Don't tax farmers to pay for disease

That's how most farmers see the Government's latest wheeze, the Animal Health Bill, details of which were published this week. It proposes sweeping changes and the setting up of a new body to take responsibility for animal health. It will also make an annual levy on livestock farmers to fund any disease protection that is necessary for their animals.

David Pearson, who farms at East Deepdale Farm, near Hubberholme in Upper Wharfedale is up in arms about the idea. "It's all about the Government just clawing back more money and we're being used as the easy target yet again," says David who is on the National Farmers' Union North East Livestock Board. "We spend something like 300m a year on vaccinations, biosecurity and dosing already. We are all very responsible about the way in which we farm and look after our livestock.

"Foot and mouth disease and bluetongue were not down to us or anything we did wrong. The one foot and mouth outbreak that did start here was down to the Government's own laboratory in Pirbright. I think the Government should start looking at tightening import policies and border controls first.

"'How can we, as farmers, guard against diseases like bluetongue? From what we were told, this disease came over through clouds of midges from mainland Europe. Why should we have to pay for something that is not under our control? The farmers I represent think it's a cheek to try and impose another cost on an already overburdened industry, especially on something that we cannot do anything about."

The size of the proposed levy is thought to be about 4.40 per cow and 4p per chicken. David, who has suckler cows, as well as 750 breeding sheep, could face a new annual bill in excess of 1,000 per year. He's already paying 2,000 to 3,000 per year on animal health products and biosecurity.

The new legislation would bring more paperwork for farmers and David predicts the new body required to process it will be filled with people on steady salaries, doing a futile job.

Secretary of State Hilary Benn, the head of the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs, says the new Bill is all about "cost and responsibility" sharing. He says protecting animals and people from the effects of potentially devastating diseases costs the public purse about 400m a year.

The new body responsible for animal health will be headed by an independent board and chair. It will have wider powers in England and Wales to collect and test veterinary samples and to vaccinate animals.

David Pearson believes the only disease where British farmers could exercise control is over bovine TB which has plagued the south-west of England for many years. Badgers have been blamed for spreading it.

"If farmers had been allowed to cull badgers themselves the disease would have been eradicated by now. I'm not advocating taking out the whole badger community, just in the hotspots. But is it right to kill 40,000 cattle a year and yet not be allowed to kill badgers?"

Mr Pearson is backed up by the NFU President Peter Kendall. "Livestock farmers are already paying their fair share," he says. "We will be seeking clarification on why the Government now feels that it needs to introduce cost-sharing measures through a Finance Bill and will maintain our fundamental opposition to such a move."

It seems without exception, farming lobbying groups are perplexed by the Government's move. William Worsley, who runs in-hand farms at Hovingham in North Yorkshire and is president of the Country Land and Business Association, says the proposed Bill could have damaging and far-reaching consequences beyond farmers themselves:

"There have been too many examples of poor decisions and grossly excessive costs being imposed on both the industry and the public purse. We were horrified two years ago when a bio-security lapse in a Government institution was responsible for a foot and mouth outbreak. It resulted in enormous costs being imposed on the industry, which was also suffering from economic stress and the arrival of bluetongue.

"Movement controls freeze commercial transactions, resulting in losses for farmers, their suppliers, the livestock markets, abattoirs, transporters, meat processors and others in the food chain. Any levy would have to be structured to take account of all of the costs involved and not just the effect on the public purse."

Greg Bliss, national chairman of the Tenant Farmers Association, believes the Government is missing the point. "Defra is displaying a certain unholy haste to, in the words of the Secretary of State, 'improve the delivery of animal health' in comparison to its foot-dragging on the biggest animal health issue facing the agricultural industry which is Bovine TB.

"If the Government put as much effort into dealing with Bovine TB as it has in pushing ahead for its plans for an independent animal health body, I am sure that we would be much closer to achieving complete eradication from these shores.

"The fact is that this is not about animal health delivery. It's about the Government's desire to pass Exchequer costs on to the industry. The Defra bulldozer is rolling along hoping to push aside any opposition it encounters along the way."

David Pearson seems fatalistic. "I wouldn't be surprised, no matter who gets in after the next election, that they would still be looking for some kind of help to pay for the incidence of disease.

"Once it's in, if that's what happens, the levy will keep being increased every year. But what good will any of it really bring?

"My feeling is that it will only give more people jobs in offices, filling in yet more paperwork – and leave us with less money and less time to do our proper job."