SUMMARY

  The Union wants compensation for store cattle producers, who following a tuberculosis breakdown in their herd, incur extra costs through being unable to sell their store cattle, and whose businesses, as a consequence, can be put at risk.

BACKGROUND

  1.  Scotland has little or no experience of a bovine tuberculosis problem with badgers. It is therefore difficult to comment meaningfully on the Government's proposals—as recommended by Professor J R Krebs—to deal with it.

  This, will be addressed by the NFU of England and Wales who have first hand experience of the problem and are familiar with the proposed measures to address it.

  2. We would like to take the opportunity provided by the present inquiry to comment specifically on an aspect of the socio-economic effects of tuberculosis on cattle farmers. The press notice which announced the inquiry indicated that the Agriculture Committee would welcome views on this.

  Our comment focuses specifically on the financial impact of the present tuberculosis regulations on store cattle producers who have the misfortune to have a case of tuberculosis in their herds.

IMPACT

  3.  Affected herds are quite correctly put under immediate movement restrictions. This means that any store cattle which are ready for sale, cannot be sold.

  If further tuberculosis reactors are identified at subsequent tests, this can mean that all movements from the herds are prohibited for many months.

  4.  Such prohibitions can have a significant impact on farm costs. The impact is all the greater if the prohibition on movements off the holding coincides with the time of year when the store cattle produced on the holding are normally sold.

  5. For farmers in the remote hills and uplands of Scotalnd, missing an important seasonal store sale can mean losing a significant part of annual income. It can also mean that the holding has to carry additional animals, for which it may quite probably have insufficient grazing. The farmer is then faced not only with the loss of revenue from sales, but also with greatly increased costs from having to feed extra cattle.

  6.  We do not question the veterinary justification for imposing a standstill on cattle movements following a case of tuberculosis on a holding.

  However, we do believe that something should be done to secure the livelihood of store producers who are denied revenue from sales or store cattle and exposed to increased costs during a period of movement prohibition.

  7.  Milk producers and beef finishers are usually able to continue to market their milk and beef cattle for slaughter during a tuberculosis breakdown. The store producer is very disadvantaged by comparison.

COMPENSATION SCHEME

  8.  For example, a scheme could be devised so that where a farm had been entirely closed for more than an agreed period, compensation would be paid on stores that would otherwise have been sold, according to a fixed daily or weekly rate.

  The payment would need to be sufficient to pay for any additional grazing or feed puchases that might have to be taken to accommodate a higher than usual number of cattle locked-up on affected farms.

  This would provide some income for the store producer. The aim would be to provide the store producer with finance to help his/her immediate cash flow and to keep him/her viable, pending the removal of movement restrictions.

  9.  In Scotland, store cattle producers are usually located in remote hill and upland areas where there is often little opportunity for alternative economic activity. Therefore a financial setback for a farmer, can have severe consequences for the socio-economic structure of the entire neighbourhood. Measures are needed to safeguard not only the store producer, but also the local rural economy against financial pressure brought about by a tuberculosis breakdown.

14 January 1999