The impact of foot and mouth disease on the rural economy - House of Commons

The impact of foot and mouth disease on the rural economy - House of Commons - 7 March 2001

March 7, 2001 12:00 AM

10.24 am

Mr. David Rendel (Newbury): I begin by pointing out the sheer variety of industries, other than farming and tourism, that are affected by the disease. There is an outdoor clothing business in the middle of Newbury that will not receive any of the advantages that have been offered in terms of rate relief. Last week, its takings were down by 50 per cent. There is also a veterinary diagnosis and consultancy business in my constituency. It cannot get any samples in, so the business is collapsing completely. Each business may employ only a handful of people, but such people are threatened with redundancy almost immediately.

Another business, which deals with pet food and bedding, is finding that goods cannot be moved away from the area because an affected flock is too close to it--movement has been restricted in the area. My constituency also contains Sheepdrove organic farm and Elm Farm research centre, and I am pleased that the Government have taken notice of the research work on vaccination that has been done. It should be considered seriously, whether it is the right policy or not.

27 Mar 2001 : Column 196WH

I wish to concentrate on the racing industry because, although it is not peculiar to my constituency, there is a great preponderance of it there, unlike in most other parts of the country. Many people think that racing is not affected and is all right--it shut down for seven weeks and then started again. However, although the weather has been so appalling that it has caused several meetings to be cancelled, meetings have been lost explicitly because of foot and mouth disease. People who rely on odd earnings--perhaps once a month--to upgrade their poor incomes have entirely lost that. Such people are programme sellers, providers of refreshments and some on-course bookmakers. They may earn only a small amount from racing, but are dependent on it to eke out an otherwise meagre standard of living.

Trainers and owners are involved in racing, although some people may think that owners will do better from a cancellation because they usually lose money from racing, rather than gaining it. However, racing is important to jockeys and, particularly, self-employed jockeys, who are paid for each race in which they ride, rather than a retainer. If races are cancelled, such jockeys may find that their income quickly drops. They are not being offered compensation.

People feel that it is unfair that farmers automatically receive compensation for loss of stock, but that no other people are given compensation, even when they may be losing as much of their livelihood as the farmers. I hope that the Government will recognise the feeling that the current compensation method is unfair to people who suffer consequential losses, rather than to farmers who suffer direct losses.

10.27 am