HC Deb 14 June 1965 vol 714 cc185-96

11.21 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Hoy)

I beg to move, That the Calf Subsidies (United Kingdom) Scheme 1965, a draft of which was laid before this House on 13th May, be approved. The Scheme which I am asking the House to approve provides for the continuation of calf subsidies for a further period of three years, that is, for animals born in the period up to and including 29th October, 1967. Three years is the maximum permissible length for a scheme under the Agriculture (Calf Subsidies) Act, 1952. The Scheme can, of course, be amended if necessary by a variation order within the three years.

There are four ways in which this Scheme differs from its predecessors. First, my right hon. Friends have taken advantage of a provision in the Act enabling them to make a joint scheme for the whole of the United Kingdom. Secondly, the Scheme provides for the increase in rates of 10s. per head on both steer and heifer calves which was determined at the last Annual Review. For animals born on or after 1st January, 1965, the rates of subsidy will be £8 for eligible heifer calves and £10 5s. for eligible steer calves.

Thirdly, the Scheme removes any doubt there might have been about the eligibility for subsidy of a calf which is ready for slaughter at the date of certification. Lastly, the Scheme does not provide for an unalterable minimum age limit.

It is, however, our intention to continue for the time being the present arrangements under which calves are not in general inspected until they are eight months of age. There will, as before, be an exception to this: calves born in the spring in a hill area where there is inadequate winter feed on the farm, so that they must be sold in the autumn following, will, as hitherto, be inspected from six months.

To clear up any misconceptions, I should perhaps say that the Scheme now before the House is not concerned with the extension of the subsidy arrangements which the Government announced at the last Annual Review. Under that proposal, subsidy will be paid on the carcasses of home bred animals which are certified on a deadweight basis for fat-stock guarantee and which have not previously received calf subsidy.

We hope to start these new payments in the autumn under the authority of the Appropriation Act, in anticipation of further legislation, but I realise, Mr. Speaker, that I should be quite out of order if I said more about that now. I want only to say that something which was in the Annual Review, but which is not in this Scheme, has not been forgotten.

Looking back over the period since the subsidy was introduced, it is clear that, although there have been fluctuations from year to year, there has, in the long run, been a significant increase in both the number of eligible steer calves retained from the dairy herd which had previously been killed when only a few days old and in the total number of calves retained for beef.

The calf subsidy has clearly had a significant and valuable effect in increasing our supplies of home-produced beef and we expect that the increase in rates provided for in the Scheme will continue to encourage these developments. My right hon. Friends have no doubt that the calf subsidy has made a considerable contribution to the encouragement of beef production in the United Kingdom, and I am glad to ask the House to approve the new Scheme.

11.25 p.m.

Sir Martin Redmayne (Rushcliffe)

I will not unduly delay the House at this late hour. There always seems to be a "late-night final" with agriculture and we have another Order yet to discuss. I must confess I am a little disappointed that the Minister has ruled himself out of order in possibly forecasting in little more detail what the application of subsidy to the deadweight basis may mean. If it was not out of order it would be useful if he could tell us a little about what the Ministry's thoughts are on this particular branch of the subsidy.

I wonder whether it is held up for the meat marketing scheme generally as being part of that package deal, or, if not, why it could not be brought in earlier than the autumn since it obviously has a most useful bearing on the application of the subsidy. It would be some consolation to those hon. Members who, last year, pressed for the inclusion of Friesian cows and other dairy breeds in the old scheme. We welcome the continuance of the Scheme for the three years as was foreshadowed by the Conservative Government from that Bench last year. I would not on this occasion, unlike the Secretary of State for Scotland, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. William Ross), last year, question Her Majesty's Government's right to plan ahead for that period even though they now, even more certainly than us then, have little chance of being in power as this Scheme proceeds.

We welcome the removal of the minimum age limit, but I must confess I am a little puzzled by the Minister's words in the question in the sense that if the normal eight months' rule is to apply I do not see the point of removing the age limit. Nor do I quite see why the terms of the Scheme have been changed in paragraph 4 at the top of page 2, in that the words "if slaughtered immediately" and so forth, have now been brought in. I had thought it had some bearing, although I may be quite wrong, on the deadweight aspect of the Scheme. It is useful that it will cover the special concessions to hill areas which had to be made in 1964. I do not know whether I missed what the Minister said. It would be useful to have on the record what are the costs of these increases and also possibly a forecast of the cost of the deadweight scheme, if the Minister can give that.

Equally, it would be useful if we could more clearly understand why it is that this year this has been made a United Kingdom Scheme and Scotland is not dealt with separately. This may be simply a matter of administrative convenience. I do not know whether my Scottish right hon. and hon. Friends would quarrel with it, but it will be a pity if, in combining this Scheme into a United Kingdom Scheme we lose sight now, or in the future, of the number of calves brought into subsidy, particularly in respect of Scotland. Again, it would be useful, if this is in order, if, even now, the Minister could give us a forecast of the number of calves which he anticipates might be brought into the total number under the deadweight scheme; and since, of course, that includes calves of the milk breeds it is of considerable importance, particularly in respect of beef production.

Those are the only questions I would ask the Minister about this Scheme. I will not now embark upon some of the more exciting and controversial points about beef production, and so forth, of which we are critical of the Government. If the Minister would be good enough to answer these points we will not oppose the Scheme.

11.30 p.m.

Mr. William Baxter (West Stirlingshire)

Like the right hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Sir M. Redmayne), I have no desire to delay the House long on the Scheme, but, like the right hon. Gentleman, I am a little concerned that it is a United Kingdom Scheme and that there is not a separate one for Scotland. We are finding it is becoming far too prevalent, not only in this House, but even in propaganda across the waters, to define England as the United Kingdom. I contend that this is another step in the wrong direction.

My desire, however, is not to pursue that point further, but to draw attention to one or two aspects of the Scheme. The Explanatory Note uses these words: by making it clear that a calf which is ready for slaughter at the date of certification is eligible for subsidy, and in not providing for a minimum age limit. My interpretation is that that presupposes that any calf which is ready for slaughter, for whatever type of butcher meat it was required, even though it was less than eight months old, would qualify for the subsidy. That is not at all unreasonable. My hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary mentioned, however, that under previous Schemes the hill cattle calves were eligible for subsidy after a six-month period. Does that embrace cattle or calves which are born on farms coming within the scope of the Winter Keep Scheme?

My understanding of that Scheme is that the underlying principle is to be able to continue the breeding of cattle throughout winter. Because people who come within the Winter Keep Scheme are compelled to keep their calves for the eight-month period before their ears are punched, they have to keep them too long to get the benefit of the October markets for calves. It is desirable that my hon. Friend looks again at the Scheme with a view to bringing all calves on winter keep farms into the six-month period of keep rather than, as at present, an eight-month period. This is an important matter which should be considered seriously.

Another point in the Scheme which gives rise to concern throughout the country is that paragraph 6 continues the ear-punching method of identification of a calf that has earned subsidy. There is no doubt that in certain quarters the cruelty of this method of punching the ears of calves gives rise to concern, because it is almost a half-inch hole that is punched in a calf's ear. I am sure that this causes a certain amount of pain, and, inevitably, the ear is torn with the passage of time. I wonder whether my right hon. and hon. Friends will consider this matter in the not distant future to see whether another method of identification of calves that qualify for the subsidy could be adopted.

Paragraph 2 of the Scheme states that For the purpose of this scheme the limit of age at which an animal ceases to he a calf shall be the age when it cuts its first permanent incisor tooth. Does that mean that when a calf has reached the stage of a young bullock or heifer and has cut its teeth at roughly 15 or 18 months it would not qualify for subsidy? One has to recognise the difficulty in outlying areas of trying to bring in the calves when the inspector has come to punch their ears to qualify them for subsidy.

This is a practical point. At times it is difficult to catch the calves, and it may be that one is missed. The inspector might not come back for almost a year. That could mean that the calf failed to qualify for the subsidy. In hilly or rough land, young calves are not easy to catch. I ask my hon. Friends to give reasonable and serious consideration to the practical difficulties which practical and experienced farmers have to contend with. These matters at least should be cleared up as soon as possible.

11.35 p.m.

Mr. Marcus Kimball (Gainsborough)

Nobody will quarrel with the provision in the Scheme that the calf subsidy be paid at eight months old, because it is ready for slaughter, but I would like to press the Joint Parliamentary Secretary on the question of the earlier payment for hill calves. In the previous Scheme, presumably in this Scheme, when one fills in the subsidy application form one has to fill in a section to say one has to sell the calves in October and the inspector will come round and punch them, provided they are of a decent size, even if they are born as late as May, but on the whole one finds that the inspector will refuse June calves. I would like to press the Minister that in the livestock rearing areas, in a genuine hill farming area, the subsidy should be payable on a calf which is only four months old.

The provision which we now have is encouraging calving in hill farming areas at a much earlier stage than is really natural. The Rowett Research Institute is really querying now the practice and the economics of encouraging hill cattle to breed calves in December, January and February, which is an unnatural period and an expensive period in that one has to feed the cattle to keep them fit to calve again. It would be in the interests of hill farming as a whole if the Government would adjust this Scheme so that we could return to the much more natural calving dates of April or May when the grass comes, and pay the subsidy on four months old calves. We could improve the Scheme in this way.

So I would ask, if we have got this provision for earlier payment in hill farming areas, that we should go the whole hog and pay on four months old, on May, calves, rather than at the artificially early date, which is expensive, and which is rapidly becoming uneconomic.

11.37 p.m.

Mr. Clifford Kenyon (Chorley)

I should like some further explanation from the Minister of the reason why the minimum age has been dropped, because it would appear from reading the Scheme that a calf is eligible now at any date, any age. If we have no minimum period in the Scheme, then a calf which, in the words of paragraph 4, has been reasonably well reared and is, or will after further rearing be is eligible. This is a sort of new venture which is open to all kinds of abuse. I may say to my hon. Friend that in the Advisory Committee, about two years ago, we had a long discussion, as he will probably know, on this matter, and recommended a period of not less than six months. I should like to know why that six months has been abolished and why we have taken this minimum period out of the Scheme altogether.

What is the reason for the exclusion of the Friesian calf? Everyone knows that a Friesian is a good beef animal. I know that there has been much criticism because it was first brought into this country as a dairy animal, but everyone knows from experience that it is a really good beef animal. Paragraph 4 says: … or will after further rearing be, suitable for beef production or, if a heifer calf, for use for breeding for beef production.… The Friesian is one of the finest animals for crossing with a good beef animal to produce good beef stock. We need beef at the present time. We have a tremendous number of Friesian cows in this country, and to exclude the Friesian is to exclude animals which would make a tremendous contribution to our beef production. I should like the Minister to examine this question again. I should like him to examine the beef records of the Friesians. These animals are as good as any diary shorthorn, yet the shorthorn is included. I cannot understand why the Friesians are excluded, and I repeat that we are losing a tremendous amount of beef because of it.

If the Minister can give the figures of the number of calves which have been eligible for the subsidy during the past year, I shall be glad to hear it. I think that we should have a report from time to time of the number of calves that come into this Scheme. I shall be pleased to have some information on the points that I have raised.

11.43 p.m.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill (Norfolk, South)

I welcome the extension and the increase of this subsidy, because I think that it will encourage the retention and fattening of many of the steer calves of dairy breeds which hitherto have been slaughtered at an early age or have been insufficiently valued and allowed to die.

Has the Minister any estimate of the number of calves that are likely to qualify for subsidy from the dairy breeds other than the Friesians? I am thinking particularly of the Channel Island breeds and the Ayrshire ones.

Am I right in believing that the removal of the age limit is to enable the calf rearer to draw the subsidy where he may part with the calves at a comparatively early age under contract after a few weeks, whereas under the old scheme he could not have drawn the subsidy and therefore would have had to make a bargain inclusive of subsidy with his purchaser?

I would be grateful if I could be told the number of calves that are likely to he saved because of the Scheme.

11.45 p.m.

Mr. Hoy

Although the Scheme covers the United Kingdom as a whole, the administration of it from Scotland's point of view will be left to the Secretary of State for Scotland. As the Scheme applies to the whole country, we thought that it would be better to deal with it in this way.

On whether the age limit has been altered, it is difficult to get agreement. Some hon. Members think that to lower it beyond six months is going a little too far, whereas the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball) thinks we have not gone far enough. One comes to the conclusion that perhaps we have got it absolutely right. But the six months' period still stands for the hill calf. I thought that I had made the position clear when I said, "It is, however, our intention to continue for the time being the present arrangements under which calves are not in general inspected until they are eight months of age."

That was laid down under the old Scheme. It may be, however, that the inspection takes place just a few days before a calf is eight months old. Under the old Scheme, until that calf was eight months old it was not eligible for payment. Hon. Members who look after oar financial affairs in the House would regard it as quite illegal to make a payment in respect of a calf that had not reached eight months of age. We are introducing the present Scheme to loosen the procedure a little. Inspectors may come round a few days before the necessary period has been completed.

Mr. Anthony Stodart (Edinburgh, West)

On my farm, when inspection comes round this year, through no fault of the cows two animals will be about six months' old. When the eight-month-old ones are being inspected, will it be possible, under the new arrangement, for the inspectors to inspect the ones that are only six months' old, on the same trip, instead of having to come back—although mine is not a hill farm?

Mr. Hoy

I would not like to widen it to a couple of months. The inspector may say, "These will qualify". This is exactly the difficulty that we are trying to overcome by making the Scheme in this way.

Mr. Baxter

When my hon. Friend refers to the period in respect of hill cattle or hill holdings being six months, what is the position under the Winter Keep Scheme?

Mr. Hoy

It is clearly defined. If the cattle have qualified as hill cattle—they would not get the Winter Keep subsidy unless they were so qualified—they may qualify in certain circumstances for the six months concession. We dealt with Orders on this subject some time ago.

As to the cost of the Scheme for the past year, whereas the cost was £7,192,000 in 1954–55, in 1964–65 it was £20,381,000. In case somebody asks about Scotland, I should point out that Scotland's share of the latter figure was £3,980,000. The numbers of certified calves involved were 1,428,000 steers and 920,000 heifers.

I was asked what we expect to happen when certain other calves are included on a deadweight basis. The sole reason I did not give this information was that we have still to introduce a Scheme. In any case, until we have suitable finance under the Appropriation Act, this addition could not be made. I must tell the right hon. Gentleman, also, that this has not been held up because of anything to do with the proposed meat and livestock commission. The administrative arrangements are in hand, but we cannot pay under the existing provisions. We hope to introduce the new arrangements in the autumn under the authority of the Appropriation Act. I cannot give the cost tonight, but we hope that it will come in a Supplementary Estimate in July. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I will let him have any information which is available.

What my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Kenyon) said of Friesians is true not only of Friesians. Certainly, large numbers have been involved. Those which are heifers have until now been excluded from the calf subsidy because the majority of them have been used for milk production. It has been recognised that some dairy heifers have been reared to make acceptable beef, but, because of the difficulty of ensuring that the subsidy is paid only on these animals and not on those going into the dairy herd, all dairy heifers have been excluded.

The Government recognise that there is a case on grounds of equity for payment of a subsidy on heifers of the dairy breeds which are suitable for beef. Such a subsidy would encourage beef production from the dairy herd. We therefore announced, after the Annual Review, arrangements for the payment of subsidy on any home-bred cattle, including heifers of the dairy breeds, if they qualify for certification for fatstock guarantee on a deadweight basis, and if they have not previously qualified for calf subsidy. This has already been announced, and it will be done.

My hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. W. Baxter) raised the question—which has been with us a long time—of the punching of the calf's ear. A number of methods have been tried, and it is always difficult to get one to do all that we want it to do without inflicting any pain on the animal. We have tried to the best of our ability—as did our predecessors—to get a system of punching which preserved the punch mark for a considerable time. This is important, as taxpayers' money is involved. We have tried out many methods, and this has been found to be the best so far.

I would point out to my hon. Friend and to the House that if anyone can suggest a way in which this can be improved, we shall be delighted to give it very serious consideration. In fact, we should be delighted—

Mr. W. Baxter

Why do the Ministry not adopt the method adopted for pedigree animals, whereby a stamp is put on the animal's ear in a type of ink which stays there permanently? I see no reason why such a method should not be used for this purpose.

Mr. Hoy

I have heard this point raised before and I am not convinced that it is all that satisfactory. Stamps have a habit of wearing off. There is a difference of opinion about this, and we have attempted to get the best method causing the least pain. If any hon. Member can suggest a better method, we shall be delighted to give it very serious consideration.

Sir M. Redmayne

Would the Parliamentary Secretary look again at the question of minimum age? As I understand it, the Scheme cancels the minimum age, but the administrative arrangements will be at the eight months stage and six months in hill areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) made a good point for their being at six months, and my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball) made an equally good point for their being at four months. If the Scheme permits a certain flexibility more than the day or two which the Parliamentary Secretary mentioned, surely this could be considered to see whether it could not be done.

Mr. Hoy

The whole aim is to give us that little flexibility which was missing before. The only obstacle is that when one seeks to do that, there is always the danger that it will become too flexible. We want to get a little common sense into the matter. If we can do this, we hope that this will meet with the approval of all concerned.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill

Has the Parliamentary Secretary any figures for the Channel Island breeds?

Mr. Hoy

I have no separate figures for the Channel Islands.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That the Calf Subsidies (United Kingdom) Scheme 1965, a draft of which was laid before this House on 13th May, be approved.