Question follow-through · 56891
Livestock: Tagging
To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, whether his Department has made an assessment of the adequacy of the research presented to the Scottish government on ultra high frequency electronic identification technology in livestock.
About this written question
A written question asks a government minister for information in writing. Parliament publishes the question and any answer.
- Answering body
- Scotland Office
- Tabled
- 3 Jun 2025
- Target answer date
- 5 Jun 2025
- Answer
- 10 Jun 2025 · 7 calendar days after tabling
Elapsed calendar days describe the record timeline, not whether Parliament considers an answer on time.
Votes on this topic
- Taxation (Energy and Vehicles) Bill Committee: New Clause 5 · 1 Jul 2026
- Taxation (Energy and Vehicles) Bill Committee: New Clause 4 · 1 Jul 2026
- Taxation (Energy and Vehicles) Bill Committee: New Clause 2 · 1 Jul 2026
These Commons divisions share a topic label. The question did not necessarily lead to a vote.
Recorded timeline
3 Jun 2025
Question tabled
To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, whether his Department has made an assessment of the adequacy of the research presented to the Scottish government on ultra high frequency electronic identification technology in livestock.
5 Jun 2025
Target answer date
Date supplied by the official written-questions record.
10 Jun 2025
Answer published
Farming policy is a devolved matter, and the Government has not formally assessed the impact of the Scottish Government's decision. Defra officials are working closely with devolved administrations to ensure compliance with the UK Internal Markets Act (20...
Official data retrieved 28 Sept 2026.
Later records
Possible follow-up questions
Strong links require the same MP, department and exact heading. Other same-department questions are shown as unreviewed candidates, not as confirmed follow-ups. No debate link is asserted unless a stable source relationship exists.
No later same-department questions indexed.
This is an absence in covered public data, not evidence that no follow-up occurred elsewhere.