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.Defra unveils plans to link disease compensation to biosecurity
DEFRA has announced controversial plans to link animal disease compensation payments to biosecurity standards on farms.
The plan was revealed in the Draft Animal Health Bill, published by the Department on Monday afternoon.
The Draft Bill’s primary purpose is to outline the principles of the Department’s Responsibility and Cost Sharing plans.
But it also covers plans to simplify existing provisions on animal disease compensation payments in England and Wales.
Planned changes to the compensation regime include ‘provisions to allow reductions in payments where a person has contributed to the spread of disease or breached relevant regulations’.
Defra said building greater responsibility sharing would help bring about ‘essential behaviour change in the livestock sector in relation to risk ’as long as ‘suitable financial contributions and incentives’ are also introduced.
The idea of linking payments to biosecurity is not new but it will cause concern within the farming industry.
NFU head of food and farming Kevin Pearce said, while the move was likely to be popular politically, the big concern was whether it was practically achievable and could be done equitably, without unfairly disadvantaging farmers.
The Bill will establish the ‘Animal Health Organisation’, a new ‘arms length’ independent body to take over responsibility for animal health policy and delivery in England from Defra.
In exchange for having a greater say in disease policy, farmers will be forced to share the cost of the animal health budget, primarily through a levy.
But, surprisingly, the necessary cost sharing measures will be introduced under a separate future Finance Bill, not Defra’s Draft Animal Health Bill.
The Bill will establish a UK Chief Veterinary Officer (CVO), who will be based in Defra. A separate CVO for England will be established alongside those already in place for the devolved administrations.
Defra Secretary Hilary Benn said: “Outbreaks of animal diseases are bad for everyone – animals, their keepers, and taxpayers. Protecting animals and people from the effects of potentially devastating diseases like foot and mouth, bluetongue and African Horse Sickness costs the public about £400million a year.
“Those running the new animal health organisation would include people with experience of the livestock industry and specialists in animal and public health, so that those making a living from animals and who are directly affected by diseases can contribute to policies and decisions about animal health.”
Liberal Democrat Shadow Defra Secretary, Tim Farron said it was ‘grossly unfair’ to make livestock farmers share the cost of animal disease, given that the 2007 foot-and-mouth outbreak came from Government-licensed premises.
“The Government’s decision to pass the buck is a disgrace,” he said. “Farmers understand the need to protect public health. But in the current economic climate there can be no justification for shifting the cost to livestock farmers.”
Share
Readers' comments (6)
Anonymous | 25 January 2010 6:50 pm
We'd like to have greater biosecurity on our farms by culling the disease-affected wildlife, unfortunately this government hasn't got the balls to let us do this. Why should we pay when they have caused diseases to spread by their own lack of action and investment?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 26 January 2010 2:10 pm
As a farmer who already is part of numerous health schemes and vaccinates all stock for everything there is a licensed vaccine for, I think this legislation is right to offer support for those of us who do our best to keep disease off our farms. Much will depend on the exact wording. Disadvantaging some will be inevitable but most farmers could make improvements and reduce any penalties imposed. It;s in all our best interests to do what we can to keep disease out of our premises.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 26 January 2010 2:41 pm
Yet another excuse for providing more jobs for town living pen pushers. They forget that it is in the interest of most livestock farmers to keep their animals healthy. Their livestock is worth nothing if they do not. Importing animals must be stopped as this always runs the risk of importing disease. The UK has prime stock to start with. It is about time the Government and DEFRA start treating Farmers with the respect they deserve.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 26 January 2010 6:21 pm
It's all very well talking up bio-security,and cost sharing,but we have got Jo public walking over every nook and cranny.We are also an island with probably the poorest food security in the world,if you want cost sharing on a realistic basis,you had better let a few farmers man the ports,because the ammount of drugs and guns that get into this country,let alone diseases,is an utter disgrace.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 26 January 2010 11:02 pm
This scheme should be adopted only if the government takes responsibility for its cock ups in bio-security i.e f&m at the start of this century and the Pirbright fiasco ! but of course its never these idiot expert's fault. Trouble is these so called experts are clever people who have n't got an ounce of common sense.Look at the TB fiasco.The experiment was conducted in real life in the fifties and sixties and TB was all but eradicated even with the so called primitive test but of course the experts brought in 4year tests and no wildlife culls and look what happened.Now they bring in pre-movement testing which is just a waste of money when what they should be doing is testing every herd every year starting initially with any herd which buys stock in.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 27 January 2010 12:01 pm
Cost-sharing is all very well in principle, but the government needs to reduce the power of the supermarkets to dictate the price the farmer recieves for what he produces. The 'public' will have to pay one way or another, either by compensation via taxes or by paying more for their food.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment