Vital farm animal movement data that’s essential in the event of a disease outbreak such as foot and mouth (FMD) will no longer be kept on file by Cumbria County Council because of costs saving proposals.

Well, all I can say is memories are obviously very short at Cumbria County Council. Have they forgotten that FMD shrank the economy of this county by £266 million with the loss of income to agriculture at approximately £130 million. Tourism revenue was hit by some £200 million with a further indirect cost of £60 million on the wider economy. Now they are risking that again for the sake of a few quid saved by scrapping the manual inputting of data onto the Animal Movement Licensing System.

By not continuing to invest in this safeguard and entering information onto the database, the NFU has serious concerns that the Council is not only jeopardising the agriculture and tourism economy but is also putting the health and welfare of the county’s livestock at risk as we head into the peak autumn trading of sheep. Enforcing movement standstills are not enough if up to date information is not available on the system to trace the spread of the disease, sort the problem out and then lift the standstill to allow trade.

The NFU was not consulted about this at any stage which I frankly, think is an utter disgrace. So, the organisation has written to the council to express its grave concerns about these proposals which it understands will be considered by the council Cabinet on 13 September. The NFU is urging the Council to reject the plans which were included in its Safe Stronger and Inclusive Communities Scrutiny Board report on animal health.

There is a legal obligation for the Government to record this information. So if they want it, they should pay for it. Cumbria County Council should stop trying to push the costs onto the farmer.

It’s widely recognised that the current system has limitations in that it takes several days to get all information onto the Animal Movement Licensing System. However, until a new system of movement reporting is put in place by Defra, which could be as early as spring next year, the NFU feels it would be irresponsible for the Council to abdicate its responsibility in this area.

Other councils have looked at working with neighbouring authorities to save administration costs for this important service.

Our farmers spend considerable time and effort in keeping accurate records and reporting movements to trading standards. Many farmers actually receive cross compliance penalties for minor mistakes in their movement records. They will be understandably furious to find that the Council believes they are wasting their time and plans to do nothing with the data they submit.

The NFU now awaits a response to its letter and hopes to meet with the Council which has, so far, failed to adequately consult the farming community on these changes.