HC Deb 10 June 1943 vol 390 cc928-48
Mr. Boothby (Aberdeen and Kincardine, Eastern)

I make no apology for raising the question of beef prices, which I have no doubt will also interest the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Rye (Sir G. Courthope), and the future of our livestock industry. But, as I know that there are other Members who wish to raise different subjects, I shall be brief. I have the honour to represent in this House one of the great beef-producing districts of this country, and, indeed, of the world—the home of Aberdeen Angus. There are two specific questions that I would like to put to my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, who, I believe, is going to answer this Debate. First, is the fall in prices under the present price structure between the Spring and the Autumn justified? I am inclined to think that it may be too steep in relation to the present cost of feeding. In other words, I think that many farmers are apt either to sell out as quickly as possible, or to hang on like grim death through the winter in order to realise the higher prices offered in the spring. If they sell in the autumn the fall in price is so steep that they lose a considerable part of their profits by having to feed the animals during the summer months. I think that there should be some fall in prices between the spring and the autumn; but I think that the fall is, at present, rather too steep. The second question is, What is the effect, generally, on pedigree herds of the present policy of taking into account gross weight alone, as against weight and quality of meat? That, I think, is the more important of these two questions.

I admit that the high-quality beef animal is more easily and cheaply fed than the big-boned Irish type of cattle. Nevertheless, the contention of the Aberdeen Angus Cattle Society is that under the present grading system producers of high class beef are, in fact, supplying the Government with a certain quantity of meat, estimated by them at something between 25s. and 45s. per animal for which they receive no return; and that they are to this extent subsidising the production of lower, or rough, class beasts. It is a disturbing fact, which the House has to take into account, that, since the commencement of the present system of grading, registrations in the Aberdeen Angus Herd Book have fallen by 36 per cent. I would like to have the opinion of my right hon. Friend upon that fact I do not say that I support the Aberdeen Angus Cattle Society in all their contentions; but I, and I daresay other hon. Members, have received communications from them which cause us considerable anxiety. We are exceedingly anxious about the effect of the present price structure upon the breeding of the highest quality cattle. That is the question upon which in particular, I want the opinion of my right hon. Friend. I am sure that he will agree that we cannot afford to have a serious decrease in the breeding of high-quality animals in this country. Before the war our export trade in pedigree stock was substantial, and valuable. My own constituency used regularly to supply sires for the Argentine herds every year. After the war we shall have to do it for many other countries besides the Argentine; for many European countries, where the prewar herds have been annihilated by the Germans. The reconstitution of good, sound commercial herds will, in my view, be a matter of a vital importance to the whole world after the war. Without it there will be no hope of realising the aspirations of the international Food Conference at Hot Springs.

This brings me to my concluding point—I said that I would be short, and I am going to be short. What is going to be the livestock policy of His Majesty's Government in the immediate future? For the past four years it has been necessary to concentrate upon the production of crops for human consumption in this country. This, in my opinion, has been largely due to the shortsightedness of pre-war Governments in allowing the land to go down to grass year after year, and the workers to be driven off the land; and in failing to build up adequate reserves of essential commodities. I do not think that it is generally realised that we embarked upon this war with a most serious shortage of feeding stuffs, which it took a very considerable time to rectify. The first four-year plan, the crop production plan, is now drawing to its close. It has been highly successful. We have achieved a most remarkable increase in crop production.

What is to be the next four-year plan? It will have to take into account the necessity of renewing the fertility of the land, which, owing to the reduction in livestock, is now endangered. Natural manure has a quality and an effect upon the soil which chemical productions have not. In order to restore fertility, an increased acreage of rotation grasses and clovers, or leys, and an increased head of livestock, must not only be contemplated but secured. The plough must be taken round the farm. With the amount of land now available, which can carry two or three tillage crops, including roots and oats for feeding, this should surely be possible.

We have still greatly to increase the production of milk in this country. Milk is the foundation of all nutrition. But let the land produce what it can produce best. It is false economics to try to force milk production upon districts which are not suited to it—which are better suited to the production of high-quality beef, for example. I hope the Minister will agree with me that our long-term objective should be the production both of the finest beef cattle and the best dairy herds in the world; and that we should try to eliminate the second-rate, hybrid animal, which produces inferior milk in inadequate quantities, and is finally converted into inferior cow beef. That is not going to be the basis of a healthy British agriculture after the war. We want the best, not only for ourselves, but for the rest of the world.

I hope the Minister will also agree with me that when the present methods of control cease, there must be a permanent meat corporation or board in this country, with powers to establish centralised slaughter-houses up and down the country, to pay producers on dead weight and dead grade, according to the quality of the carcase, and to organise the flow of meat to the markets. In the past the marketing of meat has been chaotic, and that has done no good either to the producers, or to the general economic well-being of this country. Lastly, I hope the Minister will agree that leys and livestock are going to be the key to a further expansion of food output in the next four years. When all is said and done, arable stock farming is the basis of British agriculture and we must never forget that.

Mr. Snadden (Perth and Kinross, Western)

Hon. Members like myself, who are gravely perturbed about the future of our livestock industry, are greatly indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothy) for having initiated this Debate. I would like, if I may, to clear the air on one point about which there may be some misunderstanding, before dealing with the main questions raised by my hon. Friend. It may be thought that this is entirely a Scottish question, because Scottish Members have raised if from time to time in this House, and for all I know they may be the only people who will contribute to this Debate to-day. It is true that Scottish farmers have a very definite issue at stake. They have been striving for generations, and not without success, not only to improve their own cattle, but to improve the cattle of other countries. It is no exaggeration to say that our farmers, to their credit, have attained that goal in a fashion not excelled by any other producers, as the records of the Smithfield and other clubs will show. In pre-war days Scotland produced a quarter of all the beef produced in the United Kingdom.

Small wonder then, if we in the North view with great concern any tendency to crush out the smooth high-quality animals, the result of years of careful breeding and selection in favour of the low-grade, poorer, rougher types whose dearth of edible meat is only equalled by their abundance of wasteful bone and offal. But this is not a Scottish question, nor even an English question. It is not a question of the pedigree herd, or of the export trade: it is a much wider question. It is a national question, because the fundamental wellbeing of the British livestock industry as a whole is at stake. Everyone will agree that that industry will form the main pillar of our post-war agricultural structure. Pre-war legislation, by way of the Livestock Industry Act, 1937, made available a certain sum of money which was, according to the policy of the Livestock Commissioners, paid out in subsidy per live cwt., graded according to quality and differentiating as between the home animal and the imported animal. It was rightly designed to secure that every encouragement would be given to the breeding of animals of the very highest quality, so that our home producers might com- pete effectively against the South American import.

Payments for 1937–38 reached the sum of £4,050,000. Time and again it had been held up to us in this House, and by no one more persistently and more effectively than the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, that assistance should only be made available for cattle and sheep of the right quality, otherwise farmers would constantly be coming back to this House asking for bigger and bigger subsidies. There is force and cogency in that argument. It is in line with scientific breeding policy, the ultimate object of which is to breed an animal of the very highest possible quality yielding the maximum amount of edible flesh on a given quantity of food. In other words the goal of the progressive stock breeder was quality, and more quality, wth economy in production.

What has happened since the war began? The Government took two major decisions of policy: First, that milk should have first priority and, secondly, that quantity, which is a misnomer, should take precedence over quality. I do not think that anyone would disagree that the first decision was correct. Everybody knows that milk production must have priority, but I think that most people will concede that in the sphere of beef production, which is an important sphere, very great danger lies ahead if, as a definite matter of policy, our price structure is so framed as definitely to encourage the rough, mongrel-bred, low type animals as against the smooth, superior-quality animal, which previously competed successfully with the Argentine import. Such a policy can only have one result, a definite deterioration in quality. That has been going on since war began, not only in respect of cattle but of sheep. Farmers who used to breed good class animals do not now bother to do so. Under the grading system of to-day an inferior animal reaches a respectable killing-out percentage, although a great deal of him consists of bone and offal, whereas the smooth quality animal, which previously competed successfully with the Argentine import hands over to the Ministry of Food whatever excess flesh he may possess above the maximum percentage. If he kills out at 64 per cent., the producer does not get the difference between 58 and 64. The Government collar it, and the producer gets nothing at all.

I do not say that the Government were wrong in making the decisions for the two priorities mentioned. My criticism is that they swung too far off the mark by failing to realise that if, as a matter of definite policy, they encouraged inferior animals at the expense of the superior animal, they would be cutting into the ordinary commercial cattle of the country irrespective altogether of breed. They are cutting into this reservoir on which we rely to meet Argentine imports in the ordinary commercial market. It is very difficult to assess what happens under the grading scheme. I do not want to jump into complicated arguments about edible meat percentages. Suffice it to say that there is twice as much bone in a 50 per cent. killer as in a 60 per cent. At equal weights the high quality animal kills out at from 5 to 10 per cent. higher. Their stomachs do not differ in any way. All that happens is that they use their food differently. Generations of feeding have seen to that. It is not understood that scales of rations do not rule. What rules is breed type.

May I give an illustration to the Parliamentary Secretary of what happens to-day? Take two steers of the same weight, steer "A" and steer "B." Steer "A" is a rough, coarse, inferior steer. After exhaustive examination the graders come to the conclusion that it can struggle up to a killing-out percentage of 58. It is different in the case of steer "B," an animal of the same weight, a smooth, well-bred animal, possibly of the breed to which the hon Member for East Aberdeen referred, the graders see the difference at once. They know that there is little need to put their hands on him. He goes right over the maximum grade and may kill at 62 per cent. One would have thought that for the high-quality animal a higher price would be paid than for the lower quality animal. Not a bit of it. The two fetch exactly the same price. If that is justice, I do not know what is. The answer to all this is that the farmer concludes that it is not worth while producing a high-quality animal, that any old thing will do, rough or coarse; it does not matter. I have heard it said that there is no apparent deterioration in quality in the country. I would say to those who hold that view that probably they never were able to distinguish between the high quality and inferior animal at any time. Everybody knows this is the day of the big, coarse steer.

This is a very unsatisfactory state of affairs when one realises that after this war we are bound to return in a large measure to livestock farming. Present policy is bound to place the home producer of quality animals in a very difficult position when he comes again to have to battle with foreign importers. The effect upon our pedigree herds is already serious. This does not apply only to the Aberdeen Angus breed. There are several other breeds equally affected—the Devon, the Hereford, Sussex, and Galloway. I have here two volumes of the herd books of this great Aberdeen Angus breed. The one I hold in my hand is the pre-war volume, of considerable size and thickness, before Government policy became effective. Here is the present volume for 1942. It is only about one-third of the size. No wonder that the Aberdeen Angus breeders in particular have something to say about it. I wish to concede that there has been a change of heart recently on the part of the Minister of Agriculture and also on the part of the Minister of Food. The Minister of Agriculture, I note, said at a meeting in Cambridge the other day that we must ensure that such cattle as we have become efficient converters of feeding-stuffs grown on farms. Does not that mean that the Minister of Agriculture is getting a little afraid of what is lying ahead of him in the fatstock world? Is it not an admission that badly bred cattle can never become efficient converters of food-stuffs no matter how well balanced the rations are.

The Minister of Food has met us part of the way. Recently he extended his special grade—58 per cent. and over—from four to eight months. I am going to ask him to-day—though I do not see any one from that Department here at the moment—to consider certain alterations in the price structure. The first suggestion I make is that the special grade should be carried on for 12 months. I cannot see any earthly reason why it should be limited to eight. I also wish to suggest that the top grade and the next below it, which is called the A-plus, should be increased by 1s. 6d. per cwt.

That would definitely encourage quality as against the inferior animal. I further suggest that the Minister should consider reducing on a sliding scale the price of animals of excessive weight. It is gross waste to feed steers to 14 cwts.

I submit that the alterations in prices suggested would encourage home feeders, stimulate and invigorate the pedigree herds of this country. This would definitely help to restore the beef production side of our agriculture to the proper level.

Sir Patrick Hannon (Birmingham, Moseley)

Does my hon. Friend mean 1s. 6d. on each unit?

Mr. Snadden

All I am asking is that the special grade or quality animal of 58 per cent. and over should be increased by 1s. 6d. a cwt. and carried for 12 months instead of eight.

Sir P. Hannon

Without reference to size?

Mr. Snadden

Without reference to anything. I am not even asking the Government to pay for all the edible flesh left on their hands. To-day they collar the flesh if the animal exceeds the maximum and I ask that the price of this grade be increased by 1s. 6d. per cwt. I know that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture will tell me that he is looking into the livestock policy after the war and so on, but I hope that he will try and impress on the Minister of Food that something must be done about it now.

Mr. Price (Forest of Dean)

Lest it should be thought that this matter mainly concerns those interested in agriculture North of the Border, I hasten to add a few words in support of the hon. Members who have raised this question in order to show that this is an English as well as a Scottish interest. I have in my constituency and county some very good beef herds. Indeed, agricultural interests in the South-West of England generally are very much concerned with the price policy which has encouraged, or failed to encourage, quality beef. I will admit that the Ministry of Food have a certain justification for saying that in war-time more attention should be paid to quantity than to quality and while I am prepared to admit that in war-time this may be necessary, I must say that this can be carried too far. It has been already carried too far. The Ministry have made some improvements, but what we are asking to-day is that they should continue to look more favourably now on the higher quality animal. Whether it be in the form of extending the months of the year in which the higher addition is paid to the 58 per cent. killing-out animal, or whether it be in the form of another 1s. or 1s. 6d. to the 58 per cent. killing-out animal, or whether it be both, I will not say, but whether it is one or the other there should be further concessions. I have reason strongly to suspect that the Ministry of Food are doing quite well on the price they are paying for the high percentage killing-out animal. In a sense it might be said that there is a fund accumulating from which they can well afford to give a little. All that I am asking for is that a few crumbs should fall from the rich man's table to the Lazarus of beef production. Incidentally, I am sorry that a representative of the Ministry of Food is not on the Treasury Bench for this Debate.

The Ministry of Agriculture is now, quite rightly, trying to encourage the keeping of beef cattle and sheep on the farm and is not laying sole stress upon dairying. I understand that war agricultural executive committees have been instructed on this line of general improvement in the type of animal and that they should not be solely concerned with dairy cattle. It is true that milk is the No. 1 priority, quite rightly, but an attempt should be made now to see what else we can do. As we have been so successful in cropping policy and farmers are producing so much more per acre, we can well afford to see an improvement in the number of beef cattle and sheep. It is not only the Aberdeen Angus which is first-quality beef. There are other herds in my county and in neighbouring counties, for instance, the "Rubies of the West"—the Herefords—which are cattle of high beef quality. Although perhaps their average is not so high as some of the Scottish beeves, I think it is important to encourage a better quality of Hereford. My hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) spoke of the importance of maintaining the fertility of the soil and of encouraging all kinds of cattle. I would confirm what he said, and I would like to add that scientific investigation has proved that the manurial values of beef cattle is higher than the manurial value of dairy cattle. The percentage of nitrogen values coming from beef cattle is better, and, therefore, if we have in mind, as we should, the maintenance of the fertility of the soil, that is a further reason for the encouragement of beef cattle with a view to maintaining that fertility. Therefore, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to give us some little encouragement when he comes to reply to the Debate.

Mr. Wedderburn (Renfrew, Western

I do not think that I would myself press the first of the points which have been raised in this Debate, namely, that with regard to the steep decline in prices between the spring and autumn. In Scotland most arable farmers are more in the habit of fattening cattle indoors in the winter rather than on grass; and it is a good thing that they should be encouraged to do that, so that they can make more manure. I would, however, like to reinforce the second point. I hope very much that my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary is taking serious note of what has been said. The position now is that the Ministry of Food are paying purely for weight and not for meat, irrespective of how much bone is contained in the car-case. Suppose you take two animals of exactly the same weight—an Aberdeen Angus bullock and an Irish beast—and assume that they both weigh 10 cwts. each and both kill out at the same figure, 60 per cent. That means that the carcass each animal weighs is 6 cwts. after the offal, etc., has been removed. The carcass of the good quality animal may have 5 cwts. of edible meat on it out of the 6 cwts., whereas a rough animal with big bones may have only 3 or 4 cwts. of edible food on it. Yet the Ministry of Food are paying exactly the same price to the farmer for both carcasses. In normal times the butcher would pay a much bigger price for the good carcass, but now the butcher who gets the good carcass is getting pounds of steak off the rump for nothing. That state of affairs is not good for anybody. I have taken this example for the sake of simplicity in which the killing-out figure is the same. Of course, the rough animal would probably not reach so high a figure. But even supposing that the killing-out percentage is good in the case of the Irish beast you have the position that the Ministry of Food are paying exactly the same price to the farmer who has produced a carcass with plenty of meat as to the farmer who has produced a carcass with plenty of bone.

When I came back from the Army, in 1941, I found that both my Aberdeen Angus bulls had been sold and that Shorthorn bulls had been procured instead. When I inquired why, it was pointed out to me that it would pay me much better to produce a heavier type of beast, even though there was less meat on it, because the Ministry of Food were paying simply on weight and not on quality. This state of affairs is not good for anybody; it is bad for the Ministry itself, it is bad for the farmer, and it is bad for the country as a whole, because the country is not getting as much meat as it would get if good quality meat was encouraged. There are several ways in which the matter might be remedied. The Ministry of Food have been pressed to pay a high quality subsidy, but their reply is that they have not good judges at their disposal able to distinguish between a good quality beast and a beast of less quality. Another suggestion which has been made is to make a bigger differentiation between home-bred and imported cattle. That is a possible method, but it has its disadvantages. It seems to me that the simplest way of doing it would be to have a super-grade quantity percentage, higher than the present percentage. I think the figure of 58 per cent. is much too low.

Mr. Snadden

Would not my hon. Friend agree that to raise the quantity percentage would give an excuse to the producer to carry his animals too long in order to get a higher percentage, thus using more feeding-stuffs? That is why I did not favour raising the quantity percentage, because people would hang on unduly, which would be uneconomic to the nation.

Mr. Wedderburn

That is exactly the point I was coming to. The Ministry of Food's reply has always been that it would encourage farmers, if there was a higher grade, to keep cattle too long, thus giving them food which might be used for human food. I do not agree with this. The Aberdeen Angus bullock for the first 2½ years of his life lives on straw and turnips during the winter. It is only when he comes to be fattened in the last few months of his life that he is given a diet of bruised oats and——

Sir Edmund Findlay (Banff)

Who ever kept an Aberdeen Angus bullock for nearly three years?

Mr. Wedderburn

A great many people. Most people keep them a year longer than they used to do. It is much more common now to keep them through the third summer and fatten them in the third winter, since they cannot now get oilcake or imported food-stuffs to fatten them early. I do not think there is any danger of an excessive quantity of oats which might otherwise be used for human food being given. I am sorry that a representative of the Ministry of Food is not present to hear what is being said. I would have liked to have pressed the matter more strongly, but there are other subjects for discussion. I beg my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to pay serious attention to this matter, to see that something will be done in the future not to give higher prices to the beef industry as a whole—I do not think that is required—but to make a more effectual differentiation in favour of home-bred animals of good quality, which is what we require to produce more meat for the present, and for the future of our agriculture after the war.

Sir E. Findlay

I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend who raised this problem. It is a very important one for the North East of Scotland, and not only for Scotland but for the world in general. There was a headline in one of the papers this morning from the States which mentioned a short-term food policy. You can bring your beasts to maturity a year earlier if they are rough, heavy-boned beasts and, unless some help is given, the high quality beasts will die out. As my hon. Friend who spoke last said, no one is interested in killing out quantities under 58 per cent. If you encourage high quality sires and dams, you can get 9 cwts. of meat at 75 per cent. in one year and 14 cwts. in two years, and I think strains that can do that ought to be continued. I have had considerable experience of polled Angus, but other beef-breeding strains are as good, and surely what we have done among us during the last 30 years to concentrate on first-class breeding stock should not be allowed to go by the board. It may not be possible for the Minister of Food to make the arrangement. If it is not, I put it up to the Minister of Agriculture to look kindly towards the first-class breeding bulls that we have and see that, when food-starved Europe has to be restocked with cattle, it should be re-stocked with absolutely first-class strains. I believe it is possible to do a great deal to-day scientifically, in the way of insemination and so forth, but unless we can get a certain amount of quality breeding stock we shall not be able to play our part in the rehabilitation of Europe after the war. We have had to provide sires for the Argentine for generations, and they have been a profitable investment for Scottish farmers. We shall definitely have to provide sires for Europe, and a rebate of Income Tax for farmers producing first-class quality sires would be a method of assistance to the post-war regeneration of Europe.

Sir R. W. Smith (Aberdeen and Kincardine, Central)

I am delighted to congratulate my hon. Friend opposite on having raised this point, because it is a matter of vital importance. My hon. Friend the Member for West Renfrew (Mr. Wedderburn) referred to the fact that there was no representative of the Ministry of Food on the Front Bench. I should like to draw attention to the fact that there is no one from the Scottish Office.

Mr. Boothby

I ought to say that I had an apology from the Under-Secretary of State, who has had to go off on a mission and greatly regrets that he cannot be here.

Sir R. W. Smith

I quite understand that, but there are other representatives of the Scottish Office who could report. The Scottish Whips were present for a short time. I hope they will represent to the Minister that this point has been raised, because it is of vital importance, and we may truly say that it is a Scottish question. I should like to underline one or two little points that have been raised. The reduction of pedigree herds may be exaggerated. I do not think there is any very serious diminution in size. There has been a good deal of talk about the Aberdeen Angus, but I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Sir E. Findlay) referred to shorthorns, because they are of vital importance in Scotland, and I hope that will not be forgotten. We hope to be able to help to restock Europe. The Argentine depends on this country entirely for its bulls. We import a large amount of food, for which we have to pay by exports, and the export of these shorthorns is one means of helping to pay for it. We are told that the war may come to an end soon, and we must look ahead and see what is to happen afterwards. That is why it is so important to deal with this matter to-day.

Another point to which I should like to draw attention is the production of milk. I think it was a great mistake to concentrate on milk production in our part of the world, because we are not really a dairying country. It seems to me that we are going to reduce an asset which we have by working up dairies, which will probably be dropped at once when the war is over. We have a good thing in these valuable herds. Some time ago my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) asked a Question with regard to livestock, and the reply was that an improvement in the general standard of livestock was one of the tasks that had been set for war agricultural executive committees. I should like to ask what, in the two months which have passed since that Question was put, the Minister has found and if he has had information on the point from the war agricultural committees, because that is a matter of vital importance to us in Scotland. I am sure the Minister will realise that something must be done to protect the herds.

Mr. McKie (Galloway)

This is a matter which will affect the whole agricultural policy for many years to come, and I am sure we should thank my hon. Friend for bringing the matter before the House on the historic Motion, "That this House do now adjourn," which is a great opportunity for Members to ventilate their grievances if they are so skilful and successful as to get them redressed. I am not hopeful that we shall achieve the major objective, but I hope we shall have a little light thrown upon the intentions of the Government, and of the Scottish Office in particular. I regret that there is no representative of the Scottish Office here, but we have been given the reason. I have listened with great interest to the speeches that have been made, especially that of my hon. Friend who raised the subject, but I think he rather overdid it when he took this matter, vital though it is, rather out of its direct context, because it seemed to me that he was somewhat pouring scorn upon the policy that we have pursued since the war began. He drew attention to the fact that at the beginning of the war our food stocks were very low, and proceeded to ask what was going to happen after four years of war policy—the four-year plan—was over?

Mr. Boothby

The first four-year plan.

Mr. McKie

I am delighted to hear my hon. Friend qualify it, because we all know that we shall have to have a ploughing-up policy at all events for some years after the conclusion of hostilities. Of course, the war has upset and overturned our whole agricultural policy. The land of the country had gone down to grass far too much, but my hon. Friend seems to think it was the best policy the country could pursue in the pre-war period, that the land should have gone down to grass.

Mr. Boothby

I said it was due to the short-sightedness of Governments before the war that it went down to grass.

Mr. McKie

I am delighted to know that my hon. Friend agrees with me that that was a wrong policy. Having entered these mild criticisms of what he said, I want to go a good deal of the way along the same road with him in suggesting that it is now high time for the Government to declare their intentions with regard to this question, which is being so keenly debated and is causing so much concern to the producers of livestock. The war has completely upset for the better the agricultural policy which we had been pursuing for far too long. I am certain that the representative of the Ministry of Agriculture on the Front Bench and those associated with him in administering the agricultural affairs of Scotland would not seek in any way to prejudice those who, through no fault of their own, have been unable quickly to attune themselves to the new policy. In the last two or three months I have heard a good many suggestions as to powers that are being taken in certain counties of North-East Scotland to force beef raisers to change their premises and make them suitable for dairy production. I represent a constituency bigger than that of my hon. Friend which for years before the last war was given over very largely to livestock production. I have heard only one complaint from my constituency of unduly harsh conditions being forced upon them to turn their premises from livestock to dairy production.

My hon. Friend who raised this important question must agree that the supply of milk must for many years be the first consideration in our agricultural policy. In years gone by we have concentrated too much in satisfying the wants of the body by producing beef while being too sparing in providing what, after all, is best for man, woman and child from the cradle to the grave, namely, the liquid which comes from the cattle. The question of prices is vital. Producers of beef in my constituency have been very worried and have told me that if things go on as they are, good beef will not be available. While appreciating the difficulties of the Ministry of Agriculture and the Scottish Office, I dissociate myself from the somewhat exaggerated terms that have been used in this Debate. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will be in a position to indicate the Department's intention for the immediate future on this vital question.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. Tom Williams)

I ought to express my regret for the absence of the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Allan Chapman), who would have been present but for an engagement in Scotland. It was only because the arrangement could not be cancelled at the last moment that he had to desert this Debate. I am sure that my hon. Friend is the person who is most disturbed because of his inability to be present. Before dealing with the various points raised by hon. Members, I should like to make one or two general observations and I hope to be able to give a direct reply to two questions put by my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby). In pre-war days quality of home-bred fat cattle was recognised by a special subsidy, and I know that it was appreciated by all breed societies especially in Scotland. It was also appreciated by breeders and feeders throughout the country. With the outbreak of war, conditions changed. The Ministry of Food became the sole buyer of beef. A range of prices was fixed, varying with the killing-out percentage, and four major groups were provided—A, B, C and a special group which particularly affects the Aberdeen Angus and high quality breeds in Scotland. Whenever costs have increased during the war prices have also increased, and it is felt even to-day that throughout prices have remained at a remunerative level both for breeder and for rearer.

There were, however, special war problems which did not come as a result of anything for which the Minister of Agriculture nor the Secretary of State for Scotland can be blamed. We found ourselves, for instance, short of concentrated feeding stuffs and at the same time there was the urgent demand for an increased supply of milk. The Government were confronted with a problem and decisions had to be taken. One of the first decisions taken was that dairy cattle must have first priority for the diminishing quantities of concentrated feeding stuffs. That involved that Government policy should in future lay emphasis upon the quantity rather than the quality of beef. Therefore, with a slightly reduced financial inducement for high quality beef and a shortage of concentrated feeding stuffs there was some slight deterioration in the quality of beef as distinct from the deterioration in breeds, and I think that was obviously unavoidable, because quality not only depends upon breed but it must, of necessity, also to some extent depend upon feeding.

Sir E. Findlay

No.

Mr. Williams

Hon. Members may disagree, but I think it is demonstrable that quality depends upon breeding and feeding. Since feeding-stuffs were not available in such quantities as in pre-war times there was a slight deterioration in beef quality, but that is different from a deterioration in breeds. That, I think, answers the first question put by my hon. Friend: the range of prices, including the price for the special quality, has not tended to have any serious effect upon the breeds of beef cattle. The actual deterioration has, I think, been grossly exaggerated. What are the facts as we know them? The proportion of good quality animals passing this spring through the collecting centres has been remarkably high. If we look at the statistics for 1940, 1941, and 1942, this is what we find. The percentage in A and special class in Scotland in 1940 was 92, in 1941, 82, and in 1942, 87, while in England and Wales the variations were: 1940 72 per cent., 1941 58 per cent. and 1942 72 per cent. Therefore, there was a temporary decline in 1941 and an improvement in 1942, which has been continued in 1943.

My hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen and other hon. Members who have spoken to-day will see that even in Scotland with its exceedingly high-grade quality of prewar days, the number of quality animals has only diminished to the extent of 5 per cent., despite the shortage of feeding stuffs and other factors which have intervened to create the situation which we have been considering. England and Wales seem to have little or no cause for complaint, for the percentage comparable to A or special grade in England and Wales in 1939 was somewhere round about 68 per cent., and the percentage at this moment is no less than 73. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Price) and other hon. Members will be pleased to learn that. It is certainly true, as the hon. Member for Aberdeen and the hon. Member for West Perth (Mr. Snadden) stated, that there has been a falling off in registrations in breed societies' books, and also true that there has been a reduction in the number of breeding bulls licensed during the past two years. I hope my hon. Friend will not regard that as being wholly due to the price structure for beef cattle. There are a number of factors which have contributed to this result—the ploughing up campaign, the shortage of feeding stuffs and the milk campaign.

On the other hand, the price for Aberdeen Angus cattle shows a rising tendency. There is already a market for as many bulls of high quality as are available, and therefore it seems very unlikely indeed that breeders will change a policy which they have pursued for a number of years, and which has not only served this nation well but has served them well in the Argentine market and other markets throughout the world. I cannot believe that because of a set of purely temporary circumstances breeders in Scotland will change their policy. I say with regret, however, that it is unfortunate that some farmers take a. much too gloomy view of the future. As these are purely war-time conditions that is not, perhaps, to their credit. Fortunately, the larger breeders, even in Scotland, are taking the long view and instead of diminishing their herds are actually increasing them.

Mr. Boothby

The right hon. Gentleman must forgive them if they bear in mind their experiences after the last war. We hope, and I think the right hon. Gentleman hopes, they will not be repeated, but they had a pretty rough time after the last war.

Mr. Williams

I am the first to agree with my hon. Friend and I do not express this regret with any feelings of ill-will, but rather out of sympathy with those who, perhaps, take a gloomy view at the moment. But I repeat that the larger breeders are taking the long view and increasing their herds, and it seems to me that there is no possibility at all of the fine breeds in Scotland or even in England and Wiles being submerged during the few years that the war may continue.

Mr. Snadden

It seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman has rather missed the whole point of the Debate. The point we are trying to make is that the prices received by the breeders of quality animals from the Government are not comparable with the amount of meat they receive. I am astonished to hear that our cattle in Scotland are on the upgrade because I have not seen it, and I travel about a lot. The point we wish to make is that animals of high quality put into the hands of the Government meat for which the breeder receives no payment.

Mr. Williams

My hon. Friend can take it from me that I did not miss his point, although I was not specially replying to his direct question. I will be very happy to do so. The special grade was designedly stopped at 58 per cent. when emphasis had to be laid upon quantity rather than quality. We see no point, therefore, in farmers, who with their wide experience know that the cattle have now a killing-out percentage of 57 or 58. con- tinuing to waste more feeding stuffs on them to carry them on to 60 or 62. After all, it is the view of the Government—[Interruption]—say the Ministry of Food if you like but it is the view of the Government—that we ought not to waste feeding-stuffs on creating a quality of beef such as we enjoyed in the days of peace. If we were to adopt the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for West Perth and give 1s. 6d. per cwt. extra for those in A and special grades, is it not true to say that a lot of rough cattle would be striving to qualify to get to the 56, 57 or 58 figure? Unpleasant though it may be, it seems to me that would frustrate the object of the Government and would lead us into a position where we could not justify that step. I am willing to agree with my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen and with other hon. Members who have spoken that Government policy may have slightly affected the pockets of the high-grade producer. It may have discouraged him from maintaining high quality, but I am not prepared to agree that the future prospects of high-grade breeders are menaced. The fact that the special grade is this year to be continued to the end of August instead of for four months, is a clear indication not only that the Ministry of Food are facing the problem, but that the Government have not lost sight of the value of high-quality cattle both during the war and in time of peace.

The Government are as anxious as any one of my hon. Friends to improve the livestock of this country. Our deliberate cropping policy is bound' to give us millions of acres of young leys from one to six years, much more productive than the old grass, and able to carry far more and better livestock, once they are used for that purpose. My right hon. Friend, speaking to the Council of Agriculture said: It is my ambition, as I am sure it must also be yours, to see a very material improvement in the quality of these cattle and sheep. The better breeding of cattle for milk and beef must therefore be one of our major concerns. My right hon. Friend rarely uses empty words, and those I have quoted are full of meaning. It is true that it has also been, stated by some hon. Members that war agricultural committees have been invited to give, increased attention to the improvement of livestock in their various areas, to help to eliminate indiscriminate cross breeding, and to establish a definite breeding policy in every herd. The foundation of this policy is well proved, emerging from the Licensing Act passed some nine years ago. It has eliminated scrub bulls. The standard for licensing is constantly rising and it is now necessary to ensure that the bulls are used properly. Good bulls sent into a wrong herd can produce very unsatisfactory calves. War agricultural committees are invited to see that this does not happen in the future.

Hon. Members have referred particularly to beef cattle and have asked us to indicate the mind of the Minister or the view of the Government with regard to livestock generally. All our improvements must cover dairy as well as beef herds. I am sure hon. Members will agree with the national milk recording scheme which is helping us to eliminate wastrels and with the panel scheme for the control of diseases. War agriculture committees have ample power to insist upon a sound breeding policy in every county. In a word, I would say, in reply to the general requests that have been made for an indication of our present and future policy, that our goal—and I again use the Minister's words—is a really efficient and healthy livestock industry. I would advise my hon. Friends and the farmers whom they represent to try, in these peculiar circumstances, which are obviously temporary, to get rid, if they can, of their gloom and despondency and, within the limits imposed by war, to prepare for a brighter and better peace.