By unlocking the export potential China offers the pig industry, not to mention the red meat sector as a whole, we could gain entry into a marketplace which comprises a fifth of the world’s population.Government looks for common ground on farm policy
TACKLING TB could emerge as a top agricultural priority under the new Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition.
It is also likely to find common ground on the need to implement a supermarket ombudsman to police the food supply chain and on their commitment to a full review of all Defra quangos, to include the misfiring RPA, Natural England and the Environment Agency.
But the fledgling coalition must still resolve its differences over responsibility and cost sharing and CAP reform.
Just days after the two parties formed an historic alliance Roger Williams MP, the Liberal Democrat agricultural spokesman in the previous parliament, said there was reason for ‘great optimism’ for farmers.
“Nick Clegg and David Cameron have showed how compromise can be the best thing for Britain. We must now work together to show how our parties can work together for best of British agriculture,” he said.
A top priority will be action on bovineTB. Neil Parish, newly elected Conservative MP for Tiverton and Honiton in Devon, a county ravaged by TB, re-affirmed the Tory manifesto commitment to cull badgers as part of a comprehensive package of measures to tackle the disease, a point backed up by Mr Williams.
“We agree we must make progress in our control of TB and I think this will include a cull,” said the Lib Dem.
The parties also find common ground over their desire to see a supermarket ombudsman, although the free-market Tories have expressed their reservations over Liberal plans to directly influence farmgate prices.
Perhaps of more interest to the industry, however, will be areas of policy disagreement.
While the Tories agree in principle to ‘responsibility and cost sharing’ on animal disease policy, the Lib Dems are ‘completely opposed’ to the idea.
In an interview with Farmers Guardian before the election Tim Farron, Lib Dem agriculture spokesman, said: “We will not support funding the independent animal health body if farmers are forced to meet its costs.”
Another key area of divergence is over EU farm policy. The pro-Europe Lib Dems want to retain a large proportion of the CAP budget in direct payments but the Conservative Party has advocated a gradual phasing out of subsidy support, arguing for a greater focus on a free market.
But while policy differences were inevitable, Meurig Raymond, NFU deputy president, said the coalition could be good for British agriculture.
“We now have more rural MPs with more power than we have had for a long time,” said Mr Raymond.
“And when you look at their manifestos you see they have listened to the industry. As long as they stick to their pledges to focus on a productive and sustainable rural economy I think this will be good for farming,” he added.
Related images
Farmers Guardian newsletters
Get the best of Farmers Guardian delivered straight to your inbox. Click here to sign-up today
-
General news and breaking news alerts
Minimum weekly delivery -
Livestock, arable, dairy and young farmers
news and features
Monthly delivery
Readers' comments (6)
Anonymous | 14 May 2010 3:34 pm
The UK is ALREADY spending millions of pounds (now approaching £100 million annually) on bovine TB (bTB) and trying to eradicate a disease where the risks are hypothetical. Even the World Health Organisation has stated that there is negligible risk to humans from bTB if milk is pasteurised and meat cooked. Around 85% of cattle and 82% of the human population are in areas where bovine TB is either only partially controlled or not controlled at all. With rapidly increasing globalisation and cattle movements, imports/exports, how can we ever expect to eradicate bTB permanently from the UK? Even the human form is on the increase, being brought in by people from abroad, coming here from areas where TB is endemic. Why are we spending so much money on trying to eradicate bTB when there is financial crisis and jobs/services are to be cut? It has been refreshing to see that scientists are beginning to question the current policy. ‘Public Health and bovine tuberculosis – what’s all the fuss about’ is a recently published report by Dr Paul R Torgerson and Professor David J Torgenson. They conclude that bTB control in cattle is irrelevant as a public health policy and there is little evidence either for a positive cost benefit in terms of animal health of bTB control. It suggests that such evidence is required; otherwise there is little justification for the large sums of money spent on bTB control in the UK. In fact there is more risk to human health from the existing skin test for cattle. A farmer in Ireland died this month after being injured when cattle were being tested for bTB. A control, rather than eradication, programme for bTB would be cheaper, better for farmers and could be based on the existing BCG vaccine for cattle (pending the development of better vaccines). Of course it would need to be approved by the politicians, farming unions, veterinary professions and EU - and here we hit the stumbling blocks ....
There is now increasing talk about badger culls in England!. The cull in Wales is to cost a staggering £10 million (equating to over £6500 per badger culled, based on the estimated 1500 target quoted in the local press!) (and this excludes policing and legal costs regarding challenges) to achieve just 6-9% reduction in bovine TB for only 2 years following the five years of the cull. The Welsh Assembly has not even undertaken any proper cost benefit analysis. Will a cost benefit analysis be undertaken to justify the costs, which include any indirect costs to businesses if an angry public opt for boycotts? Will farmers ultimately bear the brunt of such an unpopular and expensive cull that is not properly backed up by scientific evidence?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 14 May 2010 4:47 pm
I agree entirely with the above comment. Culling badgers is just a way of being seen to be doing something.
Personally I have responded by giving up dairy produce and using leather.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Barry Badger | 15 May 2010 2:35 pm
Yous use leather instead of dairy produce...?...each to his own I suppose.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
clifben | 16 May 2010 9:24 am
Hmm... so it begins to look like killing badgers is going to be the biggest and most fashionable growth industry here in the UK.
I suppose it will keep the unemployed off the streets.
Of course with current EU and DEFRA policy allowing us to be flooded with cheap imported dairy products helped on here by WAG's Elin Jones, that will include plenty more ex-farmers.
Funnily enough with (on current estimates) 20%+ of our UK adult badger population dying as the result of traffic accidents, we already have a pretty efficient cull going on, year on year for free.
Still we are not talking about a cull here in Pembrokeshire, It is extermination they are aiming at. Either way someone is getting rich out of wasting our taxes.
Perhaps the cheapest solution (which would make money for the government on increased fuel tax revenue, Nick and Dave), would be more cars going faster blasting through our country lanes!
Over to you Jezza, Range Rover Sport?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Peter | 17 May 2010 12:24 pm
This disgusting plan will not secure the eradication of bTB in cattle but merely satisfies a desire for vengence within the dairy farming community.
Farmers and growers have for too long found scapegoats in the natural environment to explain the setbacks they experience when applying outmoded techniques in their efforts to produce food.
To add some piquancy to this scenario, the scientific justification behind the proposal is to say the least unbalanced and one senses the weight of vested interests behind the promotion of badger culling as a realistic option for eradicating bTB.
As an additional bonus for the rural community, this medieval and barbaric project will also sanction the behaviour of those people who get gratification from slaughtering wild animals.
Look out fur and feather, Boggis, Bunce, Bean and co will be dealing with you later, once the final solution has been achieved with the badgers.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
gerald james | 17 May 2010 5:13 pm
I emailed the Libs and Cons prior to the eletcion to tell them that due to their stance on culling (go ahead), and the Cons stance on hunting with dogs (go ahead) they lost my vote and the votes of my families and friends. We are not alone in such action - the general public is becoming sickened with such matter-of-fact attitudes toward wildlife by such politicians. So much so that neither party won the election, while labour, inspite of not being very popular, didn't fair as badly as the Libs and Cons had thought. Is it coincidence that labour has a more humanitarian approach to wildlife conservation, at least over profit. Libs and Cons - keep on not learning by expereince and hopefully you will be ousted in the not to distant future (unless of course you come up with something like a fixed term government!)
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment