HC Deb 17 July 1958 vol 591 cc1565-72

10.10 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. J. B. Godber)

I beg to move, That the Draft Calf Subsidies (England and Wales and Northern Ireland) Scheme, 1958, a copy of which was laid before this House on 1st July, be approved. I suggest that it might be for the convenience of the House if we debated at the same time the similar Scheme for Scotland. That the Draft Calf Subsidies (Scotland) Scheme, 1958, a copy of which was laid before this House on 1st July, be approved.

Mr. Speaker

That would be a convenient course if hon. Members agree.

Mr. Godber

The Schemes which I am asking the House to approve provide for the continuance of these subsidies for a further three years. They are solely schemes to continue the present arrangements. Both the conditions under which the subsidy is paid and the rate of subsidy of £7 10s. per head for heifer calves and £8 10s. per head for steer calves will remain the same. Since the subsidy was introduced, there has been a considerable increase in the retention of steer calves from the dairy herd which had previously been killed at a few days' old.

I am afraid that this year's figures are not yet available, but on 4th June, 1957, there were 900,000 steer calves, 260,000 more than five years before, and 1,437,000 heifer calves, an increase of 70,000, in the United Kingdom. I confidently expect this year's figures to show a further increase. These figures show that we are getting a useful expansion in the number of calves being retained for beef, to which the calf subsidy is making a very valuable contribution.

Heifer calves of four dairy breeds, including Friesians, are excluded from the Scheme. I know that there has been criticism of the exclusion of Friesian heifer calves on the grounds that most of them, if suitably reared and fattened, make as good quality beef as heifer calves of the dual-purpose breeds. We have given this question most careful and earnest consideration. It is true that some Friesian heifer calves are reared and fattened for beef, and it is undeniable that they do make good beef. Nevertheless, the great majority are reared as replacements for the dairy herd.

If we were to pay subsidy on these calves, it is estimated that at least 450,000 would qualify every year, adding about £3½ million a year to the cost of the subsidy, without adding to our beef supplies. We should also be paying subsidy on a large number of potential dairy cows, which is certainly not the object of the Scheme. I am afraid, therefore, that we cannot include them under the scheme.

It has also been suggested that we should pay a higher rate of subsidy on hornless calves to encourage breeders to de-horn their calves or breed hornless ones. We have given most careful consideration to the proposal, in consultation with the industry. There is a deep division among the various interests on the desirability of using the subsidy for this purpose. But the advantages of hornless calves are obvious, and as more and more of them are being produced under the stimulus of market preference, we have decided that it would be best to rely upon this factor and not to introduce differential rates of subsidy at this stage.

The calf subsidy has been operating now for rather more than ten years. It was introduced in 1947 by hon. Members opposite, and we continued it by the 1952 Act. I am sure that it is generally accepted as performing a useful function and will continue to do so. The matter which we are discussing now is not so vital perhaps to the nation as the one we have just been considering, but it is important to the agricultural industry and I commend the Schemes to the House.

10.14 p.m.

Mr. A. J. Champion (Derbyshire, South-East)

I agree with the Joint Parliamentary Secretary that the House is a very strange place. The fact that from deciding this afternoon what sort of contents should go between two wafers to make ice cream we went on to great national events and are now back to calf subsidies merely illustrates that point.

This is a scheme identical with the one which was introduced and which we discussed rather fully in 1956. We then offered no opposition to it. Indeed, if I remember rightly, it was welcomed from this side of the House and we sanctioned the Scheme which has been operating ever since. We are glad to learn that it has been operating successfully, because everybody recognises that we wanted to get a greater output of beef from our agricultural industry.

I have only two matters to which I should like to refer briefly. The first is the fact that under the Scheme, as is inevitable, the selection of the calves to qualify for the subsidy is so much a matter of the individual judgment of the certifying officer and has nothing of a scientific nature about it. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary has to some extent referred to that in saying that this Scheme excludes some cattle which have usually bred calves that are suitable for beef. We cannot shut our eyes to the fact that many of the Friesians can produce calves which are highly suitable for the production of good beef.

I am firmly of the opinion that, capable though the officers might be, it is inevitable that, judging as they must solely by the guidance given in this Scheme, calves are certified which cannot efficiently use the feed they get rapidly to gain weight and to provide a good beef carcase. This is a rule of thumb assessment, despite the fact that the certifying officers are very knowledgeable people, and, being a rule of thumb assessment, it is no substitute for what I regard as essential to this industry, namely, a scientifically conducted progeny testing scheme.

I believe that this is something towards which we must work with as much rapidity as possible. We want bulls which have proved themselves through their progeny to be the right bulls for this purpose, producing the calves which will really make the best use of the feed available. I think that the Ministry must do more in this connection by suitable centres for progeny testing, by demonstration, and by persuading the industry to accept and do very much more in this respect.

The progeny testing of sires used, to which I am referring, is of course not the bulls and boars who, I understand from the Leader of the House, come down from the other place; I am referring here to the bulls that are used for this beef purpose.

There is one other point I want to put to the hon. Gentleman. It arises from a letter which appeared in the Farmers' Weekly on 24th January this year. It reads: Sir,—Your experience of calves born to Friesian and Ayrshire dams by an Aberdeen-Angus bull coincides very closely with mine. I, too, put cows of the above two breeds to an Aberdeen-Angus bull to breed animals solely for beef, with exactly the same result as yours. Some of the offspring were coloured like Friesians. Unfortunately some of these are heifers and the marking officers under the Calf Rearing Subsidy Scheme are now running round in circles over whether or not they are eligible to be punched because of their colour. I want to ask the hon. Gentleman whether this has been brought directly to his notice, and whether the certifying officers are still getting giddy running round in circles deciding whether or not to punch and certify these animals. I think perhaps it might have been brought to his notice, and if it has, I feel sure the Ministry will have done something about it and perhaps the certifying officers have received instructions to deal with this point.

These are my two brief points. I regard the first one about progeny testing as being of major importance. I believe the present rule of thumb assessment is simply not good enough, and the sooner we get from that to a more scientific assessment of the value of the calf for beef producing purposes, the better it will be for the agricultural industry and the country.

10.20 p.m.

Mr. Sidney Dye (Norfolk, South-West)

When we were discussing a similar Scheme two years ago, I pointed out that the number of calves which were then being produced was less than in the years 1950 and 1951. I then asked whether the Government were satisfied that the Scheme would produce beef calves so that there would be a greater supply of beef. I see from HANSARD that we were not then satisfied that there would be a greater supply because the number of beef calves being reared was less and, when they were fattened for beef purposes, they were killed at a smaller weight and size so that a greater number was required for the same weight of meat.

The world supply of beef cattle is rapidly diminishing. The number being reared in the Argentine is very much less than it was a few years ago. Is the Joint Parliamentary Secretary satisfied that this subsidy Scheme is sufficient to produce the quantity of beef which we in England could produce to satisfy our needs in face of a possible diminishing world supply? I am not satisfied that it is. Something more is required.

In introducing the Scheme the hon. Gentleman went to some pains to explain why the Government were not including provision to give a larger subsidy for horned cattle which were de-horned as calves than they were giving in the case of those who were left with their horns. I have raised this matter previously, when the hon. Gentleman has said that the Government have given earnest consideration to it but have come down in favour of not including a weighted subsidy for polled or de-horned calves. He has admitted that hornless cattle are better for beef purposes and that it is possible to get them to a given weight in a shorter time; but he has said that the Government must not do anything about it, although their officers are certifying on the basis of the conformity of the cattle to a breed, and so forth. That is a lame excuse, for it is admitting that this is a good thing but that the Government will not do anything about it.

In the same way, the hon. Gentleman has not faced the problem of the eradication of tuberculosis. Why does he not say that there will not be a subsidy for any herd which has not been attested, thus speeding up this matter? The Government should use every effort, not merely using subsidies, to encourage farmers to produce more of the right type of beef cattle, so that we can supply our beef requirements from our own production to a greater extent.

I say this in the light of our knowledge of the marked decline in the number of beef cattle now being reared in the Argentine. We have to look one, two, three or perhaps four years ahead. When we find a shortage of beef in the world's markets, it will be no good saying that a £8 10s. subsidy per calf is not enough and that we will have to increase it to encourage more beef production if, at the same time, we do not take the steps that we ought to take to increase our supply of home-produced beef. Therefore, the Scheme has some weaknesses which the Government ought to be able to remedy.

10.25 p.m.

Mr. Godber

With your permission, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to reply briefly to the points which have been raised.

The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion) raised two major points. On the first one, which dealt with progeny testing, I agree that there is a great deal to be done. I do not pretend that in submitting this Scheme we are seeking to solve the problem. We have a long way to go. But I am sure that he will agree that this is a long-term matter, and that he does not expect any rapid solution on these lines. However, I take note of the wise words he used on the matter, and I assure him that I will give them very careful thought.

On his second point, in relation to the crosses between Friesian and Aberdeen Angus, and Ayrshire and Aberdeen Angus, I have not seen the letter to which he referred; but I can assure him that none of my officers is giddy at any time through running round in circles.

Mr. Champion

Only the Minister.

Mr. Godber

Never the Minister. In relation to these crosses, the calf of any Friesian crossed with an Aberdeen Angus bull is certainly regarded as eligible, as is an Ayrshire's, provided that it conforms to the standards that we have set down. Eighteen months ago we sought to tighten up the conditions. The hon. Member is quite right; this is a matter to be decided by the individual officer. We try to keep it as accurate as we can, and we have our inspecting officers to try to maintain uniformity between the counties. I believe that the situation is now much more uniform than it was two years ago.

The hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Dye) put forward one or two interesting points. He asked if the subsidy was sufficient, and claimed that there had been a substantial decline in the number of beef cattle in the world, especially in the Argentine. I would not go as far as that. I would say that there has been some decline, but not to anything like the extent that he suggested. I do not anticipate a falling off in the amount of beef available to the extent that he suggests—and there is a steady increase in our home production. The figures that I quoted in my opening remarks are reasonably satisfactory in that regard, and there is certainly a clear indication of a bigger swing to beef in this country. I hope and believe that the subsidy that we are giving is sufficient, and in relation to the total cost it would be wrong to increase it beyond the present point.

The hon. Member chided the Government for not giving a differential subsidy in respect of dehorning. I would indicate again that I think that there is a sufficient incentive in the ordinary market for the producers to carry out dehorning themselves. I believe that it would be wrong for us to drive farmers to do something good. The average intelligent farmer realises that where conditions are right it pays him to do dehorning. I am sure that is the right approach.

I was rather puzzled by his references to tuberculosis eradication, and his suggestion that we should give no subsidy in respect of a herd which is still infected. I feel very proud of what we have been able to do in the way of tuberculosis eradication, and I believe that we are now in sight of the end of the road. That is a great achievement in these post-war years, and all credit is due to those concerned, not merely the politicians—least of all, perhaps, to them—but to our scientific officers in the Ministry, who have done a grand job of work. I should like to pay my tribute to them now. I do not think that there is any need to use the measures that he suggested in that regard. I think that we shall be able to achieve very satisfactory results without having recourse to them.

I have tried to deal with all the points that have been raised, and I commend the Scheme to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That the Draft Calf Subsidies (England and Wales and Northern Ireland) Scheme, 1958, a copy of which was laid before this House on 1st July, be approved.

Draft Calf Subsidies (Scotland) Scheme, 1958 [copy laid before the House, 1st July], approved.—[Lord John Hope.]

Back to