AGRICULTURE (IMPORTED LIVESTOCK ORDER) (Hansard, 7 May 1958)

§ Mr. Godber
I beg to move,
That the Imported Livestock Order, 1958 (S.I., 1958, No. 558), dated 31st March, 1958, a copy of which was laid before this House on 2nd April, be approved. The main purpose of the Order is to consolidate the previous provisions relating to the imports of livestock into the United Kingdom. It is made under Sections 5 and 6 of the Agriculture Act, 1957 and it brings together into one Order the provisions of the Livestock (Import from Eire and the Isle of Man) Regulations, 1945, and also those of the Imported Livestock (Marking) Order 1954.
1375 Since the 1954 Order was made under Defence Regulations the making of this new Order ends our reliance on emergency legislation for this purpose.
The present fatstock guarantee arrangements make specific provision for guarantees to be paid on cattle and sheep bred outside but fattened, or which finish fattening within the United Kingdom, provided that they are of the right kind and have been in the United Kingdom for at least three months. Such imports receive somewhat lower rates of guarantee than those paid on cattle and sheep born and bred in this country.
The new Order differs from its predecessor in one or two particulars. First, provision has been included for imports from the Channel Islands, which, the House may recall, had only just been liberated when the 1945 Regulations were made. Since decontrol in 1954, the small trade in livestock from these Islands has been covered by the provisions of the Defence Regulations Marking Order. It has been a very small number indeed.
Secondly, there has been a change in the definition of livestock This has now been defined to include the carcases of pigs in Northern Ireland, because there is a risk that such carcases may be imported and entered for certification and payment of guarantee to which they are not entitled.
Then, there are the seizure and forfeiture arrangements. These have existed under the previous arrangements but have applied only to the animals themselves. The present Order introduces, in addition, seizure and provisions in respect of the vehicles and containers used to convey or conceal illegally-imported livestock. The enabling Section in the 1957 Act was specific in providing for this new and, perhaps, rather unusual feature. The present high rate of subsidy represents an increased incentive to illegal importation and more stringent measures, therefore, are needed to combat this situation. In general, the field of operation for these preventive provisions will, as in the past, be Northern Ireland, where the land border with the Irish Republic presents certain special problems.
There are one or two minor changes of a purely procedural nature which, in the main, are designed to bring these procedures, as far as possible, into line with those employed by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise in similar cases. I 1376 commend this Measure to the House as being necessary for the continued wellbeing of what is a very important livestock industry and, what, I am sure, will commend it to the House, for the proper safeguarding of public money.

§ Mr. A. J. Champion (Derbyshire, South-East)
I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for explaining that not only does this Order consolidate, but it also introduces some new points and advances. So long as we have this form of guarantee we must have this form of safeguard. As certain alterations have been made in Article 6, I cannot understand why the Minister did not make clear the purpose of the tattoo mark on the left ear. Is it that that is a date mark, because the date is extremely important in connection with these guarantees? I should have thought that somewhere in the Order would have appeared the date. There are nine or ten pages, but I cannot find any reference to the fact that somewhere and somehow the cattle must be dated. Perhaps I have missed the reference, although I have been through the Order very carefully. I think the date might have been included in Article 6 where we deal with marking, punching and so on. I should be grateful if the Parliamentary Secretary would give me an explanation.

§ Mr. Godber
I am not sure whether we can provide exactly what the hon. Member is asking for. He is right in saying that the date does not appear in Article 6. There we have more clearly defined the size of the hole, which we have made more specific. Of course we keep records of these punch marks, but I do not know whether we can incorporate what the hon. Gentleman asks.

§ Mr. Champion
I gather that some information is being obtained for the Parliamentary Secretary through the usual "pigeon post". I feel that something should be done about this. If it is possible to have a tattoo mark which is visible and can be read, it should contain the date or some other device. There might be substitution of beasts. If possible, we should safeguard against that.

§ Mr. Godber
The tattoo mark is a date mark in code. There is no actual date. The matter is dealt with in code. It would not be easy to provide the actual date.

§ Mr. Phelim O'Neill (Antrim, North)
As this Order applies mainly to Northern Ireland, I wish to say how much we welcome it. From practical experience I can say that the date is very much recorded in code, and carefully scrutinised whenever cattle are presented for certification. We welcome anything which will prevent the illegal importation of cattle into Northern Ireland.