§ 9.36 p.m.
§ The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Thomas Fraser)I beg to move,
That the Draft Calf Rearing Subsidy Scheme (Extension and Payment) (Scotland) Order, 1949, a copy of which was laid before this House on 21st November, be approved.
The purpose of this Order is to make an adjustment in payments under our calf rearing subsidy scheme. The present payment is £4 for a steer calf and £3 for a heifer calf, and the proposed new payment, as set out in the order, is £5 for a steer calf and £2 for a heifer calf. Hon. Members will recall that the calf scheme was introduced, with the approval of the House and the agriculture industry, at the 1657 time of the launching of the expansion programme in August, 1947. Up to now there has been no specific statutory authority for payments under the scheme. They have been made under the annual Appropriations Act. Specific statutory powers were given only in the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act this year, and this order is brought forward in accordance with the provisions of that Act.
Perhaps I should call attention to the only material difference between the provisions in the Scottish order and the scheme as applied to England and Wales. It is that in Scotland we endeavour to inspect calves, for the purposes of the scheme, after about 12 months, while in England and Wales inspection and certification takes place at or about eight months. The reason why we have adopted the 12-month period all along is that the scheme is operated centrally, that is to say, the Department of Agriculture for Scotland does not employ agricultural executive committees. We have a number of full-time inspectors who do the job, and we know that we derive some benefit from them; we have a greater uniformity in inspection and certification than we believe would be possible otherwise, and there also seems to be undoubted economy in doing the work in this way. Any advantage that we get from doing it in this way in Scotland would be lost if we endeavoured to have the calves inspected at about eight months. We believe the system we adopt in Scotland is acceptable to the interests concerned. The cost of the inspection and certification in Scotland is near enough to 2s. 6d. per calf inspected.
Perhaps I should say just a word in explaining why we are proposing to change from £4 and £3 to £5 and £2. In the first place, we find in respect of all calves which have been inspected and certified' and in respect of which a subsidy has been paid that the ratio as between heifers and steers is approximately two to one. In other words, amongst the calves, two heifers to every steer calf are assisted under this scheme. That leads us to believe that there is a possibility that the raising of animals for milk is being encouraged by the provisions of the scheme. We have taken the view and expressed it in this House before that milk is sufficiently encouraged in 1658 other ways, and the whole purpose is to encourage beef production.
We believe that by going over from £4 and £3 to £5 and £2, we shall be giving that little bit of incentive to beef production, and will not be spending so much money on animals which in any case will be raised for milk. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture announced in the House as far back as the 1st June that he proposed to make those changes and we are giving effect to that scheme now. Since the scheme was introduced in 1947 the number of calves marked and set aside in Scotland by 30th September this year was 364,494.
We have had consultations with the organised opinion within the industry as to the desirability of continuing the scheme in the slightly amended form. The scheme as amended by this order has the approval of organised opinion in the industry, and the House will have no trouble in approving it.
§ 9.43 p.m.
§ Mr. Snadden (Perth and Kinross, Western)I will not detain the House a moment on this question, because it is true to say we had a very full discussion in Standing Committee upstairs on the particular Bill and all the arguments for and against were put on that occasion. This is a method of encouraging farmers to carry on to the beef stage animals that were of a beef potential. I have always taken the view that it would be as well to see how the scheme worked and examined it as it went along. The change in balance as between bulls and heifers is a sensible thing, because it is absurd when desiring to increase our production of beef to put too much stress on the female calf. I only want to ask a question. I presume that the agricultural organisations in Scotland have been consulted in this matter, and are thoroughly agreeable to the alterations and that they consider them in the best interests of beef production.
§ 9.44 p.m.
Mr. Scott-Elliot (Accrington)In welcoming this order I should like to support what my hon. Friend has already said about the increased subsidy that is being given for bull calves. That is a necessary thing to do, because heifer calves would be raised in any event either for dairy 1659 herds or for increased herds of beef cattle on the hills. Therefore, what we have to do is to give an impetus to the maintenance of bull calves in order to increase the meat ration of this country.
§ Mr. Emrys Hughes (South Ayrshire)Could the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland give us any estimate of what this is likely to cost?
§ 9.45 p.m.
§ Mr. FraserThe total amount of the subsidy paid up to 30th September this year under this arrangement was £1,043,901. Organised opinion in the industry has been consulted and, as I said earlier, has assented to the making of this order.
§ Mr. Niall Macpherson (Dumfries)Is the hon. Gentleman in a position to divide that subsidy between bull calves and heifer calves?
§ Mr. FraserThe amount paid in respect of steers is £399,324, and in respect of heifers £644,577.