We are urgently developing research requirements with other European laboratories to make sure we understand and the disease (Schmallenberg) better.Defra claims cost sharing 'will improve confidence'
DEFRA believes its Responsibility and Cost Sharing proposals are a big step towards a more effective animal health policy. But the plans raise more questions than answers. Alistair Driver reports.
It was at the peak of the 2001 foot-and-mouth outbreak that the idea of sharing the costs of disease outbreaks got its first proper public airing.
Beleaguered Agriculture Minister at the time, Nick Brown, raised it against the backdrop of widespread fury that taxpayers were shouldering the huge burden (eventually over £2bn) of a disease in farm animals. Never again, was the call.
The policy – with responsibility sharing added to take equal billing with cost sharing – has subsequently been developed via a myriad of working groups, forums, open meetings and public consultations.
The process finally reached something of a watershed on Monday with the publication of Defra’s consultation on the subject.
The broad principle, as outlined by Defra Secretary Hilary Benn, is that by ‘engaging’ farmers in the decision-making process and asking them to shoulder more of the cost, a more ‘effective and efficient’ animal health policy will emerge.
Standards on farms will be driven up as the policy provides ‘incentives to reduce the costs of managing disease and better risk management’. The proposed changes would inspire ‘improved confidence’ within industry about how diseases are managed, Defra believes.
“We should see a reduction in the total levels and costs of animal diseases,” said Mr Benn.
But closer scrutiny of the document provides more questions than answers about how the policy might work in practice – if it ever gets that far.
Political support
The intention is to have a draft Bill in place before an expected General Election, so it is ready to go for whichever party comes into power.
While Labour might be unlikely to turn its back on its own policy, there are no guarantees a new Conservative Government would want to push it ahead in that form, if at all, in its first tranche of Primary Legislation.
Shadow Agriculture Minister Jim Paice said: “The Conservatives will study the outcome of the consultation carefully, but will only take forward proposals that involve genuine partnership between farmers and the Government.”
He said cost-sharing ‘must not be about the industry paying for the Government’s failures’.
Just another quango?
At one point, the intention was to incorporate Defra’s Animal Health agency into the new body. It is now proposed Animal Health will be its delivery arm, but remain a separate entity.
The new body will operate alongside Defra, Animal Health and the Department’s other agencies.
This creates potential overlap and confusion. The chief veterinary officer, for example, will be a part of the new body and will advise both Ministers and the new body’s chairman and chief executive.
Separating animal health and welfare
Animal welfare policy would remain with Defra. The justification is that the ‘public at large has a particular interest’ in animal welfare policy, with, for example, ethical and religious issues coming into play.
But the British Veterinary Association’s (BVA) council has expressed ‘consternation’ at the plan as it is adamant animal health and welfare are ‘interdependent’ and policy simply cannot be separated.
Decision-making confusion
The official line is that the new body’s chairman and chief executive would take ‘key decisions such as movement controls in exotic disease outbreaks’.
This may work perfectly well when the decisions are relatively straightforward and based on advice backed by sound science and a thorough knowledge of the issues.
But what happens when the unexpected occurs, when difficult decisions have to be made ‘on the hoof’ without consensus, based on the usual processes? Would Ministers really allow an unelected body to take these difficult decisions which could impact on the wider public? Where would the line be drawn? This is all still to be resolved, Defra officials admit.
Badger culling out of bounds
The new body is meant to ‘take the politics out of animal health’, but would not be able to rule on the most contentious issue in farming. Badger culling will remain with Ministers as the relevant legislation ‘goes outside animal disease control’.
Insurance confusion
Defra is in a mess over how to raise money from farmers to cover the cost of exotic disease outbreaks.
The Treasury appears to have scuppered the original plan of using the levy for this purpose as it is unhappy with funds being built up with no certainty about when – or even if – the money would be used.
The idea of compulsory insurance (dropped many years ago) became Plan A.
The only problem is the organisation on which the whole plan depends – the Association of British Insurers – has dismissed it out of hand, describing it as ‘impractical and unworkable’.
Dividing the industry
The levy threatens to divide the industry. By basing contributions on the gross output of each sector, reflecting ability to pay, Defra proposes headage rates of 9p for sheep, £4.80 for dairy cattle and £1.20 for beef cattle OR a combined cattle rate of £2.50.
It is hardly surprising that the Royal Association of British Dairy Farmers (RABDF) has branded the policy a ‘disgrace’.
Horses – in or out?
There is also potential confusion over horses and minor species.
Leave them out of the policy and you risk inconsistency in policy-making. Include them, and the whole system would become much more complex and expensive to run as a whole new set of people are being drawn in.
Thresholds inconsistency
There is a school of though that the greatest animal health risk comes from ‘hobby’ and ‘backyard’ farmers’ who keep small numbers of farm animals.
However, the proposal to set minimum thresholds would make those keeping fewer than 177 sheep and 14 beef animals, for example, exempt from the levy (because the cost of collection would outweigh the money raised).
Devolution issues
With Wales and Scotland refraining from joining England’s lead, the BVA has expressed concerns about how the response would be co-ordinated ‘disease being no respecter of national boundaries’.
It is also throws up issues for the Scottish and Welsh animal health budgets, which Whitehall currently controls. Then there is the question of how cost sharing policies would apply to farmers on both sides of the Scottish or Welsh borders.
Farmer confidence
The aspiration of increasing farmer confidence in animal health policy may take some time to materialise if the response of farming organisations to the plan is anything to go by.
‘Furious.’ ‘Disgrace’. ‘Outrageous’. These are hardly ringing endorsements. The main concern is the belief Defra is simply passing on costs it should be taking responsibility for.
The NFU has asked why farmers should have to cover the cost of FMD outbreaks caused by leaks from Government laboratories and a bovine TB problem of its own making?
It also highlighted a recent National Audit Office report that said Defra’s current financial procedures could not deliver a ‘fair and equitable cost sharing scheme’.
“Farmers have little confidence in Defra on animal health issues,” NFU president Peter Kendall said.
Source:
News analysis
