MEPs’ expenses in the spotlight (From Gazette & Herald)

MEPs’ expenses in the spotlight

11:38am Wednesday 27th May 2009

• Print
• Email
• Share
• Comments(0)

It is difficult to believe that there is anything else happening in the news apart from the current row over MPs’ expenses.

We are only one week away from the elections for the European Parliament, which has more far- reaching effects on agriculture in Ryedale than policy decided in Westminster. With turnout at the last election at only 38 per cent, it is certainly true to say that your vote has more chance of counting.

And with revelations this week that an MEP can claim £363,250 per annum in expenses without producing a single receipt, it is likely that the election cannot come soon enough for many MEPs.

Included within this figure is an annual travel expense allowance of £87,407. While I cannot envisage any reason for justifying this figure, in the days of improved information technology and video conferencing it is totally unacceptable.

While it is being suggested that Britain should not have a General Election until there has been a thorough overhaul of MPs’ expenses, there is only one week to consider the MEPs’ expenses before votes are to be cast.

Health Concerns

WHILE concerns for public health should always be paramount in the meat industry, is it right that meat inspection controls should be reduced and more proportionate to the risk? The industry, and the Food Standards Agency (FSA) can at least agree that this should happen. In the recent Meat Hygiene Service (MHS) modernisation update report, a number of proposals were put forward to reduce MHS frontline supervision on certain controls, and to look at more risk-based assessments across Europe.

While the industry would like more self-regulation, experienced meat inspectors have raised concerns that this is not the best for public safety. Particular concerns are being raised over the competence of the official veterinarians who make the inspection of live animals. The meat inspectors argue that only they have the training to protect the public effectively.

There is a level of acceptance that the MHS is over-staffed and that they have created further layers of inspection, but this must be translated into cutting costs while maintaining public safety.

Carbon footprint

Just when you thought the biggest threat to the sheep industry was the forthcoming introduction of electronic identification, stories abound of the damage being done to the ozone layer by the keeping of sheep.

Sheep vent about 30 litres of methane per day, and with over one billion sheep in the world, this translates to a significant amount of greenhouse gas.

In New Zealand, where sheep outnumber people by 12 to one, methane emissions from sheep are said to be responsible for almost half of the country’s greenhouse gas emissions.

I understand scientists are working on a vaccine that might reduce methane emissions in sheep by about 20 per cent.

I have always judged sheep by the old fashioned attributes: whether she is a good mother, or capable of producing the best of prime lambs with good conformation. Ryedale has always been known for the best of sheep breeding, and if we are to bring our livestock into the 21st century, perhaps we should be introducing an additional measure to record the amount a sheep will belch and pass wind to judge its carbon footprint.

• Print
• Email
• Share
• Comments(0)