I’m fed up with talking about the weather, but I can console myself with the fact we have grabbed every opportunity so far and progress is not too bad.EXCLUSIVE: Headage payment under Defra cost-sharing plans
LIVESTOCK producers will be forced to pay a headage fee on each animal they own under plans to shift the cost of animal health on to farmers, set to be formally unveiled by Defra this autumn.
In return, the department will propose setting up a brand new body, possibly with full independence from the Government, to give the industry a greater say over animal health policy.
Defra revealed this week that an annual registration scheme for livestock farmers would also form the core of the consultation on responsibility and cost sharing, due to start in ‘late autumn 2008’.
Under the scheme, a fee per head would be set for each species and farmers’ payments would be based on the number and types of animals they owned.
Each year, farmers would complete a self-declaration form registering the number of livestock of each species on their holdings and their payment would be calculated accordingly.
The consultation is likely to discuss whether the level of payment should also be linked to the ‘risk status’ of the holding.
The scheme, a version of which is already in place in Germany, is favoured by Defra as the fund-raising mechanism rather than the collection of a levy at slaughter. While the slaughter levy would be simpler to administer, the concern is that it would exclude farmers who do not send stock to slaughter.
The money collected from industry would be fed, alongside funds from the Government, into the budget of the new animal health body, which will take responsibility for most areas of animal health policy.
A Defra spokesman revealed that the new body would not be built from scratch but would be made up from Animal Health, formerly the State Veterinary Service, and parts of Defra.
The consultation will discuss how much independence it will be granted from Ministers in how it sets policies in areas like Bovine TB and how it responds to major disease outbreaks.
Two options are proposed. One is for a non-ministerial department, which, like the Food Standards Agency, would be entirely independent with its own chair and board.
The other is for a non-departmental public body, along the lines of the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board. This would be funded through Defra and answerable to Defra Ministers.
The Defra consultation will apply to England only. The devolved authorities are also drawing up policies on cost and responsibility but industry sources say it is unlikely they would want to go as far as Defra, raising the prospect of an England-only policy.
If the proposals were adopted in full, it would be some time before they came into effect. The new animal health body is likely to require primary legislation, which could take at least two years.
Source:
News
Share
Readers' comments (5)
David King | 14 August 2008 11:42 pm
I think it would be far better if Defra went to the treasury and asked them to introduce a 1% tax on all food products that contain animal products and byproducts in so that the consumer pays for the animal health status as we as farmers are unable to pass this extra cost on. Also this extra cost would not be needed if this government had a proper biosecuirty in place for this country as we are an Island, Germany is not its part of a continent. Anyway if Darling reads this and uses his head he will see thats it a sneaky way to fill his 12Billion pound black hole in his balance sheet?.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Michael Johnston | 15 August 2008 5:47 pm
Labours Poll tax on the countryside. They really do hate us.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
kerry | 17 August 2008 9:36 am
I am outraged that the government want to tax an already struggling farming industry for owning stock that exists to feed the people of our country. Without us the country could not exist as it does today. Disease outbreaks are a big cost to the industry but have in the past proved to have been caused by the governments lack of good judgement. I think every farmer in the country should refuse to pay this levy.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Monica | 18 August 2008 11:43 pm
After a day working with sheep, weaning lambs, sorting, grading, feet trimming, worming, applying fly repellant, with the sound of bleating echoing in my ear's and limbs aching, imagine the dismay when collapsed in a chair i picked up my copy of the Farmer's Guardian and read Alistair Driver's exclusive 'Defra cost sharing plans calls for headage payment' It beggars belief, if the government want to maintain a supply of home grown meat, they certainly go a strange way about securing it. Those in the livestock industry are trying to cope with rising input costs of fuel, fertiliser and feed. With the prospects of EID on the horizon, European rules being inflicted upon us (why did Britain agree to it becoming law in the first place? do we get no say? where was the input from our MEP's?) It sounds like a logistical nightmare for all concerned in the livestock trade to comply with, increasing production costs for no advantage. To learn that we are now going to be subjected to a fee to fund a new animal health body, board and chair, that have no practicle working experience of our industry fills me with despair, our margins are slim enough as it is. What is the point of working our butts off to produce high quality meat for no return. Absolutely none. Time to hang up the crook and retire the sheep dogs! For the buyers, Sourcing English meat in the future could become more diffcult. Farmer's are not allowed to do anything about the poor TB infected badgers that are running around our herds of cattle, but we are to be expected to pay for the consequences when our cattle are affected. - I don't think so! The urban image of 'a farmer', a man with a piece of straw in his mouth, no longer applies, like any other business, Livestock farmer's need to make some profit to survive.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Brian Parkin | 19 August 2008 12:59 pm
I already pay vets fees, buy medicines and treatments for my livestock and undertake regular stockmanship without the government making any contribution to my costs. What is the government going to do for the health of my livestock that I don't pay for already? This is just another government con to take money away from us and heap responsibility back on the industry. Resist it!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment