§ The Duke of Montrose
asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in the light of the fact that, under the livestock welfare disposal scheme, farmers will be offered 10 per cent less for breeding ewes and 31 per cent less for cull ewes than under the optimal standard valuation of the slaughter scheme, there is any risk that farmers facing financial difficulties and living within three kilometres of an infected farm will be tempted to introduce the foot and mouth virus to their stock thereby spreading the disease. [HL1519]
§ Baroness Hayman
Any livestock farmer deliberately infecting his livestock simply to obtain a marginal monetary advantage over the value of his stock would be acting both illegally and against the best interests of all his neighbours in the farming industry and everyone in the surrounding area. No compensation would be available for any consequential loss connected with the compulsory slaughter of infected animals.
The rates of payment under the Livestock Welfare (Disposal) Scheme are aimed at addressing welfare problems. The payments are not compensation, and the scheme is not designed to provide an alternative market. Payment relates to resolving an identified welfare problem, not to the value of the livestock.