threaten court action to get her calf passport, just in time for the suckler calf sales … However, I am not blameless. I did include three calves which I had to cull before the end of my SCP Retention Period. And I forgot the rule change which required me to declare details of the replacements, of which I hold plenty. I will doubtless be penalised for my three clerical omissions. BCMS, which has 85 errors in relation to my farm will receive no punishment. I clarified my omission with my local SEERAD office within 3 days of it being pointed out to me. BCMS refuses to answer any letters or act on phone calls. Hardly a level playing field!"
I could go on, but I think that Parliament gets a flavour of the problems.
Christopher Dunphie is not alone. A retired farm manager from outside Blairgowrie wrote to inform me of an unnecessarily hard line's being taken on minor errors, of problems with cards being posted to Workington and not being received, and of a lack of basic farming knowledge among those in the BCMS at the end of the phone.
Another farmer, from Dunkeld, wrote to me about having £15,000 in payments withheld due to errors in a crosscheck—errors that subsequently turned out to be the responsibility of the BCMS. No compensation was paid for the delay. Given the state of farming incomes in Scotland, delays in payments of large sums might be enough to put someone out of business.
I have a file of papers on similar cases, some of which I have raised in correspondence with Ross Finnie, as the Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development might be aware. The complaints are all similar: continual errors; a draconian approach from SEERAD to crosschecking errors, which might in fact originate in the BCMS; no distinction being made between genuine mistakes and fraudulent claims; a lack of farming knowledge among the staff; and huge difficulties in making telephone contact with Workington.
I am aware of CTS online: it helps to reduce errors when it is used, but not every Scottish farmer is online. Given the high average age of Scottish farmers, not all are computer literate or even possess a personal computer, so CTS online can be only part of the solution.
I understand that recently there has been an increase in the number of staff at the BCMS call centre. It is clear from the examples that I have given that that is long overdue, but it remains to be seen how far it will go in helping to solve the problems.
A thorough review is required of the working of the BCMS, with a view to eliminating, so far as possible, the all too numerous administrative errors that currently occur. The fact is that Scottish farmers have little confidence in the system, and it cannot be allowed to continue as it as at present.
We also need a new approach from SEERAD. It must recognise that errors in crosschecking are as likely to originate from the BCMS as they are from the farmer. I ask the minister to consider seriously an amnesty for farmers accused of errors—given the track record of the BCMS there must be a strong suspicion that responsibility rests with that organisation rather than with the farmers.
We must wipe the sheet clean, make improvements to the system, and move forward so that we can have a BCMS that Scottish agriculture can have confidence in.
I thank Murdo Fraser for providing us with the opportunity to discuss this important subject for rural Scotland. The devastating effects that high levels of error in the cattle-tracing system are having on farm incomes has been made only too clear to me in recent weeks.
We were told in a parliamentary answer today that farm incomes are expected to rise to an average of £10,500. That compares with the adverts on the back of Edinburgh buses that state that someone can make £18,500 driving a bus. The reward for the risk that farmers take and their effort is hardly adequate.
As we know, farmers live hand to mouth. I have one example of a farmer in my constituency who had 27 out of 30 cattle rejected on the basis of failed checks—his subsidies were frozen. Another farmer told me that he is owed £6,000, £4,000 of which he needs to pay urgent bills, and another has just received his payments for 2001.
Of course we need accurate records of cattle movements, but the system must not add to the heavy burdens that farmers have had in recent years. Farmers say that the book should be thrown at anyone who is cheating, but the farmers who are affected by this problem are not cheating; they are being cheated. The current system is not sustainable, fair or equitable.
When a farmer submits a subsidy claim form to SEERAD, he has to sign a declaration that states:
"I shall rectify … the data kept on the cattle tracing database relating to me or my animals where this is incorrect or incomplete."
Members may think that that is fair enough—the farmer should be responsible for his stock—but the caveat is that, if the beast is sold at the mart or goes for slaughter, it is the mart's duty to inform the BCMS, not the farmer's, but the farmer retains legal responsibility for the mistake.
Amazingly, SEERAD does not shy away from that—although the subsidy claim forms put the responsibility at the farmer's door, a letter from SEERAD to a farmer in my constituency freely admits that failed checks
"could be attributed to SEERAD, BCMS, other operators within the industry or the farmers themselves."
Any of those players in what is a complicated game might make any number of mistakes, but our hard-pressed farmers must carry the can.
Could farmers be more active in checking their records? That is great in theory, but in practice they are hitting a brick wall. The BCMS records show cows as heifers, calves that do not exist and beasts that are alive and well, down on the farm, as slaughtered—the list is endless.
Some farmers get through and make the call. A farmer to whom I have spoken in the past 24 hours spent four hours on the phone sorting out the errors on his records, only to find that, a week later, none of the corrections had been made. That case is far from isolated. If farmers are to be 100 per cent sure of the records' accuracy, a phone call would have to be made to the BCMS for every on and off movement, which is simply not possible.
It is unacceptable that farmers are being forced to take legal responsibility for others' mistakes. The system is unfair and must be simplified. Those who make errors should be held to account, and fines for farmers should be suspended until the system works satisfactorily. I call on the minister to make representations to ensure that staff at the BCMS are adequately trained and exist in sufficient numbers to deal with the work load. Farmers are considered guilty until they prove themselves innocent, which goes against natural justice. I am sure that all members will agree that that is unacceptable, and must stop at once.
I congratulate Mr Fraser on bringing the issue to the chamber. The debate is long overdue.
We have heard several comments about anomalies in the system. It is fair to say that the controls that are applied to livestock are more stringent and rigorous than those that are applied to the human population. Every bovine animal has an individual identification number and a passport that records its details and its every movement, on or off farm holdings or crofts. A move from one grazing to another requires an entry in the passport and the information must be sent to the BCMS to record the event. Within days of birth, all animals—male or female—must have an ear tag, which has a European Union number, a United Kingdom number, a herd number and a holding number, attached to each ear. Is it any wonder that all that red tape leads to frustration and confusion, not just for the animals, but for the producers, who cannot keep abreast of the changing rules and regulations?
Every month—indeed, every week—a form comes through the door that is different from the one that arrived last week and which requires more information. When the forms are returned, they are invariably lost in the BCMS system, or the BCMS in its wisdom determines that there is a slight error in the recorded information, which rules out financial support for the already hard-pressed producer.
Like everybody else, I accept that we must have a secure and credible cattle-tracing system so that our customers and consumers at home and abroad have the utmost confidence in our product. However, I am sure that that could be achieved to everyone's satisfaction through a much simpler method of control and administration and in co-operation with farming and crofting communities. At present, those communities are disadvantaged by needless bureaucracy, the loss of much-needed subsidy and the imposition of financial penalties for little reason.
I am delighted that the motion has come before us. It suggests that
"a thorough review of the operation of the BCMS should be instituted with a view to eradicating the difficulties that have been identified"
in the system. That is quite appropriate, and is worthy of further consideration.
I commend the motion and its sentiments to the minister.
I declare an interest in this debate, as I am a farmer.
I speak in support of Murdo Fraser's motion and draw to ministers' attention the current problem with the suckler cow premium scheme. It appears that, although claims are being submitted correctly, they are not being paid in full, and farmers are having to wait until claims can be re-checked. In the meantime, through no fault of their own, farmers are not being paid the support that they are due. As Murdo Fraser said, that is totally unacceptable at a time when farm incomes are so low.
I do not understand why there has been a deterioration in the service that is being given by the BCMS. When it was first set up, it appeared to give a very good service in much more difficult conditions. Various schemes have been introduced since then, supposedly to assist traceability, but instead of getting better, the service is getting worse. I appreciate that the BCMS is an English organisation, but the situation is unacceptable all the same.
The problem is bad enough, but the minister will be aware of the EU plan to introduce a similar tracing scheme for sheep. However many cattle there may be in Britain—I have not had time to research that—there are certainly millions more sheep. If we cannot make the scheme work for cattle, what hope is there of making it work for sheep? The move is EU led, but I urge the minister to fight against it with every fibre in his body.
I support the motion and the proposal that a thorough review be conducted, and I am pleased that Murdo Fraser has brought the problem to the attention of the Parliament.
I congratulate Murdo Fraser on his motion. Many of the anecdotes that he has told us today echo cases that we have heard about in our constituencies.
I met seven or eight farmers in Ellon last Friday, and the issue was high on their agenda—as was the whole issue of the bureaucracy that they have to face daily in their jobs. I bring to the minister's attention the "Arable Area Payments Scheme 2002" explanatory booklet, which details just one of the many schemes that farmers have to deal with. The booklet has 72 pages and comes with another 17-page leaflet that farmers have to read as well. That adds up to 89 pages of reading just for one scheme. Farmers are finding that they have to spend hours every day just dealing with the paperwork, the red tape and the bureaucracy—often with members of their families and other workers helping out.
At my meeting with farmers last week, one of the burning issues was the British Cattle Movement Service. The payments that farmers receive are a lifeline for them in difficult times. However, the delays and confusion over payments are causing difficulty for many farmers who find it hard to keep track. Errors are brought to their attention that they have to check, then they have to send back amendments and wait to find out whether those amendments are correct and whether the problems have been sorted out. That happens time and again, and it is difficult for the farmers to keep control of what is happening.
The bureaucracy is compounded by the fact that there are many different kinds of errors in the records. As a farmer said to me, there are very few schemes that demand 100 per cent accuracy, but this scheme seems to demand that—if there is only 99 per cent accuracy, the penalty is burdened on the farmer. That is simply not just, and we must do something about it.
I have raised the issue many times with Ross Finnie, who has said that, in 2002, 10.2 per cent of claims failed. That is an enormous number, which highlights the fact that there is something seriously wrong with the system. He also said—as Stewart Stevenson said—that SEERAD, the BCMS or the other operators, as well as the farmers, could be to blame for the errors. However, it is the farmers who have to deal with the errors, no matter who causes them. I would like the minister to give us a breakdown of the source of the errors, so that we can find out who is to blame and who is more likely to cause them.
Several schemes are affected: the suckler cow premium scheme, the beef special premium scheme, the slaughter premium scheme, and so on. Can we have another breakdown of figures to find out whether one particular scheme is causing most of the errors? That would help. I have also been told that information technology problems mean that the SEERAD computer does not speak to the BCMS computer. That seems a basic flaw that should have been addressed at the beginning.
When the minister is addressing those points, I would like him also to address the point that John Scott raised, which is the serious concern throughout the farming community about the proposed sheep tagging scheme.
The National Farmers Union of Scotland press release that describes the scheme is amazing. It says that we will have an
"EU-wide sheep identification and traceability system",
and that
"Animals born after 1 July 2003 must be tagged in each ear with a plastic tag containing details of the country and holding of birth, and an individual indentifier."
After 1 July 2003, there will also have to be movement documentation, which means that there must be a movement document for all sheep. Each sheep will have to have seven separate records attached to it, including the identification number, the month and year of birth, the sex, the genotype, the details of destination, the date of departure, and information about the means of transport. It is a bureaucratic nightmare.
I know that ministers have expressed concern about the bureaucratic nightmare to which Murdo Fraser's motion—which we all support—refers. I would be grateful if the minister, when he responds, would also touch on sheep tagging, which is an impending big issue.
I congratulate Murdo Fraser on obtaining the debate and thank the minister for permission to raise a couple of constituency points during it. I am grateful to the minister for his considerable help in answering questions about the electronic identification of cattle and electronic data transfer.
I think that electronic methods are the way forward. I know from the information that the minister gave me that although there was a low-key launch of EDT because of the unfortunate foot-and-mouth outbreak, there are now about 24,000 keepers of records with internet access who use the CTS online system. Thirty per cent of them are Scottish producers, so that is a good step forward.
We need to press ahead with trials of the electronic identification of tags. I know that, to start with, rudimentary—I do not use that word in any disparaging sense—trials were conducted by the Scottish Agricultural College. We must move from those into more detailed, intense trials to develop the electronic technology that would make a considerable difference. For those who are not aware of it, the technology consists of a bar-code device, which traps the data automatically and saves writing down a series of numbers. I have seen it demonstrated and, in my view, it is a particularly effective system.
The system was developed—this is my constituency point—to a considerable extent by the Scottish borders traceability assurance group. I think that we can correctly say that the SBTAG pioneered electronic identification of tags. Obviously, with the attention that had to be devoted to the foot-and-mouth outbreak, it was not possible for officials and ministers to take as deep an interest as I am sure that they would have liked in progressing the electronic identification of tags. However, my constituents and I are grateful to the minister for his encouraging words about the progress that will be made soon in electronic identification.
We must ensure that we have a robust trial. TagMaster is a firm in Hawick, in my constituency, that specialises in electronic identification systems. In a letter to me, TagMaster suggested that it might be effective
"to incorporate a group of farmers that are supplying one market system and one abattoir."
That would allow an electronic reading of tags experiment to progress through the system. There are several prospects in that area.
It is important that we have a robust trial. Following all the burdens of the foot-and-mouth outbreak, I am grateful to officials for their renewed interest in this area, in which we can make significant progress. The electronic identification of tags might solve some of the problems that members mentioned. It is unfortunate that there are such difficulties, but they will always occur where there are manual records.
If we are to go down the route of tagging sheep, as we will have to, hundreds of thousands of new records will be needed.
Millions.
I will not enter into speculation, but I accept that there might need to be millions of new records. In any case, that process could be made a lot easier with the use of electronic identification and electronic data transfer. The technology exists and the issue is that it must be applied correctly.
I pay tribute to my constituents who championed this issue and mention in particular Rae Calder from Blinkbonny in Berwickshire, who has kept the issue at the forefront of my mind through e-mails and letters. I am grateful to her for that, as I am grateful to all of my constituents who have pressed this issue. I believe that we can make progress in this area.
I agree entirely with the salient points that have been made around the chamber but would like to add two or three more. Before I do, I declare an interest in that I am a registered landowner and a partner in a farming partnership.
It is easy to tell that Euan Robson is an east-coast man because, on the west coast, when sheep are tagged, there are severe problems with flies attacking their ears, which is an animal welfare problem. One of the great problems with any sheep identification tagging scheme is that tags often fall out. Furthermore, sheep can die. In the early 1990s, the industry fought hard against a similar scheme that was proposed. In the end, a powerful EU delegation was brought across to visit some of the more remote parts of northern Scotland to see how difficult it would be to administer a sheep tagging identification scheme. They went home with the firm impression that the scheme was totally unworkable and impractical. My view is that, if a scheme is unworkable and impractical, it should not be put into place. That applies to this scheme. There are many other and better ways of identifying sheep than this.
It has been drawn to my attention that the act of tagging cattle can be dangerous as it involves two tags. Apparently, after the first tag is put in, the cow and the calf become distressed and, often, farmers are injured while putting on the second tag. A relaxation of the time rules in that regard would be helpful.
I was just about to remark that one of the severe consequences of the cattle-tagging scheme, particularly now that there is less labour available on farms, relates to health and safety. Like John Scott, I have not researched this issue fully, but I am quite sure that figures will show that general practitioners and hospitals are dealing with a far greater number of farming accidents—including deaths—than they did before the time restrictions were introduced. Anyone who has tagged a calf that is younger than one week old, outdoors, with its mother none too happy that someone is mucking about with its calf, will know how dangerous the situation can be. Ian Jenkins is quite right to draw members' attention to it.
Only two weeks ago, I was approached by a constituent who is a middle-aged bachelor who looks after his two parents who are increasingly suffering from dementia. He used to have help on the farm but no longer has, due to economic circumstances. Just before lambing time, he made a tiny mistake in selling some cattle and failed to notify the department which, during a cross-checking process—and it is good to know that such processes are conducted—discovered the error. When the error was pointed out, rather than pretending that he had not seen the original letters or whatever, my constituent held up his hand and admitted that he had made a mistake.
How we can call ourselves a just society when that farmer is penalised in exactly the same way as somebody who had done that on purpose, tried to bluff their way out of the situation and pretended that it was just an honest mistake? Can it be right that the financial penalty is so severe? I do not doubt that that is correct in the case of fraud, but it is not right when a genuine mistake has been made. I hope that the minister can point the way to a little relaxation in the hardness with which SEERAD officials have to administer the rules.
I, too, congratulate Murdo Fraser on securing the debate on a topic that I know to be important to the Scottish farming community, the wider beef industry in Scotland and, clearly, to his constituents. I happily assure Murdo Fraser that, if he shares his dossier of complaints with us, we will be pleased to examine it and see what we can do to help his constituents.
It might be helpful if I start by setting out the legal context for the cross-checking of subsidy claims against the BCMS database. Executive officials undertake cross checks because there is a clear requirement to do so under European law. That law, as with most European laws, has substantial teeth. We would incur a considerable financial penalty from the European Commission if we did not undertake those cross checks.
I realise that times are difficult for Scottish farmers and that, as Alex Fergusson said, delays in payment can cause hardship. However, the check is a key control, which is required by the Commission. If we did not carry it out, we could incur penalties of many millions of pounds.
I am sure that all members and farmers would wish those checks to be made, and it is entirely proper that they are made. However, does the minister accept that the key difficulty is that, when errors are found, the finger is invariably pointed at the farmer when the anecdotal evidence is very clear that the majority of mistakes are made within the bureaucratic system of data entry and data management?
I will come to the statistics that I have at my disposal when I deal with the points that Richard Lochhead made. I am told that the SEERAD officials responsible implement the scheme sensitively, and I will be interested in examples that members give me that might contradict that.
Murdo Fraser raised concerns about the quality of the information in the BCMS database. That is important not only for farmers receiving their subsidy payments; from our point of view, it is important that we have an effective system of animal traceability. For the Scottish beef industry to keep and improve its reputation for health and quality, everybody should have confidence in that system.
Any system that involves the processing of large amounts of complex data will obviously be open to error. Every year, the BCMS processes over 10 million cattle movement notifications, 3 million birth registrations and 3 million death notifications. However, we must acknowledge that many of the errors come from the industry. The BCMS reports that 20 per cent to 25 per cent of birth registrations contain an error and that 20 per cent of movement notifications are incomplete or contradictory. A consistent theme of European auditors in recent years is that the quality of livestock farmers' record keeping needs to improve.
I welcome the minister's point that such a complex system is bound to lead to errors. That is exactly the farmers' point. The system seems to demand 100 per cent accuracy; without that, it penalises the farmers. Does the minister appreciate that that is the farmers' view?
Yes—and I am told that the system is administered with sensitivity precisely because of that. The rules are laid down by Europe for us to follow, and there is very little flexibility in that regard.
The minister has just stated that the system is administered with the greatest possible sensitivity, yet almost every speaker has pointed out the lack of sensitivity in the system. Will the minister please respond to that?
I am, with respect, responding to that. I have committed to take on board Murdo Fraser's dossier of complaints and to address the issues that have been raised. The complaint that Alex Fergusson referred to will be investigated. I assure Alex Fergusson that I would wish the system to be administered with sensitivity. Where he has concrete examples of that not being the case, I assure him that we will have those instances investigated and introduce a degree of sensitivity to the process.
Before we leave this subject, I would like to introduce a slight variation. This point relates to something that Alex Fergusson said and to the nature of the penalties that are applied when mistakes are made.
In this case, I am talking about mistakes that are made by the farmers themselves in the specific circumstances that we have described and in other schemes and the contravention of other regulations. Simple errors are resulting in enormously draconian penalties, amounting to losses of up to 100 per cent of income in the case of one scheme in one particular year. Will the minister explain whether the extent of the penalties that have been applied is required by SEERAD under European regulation, or whether decisions on the extent to which the penalties should be exerted are made by SEERAD?
I cannot do so now, but I undertake to find out the answer to that question and to revert to Alex Johnstone and other members on what flexibility, if any, exists with respect to the application of the European rules in the Scottish context. If that is possible, and if things can be done more sensitively, I give Alex Johnstone the assurance that we will take steps to investigate the prospect of applying such flexibility.
Steps are being taken to improve the operation of the BCMS and to cleanse the anomalous data that are currently held. Stewart Stevenson will be pleased to learn that additional staff have been made available for dealing with calls and correspondence following an upsurge in demand in November. After some problems, responses are now back to normal levels. I am particularly pleased that, in Scotland, farmers, markets and abattoirs are working with the Executive to put in place a co-ordinated programme of improvements in cattle data transmission. Scotland championed the development of the cattle-tracing system—CTS—online, which has greatly improved the service to farmers. I accept the need for improvement, and everyone has a part to play in that. I wish to work with the industry to ensure that there is improvement in the system. It is of course not just an issue for the BCMS.
The Executive is fully aware of the need to make subsidy payments to farmers as quickly as possible within the legal requirements that are set by the European Union. That process involves cross-checking the animals that are identified on subsidy claims against an extract of data taken from the BCMS database at Workington. Since the process for the 2002 schemes started in November, more than 1 million Scottish animals have successfully passed cross checks and the relevant claims have been passed for payment. This year we are paying advances at the higher rate of 80 per cent, a concession that we successfully sought from the Commission because of the bad weather last summer. That should be of some benefit to farmers.
Advance payments started well before Christmas for all the cattle schemes and are running well. As of 27 January, we have paid £53 million under the suckler cow premium scheme, which is about 90 per cent of what we expect to pay out in advance. That is similar to the position last year, when we did not cross check at this stage. The situation in Scotland is substantially better than the situation for farmers anywhere else in Great Britain.
Some refinements need to be made to the software before officials can give farmers information on failing animals and the reasons for the problems. Farmers have been kept up to date on the position. We cannot pay subsidies to farmers who have clearly breached their responsibility to notify the BCMS of animal movements or when, according to the CTS, an animal did not meet a requirement of the scheme. When farmers believe that animals have been deducted unfairly, they will have an opportunity to provide proof of their case and to seek a review.
We need a high-quality database that serves the needs of Scottish farmers and our wider beef industry. The environment and rural development department must continue to implement European law and to minimise the risk of incurring financial penalties.
Will the minister say something about the impending problem with sheep?
With the Presiding Officer's permission, I will do so.
We must continue to encourage improvement in record keeping by farmers and improved data transmission by farmers, markets and slaughterhouses, as well as improvements to the processes and operation of the BCMS.
I agree that European proposals on sheep identification are very worrying and I confirm that we will work energetically to have those proposals altered to suit circumstances in Scotland. My officials will continue to work to ensure that the BCMS, too, meets Scotland's needs. I promise members that we are committed to ensuring that farmers receive their subsidies as quickly as possible, while implementing—as we must—European law.
Meeting closed at 17:51.