Can British farming survive this deadly blow? 27/2/01

NICK BROWN:
AGRICULTURE MINISTER
There is no doubt about it, this is an extremely serious situation. The steps we're taking to control it are the right ones but we still do not know how many cases are incubating in the national herd and of course in the national sheep flock.

WARK:
We heard today that the Six Nations fixture between Ireland and Wales has been cancelled, does that sort of development not lead to a sense of panic, after all if that is cancelled why not quarantine the country?

BROWN:
That is not at the request of the Government that is the officials taking a decision that in order to protect the countryside and the livestock industry, they wanted to avoid movement of people and I am grateful for sporting authorities for thinking carefully about whether they should continue with fixtures or not.

WARK:
If that is the case shouldn't you be restricting movement to a greater extent through the country, if you are saying a rugby fixture being put off is beneficial, surely you should be extending restrictions beyond what you announced today?

BROWN:
It is an additional precautionary measure which the regulatory authorities have decided to undertake themselves. It wasn't specifically requested by Government. Remember in all of this, I am acting on professional advice, the chief vet and those that he consults are making risk assessments, situation by situation. It is moving rapidly and also getting increasingly complex.

WARK:
Isn't there an inherent tension between movement and containment, you announced today you were going to facilitate the movement of so far uninfected livestock to abattoirs yet you are concerned about containment. Surely you should be stamping things down so there is no movement?

BROWN:
The way in which the infectivity is most likely moved around the country is in animals. Particularly farmed animals that are vulnerable to foot-and-mouth disease. Movement by vehicles and by people is of course a further risk but it is a risk of a lesser order.

WARK:
Farmers want to know where they stand about compensation. What can you tell them tonight?

BROWN:
The Government has decided to apply to the European Union to make full use of the monetary compensation regime for the dairy sector, for the sheep sector and for the beef sector in other words for the three sectors most at risk by foot-and-mouth disease.

WARK:
So farmers whose animals are infected and farmers whose animals are not infected will both get equal compensation.

BROWN:
It is monetary compensation for currency movements. It is a method which is allowable under the state aid rules for the Government to put money into the industry and given these are desperate times for the whole industry, remember the movement restrictions apply to everyone in these exceptional circumstances, the Government has felt it right to make this claim on the reserve, which is what it is, and to pay the money to the industry. The total sum is something like £170 million.

WARK:
Is that consequential compensation?

BROWN:
No. It is certainly compensation, the creation of which has been informed in part by the background of the foot-and-mouth disease.

WARK:
For pig farmers you want to give them money due to come over the next two years now to get out of the industry?

BROWN:
I want to enable those farmers who may have changed their minds as to whether they want to continue in the industry, given the new circumstances, to make a further bid or a new bid on the scheme that we've had in place for those who wish to leave.

WARK:
What about the impact on hauliers and food processors, will there be Government help for them?

BROWN:
There is a monetary regime further down the supply chain and I am bound by the state aid rules of the Common Agricultural Policy and the European Union. It is possible to ensure against these eventualities and I cannot promise tonight that the Government is going to pick up every possible commercial loss in these difficult circumstances.

WARK:
Finally, the Conservatives are using their Opposition day debate tomorrow to debate this crisis, is that helpful?

BROWN:
I really wish we were debating this when it was clearer that the control measures were definitely, had had effect, and we could discuss some of the consequential issues. To have a big debate in Parliament when we are trying to get to grips with a rapidly changing situation is probably not the right use of everybody's time.

WARK:
Minister, thank you very much indeed.

BROWN:
You are very welcome.

WARK:
Tim Yeo is with me now. The Opposition day debate is going on tomorrow, is this the right time to make it a political issue?

TIM YEO MP:
Conservative, Agriculture
It is the right time for Parliament to debate this. This is a subject which every family in the land is thinking about. Most of them are very worried about it. It would be extraordinary if Parliament was not debating it at the first opportunity which we have made available tomorrow.

WARK:
What would you do differently to what Nick Brown is trying to do?

YEO:
I would not criticise the idea that a national emergency should be debated in Parliament. Ministers are answerable to the House of Commons. The things we would do differently are essentially about the issue of how to help those farmers whose livelihoods are at risk tonight. Farmers who cannot sell their livestock, but are not yet eligible for the compensation related to foot-and-mouth disease.

WARK:
What would you give them?

YEO:
We believe that those who cannot sell cattle who approach 30 months of age, the value of which will fall dramatically if they pass through that 30 month barrier, they cannot sell those because of the restrictions which have been placed. We support the imposition of those restrictions. They deserve compensation for the difference in the value of the animal below 30 months and the different after 30 months.

WARK:
So to be quite clear, this is you actually saying that the Conservatives would widen the net of compensation?

YEO:
Yes we would, to that specific group who are suffering a loss...

WARK:
You know that is a very narrow group. That is not a difficult thing...

YEO:
If it is so easy why isn't the Government doing it. The fact is that...

WARK:
Because it opens the door to wider issue of compensation?

YEO:
This is a specific group of people who suffer a loss they cannot recover in any other way. Once the animal is over 30 months, its value has dropped. We believe those people who are suffering because of the movement restrictions, which have been rightly introduced by the Government, they deserve help.

WARK:
To the farmers who say to you tonight, if we lose our stock, we cannot restock for six months we'll have to go on the dole, will you give them money too?

YEO:
If farmers lose their stock because their herd has been slaughtered, they are already eligible. If other farmers find they cannot sell their stock because of movement restrictions, we believe they should be helped, yes.

WARK:
This is a Conservative Government who would be anxious to spend what would be millions of pounds helping a whole slew of farmers?

YEO:
This is a correct policy for an industry which was in an unusually weak position, the weakest position the livestock farmers have been in for two generations. The survival of that industry is important to Britain's future. It is therefore a proper use of the contingency fund, which all Governments have year to year to set aside a small proportion of that money to help these farmers to survive, to enable British consumers to buy high quality British meat, a possibility which may soon be closed down to them.

WARK:
Would you extend compensation to hauliers, abattoirs, food processors?

YEO:
We don't believe the same principles apply to hauliers, there are other goods they could be hauling. They are not an industry which has a regime which entitles them to taxpayers support. We regard them as being in a different category.