Foot & Mouth
Posted by Angus Robertson, MP for Moray, at 12:40, Wed 17 October 2007:
Firstly I would like to thank you all for signing up to the 'HearFromYourMP' service which provides an additional method of communication between constituents and MPs.
It has taken a fair amount of time for 25 people to register but please encourage friends and colleagues to do so, as I am keen to canvass the views of as many people as possible.
I intend to make this first post about one of the most pressing issues, that being Foot & Mouth disease. I would like to hear your views on the following:
1.) Do you think it was reasonable for the Scottish Government to take the issue of Foot & Mouth compensation into the public forum?
2.) Given that the disease originated from a laboratory site under the auspices of a Westminster Government Department, should they pay all the compensation?
3.) What are your general views on the handling of Foot & Mouth by a.) The Scottish Government and b.) The Westminster Government.
Comments
Commenting on this message is now disabled.
Posted by Jeff Bull, 13:55, Wed 17 October 2007: (Is this post abusive?) #
My first reply disappeared when I checked some facts on another site. In case you did not get it, I will repeat my thoughts.
Both governments are appearing to handle the foot and mouth problem correctly, in that the disease seems to have been contained and we are not having funeral pyres all over the country. However, the financial compensation issue is a different matter. The disease was through no fault of the farmers and they should receive compensation from Westminster. I would also like to see the issue of location of laboratories, such as the one the disease came from, discusssed. They should be sited in much safer locations, away from farms. Offshore is best, like Gruinard where anthrax was tested.
Posted by Heidi Sands, 14:23, Wed 17 October 2007: (Is this post abusive?) #
As farmers we feel that the Scottish Government informed us better than did Westminster. We were glad to see things contained effectively, however the knock on effects of this and blue tongue are devastating to the industry, many farmers will leave and not return to farming. It is right and proper that Westminster should pick up the tab for what has happened. However the public need to be made far more aware of how their food is produced, where it comes from and how their lives will be affected as farmers leave the industry - they cannot have cheap food brought in from abroad and still expect to see a green and beautiful land when they venture into the countryside. There has to be a balance and at present it simply isn't there. It's sad that British farming has come to this.
Posted by norma anderson, 14:23, Wed 17 October 2007: (Is this post abusive?) #
In answer to the first question, I think it is imperative that these issues are aired in public. It was not only reasonable of the Scottish Government to do this - in my opinion it was required! The foot and mouth outbreak seems to have been a pretty localised affair and, as you say, was sourced to a government run laboratory. For that reason I am convinced that compensation should be paid by the government.
Posted by Eddie Stuart, 15:12, Sat 20 October 2007: (Is this post abusive?) #
Dear Angus,
1) Whilst I heard, and understand, what Westminster said about confidentiality 'within the system', the 'there on Friday (the PM seems to definitely want an election), gone by Monday (there'll be no election)' nature of the compensation smacks rather more of pure electioneering than normal internal discussion - so I think that it was entirely reasonable to bring the subject into the public domain.
2) I think that it is incredible that full compensation hasn't been offered given its source - especially as there have been several suggestions that it was penny pinching on the Westminster Govt's part that may have been, in part at least, to blame.
3) The way in which the scare was declared over, only to flare up again does seem as if the Westminster Govt was desperate to get F&M off the radar possibly more quickly than was perhaps sensible. Given their overly laid back and disastrous approach last time, one can perhaps understand why.
Unfortunately, the overall perception is that they wanted to brush it all under the carpet and only payout when they thought that an election was looming!
Regards,
Posted by norma anderson, 11:28, Sun 21 October 2007: (Is this post abusive?) #
I think there is also a wider issue at stake here - concerning not just national but also local government or, indeed, any body which spends public money. We are told that we cannot know how much is being spent because of issues of commercial confidentiality. Well, hold on a minute, it is OUR money which is being spent. If I go to my local shop to buy a pint of milk they wouldn't get away with saying they would charge me for the milk but not tell me how much they would be taking out of my account. Why should public funds be any different? Surely we have a right to know about this and how much it is costing us! And if a government facility is responsible for harming the livelihoods of any group of people, surely we should have the right to know what has/has not been done to right that wrong. After all, this is being done in our name! Norma