NFU ‘dismay’ at DEFRA’s cost-sharing plans
Government plans to charge livestock farmers for dealing with animal disease will be an agonising burden for the sector, the NFU has warned.
In a consultation document published this week (30 March), DEFRA outlined plans which would see livestock farmers pay an annual levy to fund the cost of preparing for disease outbreaks.
| More on cost and responsibility sharing>> |
Farmers would also be forced to take out mandatory insurance to help cover unbudgeted costs from disease outbreaks, such as foot and mouth.
But NFU president Peter Kendall said he was “furious” with proposals to force farmers to pay for outbreaks when DEFRA did not do enough to keep exotic diseases out of the country.
“We have to remember that the costs we are being asked to cover relate to diseases that are not in this country and I do not think DEFRA treats the incursion of these diseases very seriously at all,” he said.
“On top of this we have the 2007 FMD outbreak which clearly came from a Government licensed premises.
“I find it incredible that ministers can suggest that, in future, livestock farmers should pay half of the Government costs for an incident like this.”
Recommendations that the industry should contribute half of DEFRA’s annual £44m costs for disease surveillance were “galling”, he added.
“Farmers will be dismayed by these proposals and they have little confidence in DEFRA on animal health issues. “
“We have bovine TB reaching epidemic proportions in some parts of the country, wiping out more than 30,000 cattle last year alone, and costing the industry millions.”
Despite criticism for some of the plans, Mr Kendall was more welcoming towards proposals for an independent body for animal health.
“An independent body could deliver a more proportionate and effective animal health policy.
“However, it must be a genuine partnership between livestock farmers and the Government and must have real powers and be able to deal with the European Commission on animal health issues.
“Under the joint Government and industry governance an independent body should deliver better value for money for the tax payer and for livestock farmers.
“Furthermore, it should enhance the position of the wider industry, food retailers and food manufacturers, who all benefit from keeping this country free from animal disease.”
- What do you think of the proposals? Have your say on the FWi forums
See more