SHEEP PRODUCTION (Hansard, 18 November 1969)

§ Mr. John Farr (Harborough)
The purpose of this debate is to probe the Government's intentions towards the national sheep industry. I will briefly run through a few of the facts for the information of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary.
Since 1966 there has been an accelerated decline in our sheep production. In that year the total sheep population in England, Wales and Scotland in June was nearly 29 million. It has declined since that date in 1966 to 25½ million in June of this year, representing a drop of 3½ million sheep, or 12 per cent.
1276 What concerns me and others is that the decline is accelerating because the drop this year was the biggest yet—nearly 1½ million sheep and lambs. Since 1966 in the United Kingdom nearly 20,000 farmers, including myself, have given up keeping sheep, and the number of flocks in the nation has dropped to 113,000, which is the lowest since 1953.
Another fact to highlight the gravity of the situation is that wool output this year was the lowest for 13 years. It was 9 per cent. down on the previous year, which itself was 6 per cent. down, or a drop of 5 million lbs.
One of the results of the decline in sheep population and especially of lamb production in this country has been the rise in the price of home-produced lambs and sheep. Today the housewife pays a shilling a pound more for lamb than 1277 she was paying this time last year. That is one result of the decline in lamb production of nearly 2 million at home since 1966.
One interesting fact is that in this period the national consumption of mutton and lamb has remained more or less stable. This has meant a consistent annual increase in the percentage of consumption imported from 55— per cent. in 1966 to nearly 60 per cent. projected for this year. Imports have risen since 1966 by 36,000 tons per annum at a cost to the Exchequer of £6 million per annum.
Why are farmers giving us sheep production? I will give one or two reasons which I consider to be the most important. The chief reason—and other reasons hinge on this—is the economic one, and the failure of successive Governments between 1956 and 1967 to increase the guaranteed price at all in that time, although in that time the value of the pound fell to 14s. 10d.
Ministers have from time to time said that in the same period the guaranteed prices of barley and eggs were also static; but the Minister will agree that producers of these commodities could effect, and have effected, far more economies by mass production techniques which are denied to flock masters. It is true that the guaranteed price for mutton and lamb went up by 6 per cent. in 1968 and 1½d. a pound this year. But I fear that it is a question of too little and too late.
Hanging on the chief, economic reason, there are others which have contributed to the decline in our national sheep numbers. One is the difficulty in replacing skilled shepherds and finding men who are prepared to work 24 hours a day in the lambing season, often in bitter conditions like those of last spring, for a wage which is far below that of the average industrial worker. It means turning out to face the elements at all hours when industrial workers are at home with their feet up watching television.
It is no use the Government thinking that the Agricultural Training Board will make any difference in this respect. It will not be able to train competent shepherds of the calibre of the men who are leaving the industry and who have only reached their present status as a 1278 result of many years of dedicated experience.
I referred earlier to Question Time on 5th November, when it gave notice to Mr. Speaker that I would seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment. One of the reasons which prompted me to do that was the Government's apparent attitude to the national sheep industry. If it was satisfactory, we would not be here tonight.
The latest Ministerial statements that we have came in reply to Questions to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 5th November. On that date, the Minister admitted that the sheep flock had fallen in recent years. He went on to give figures of the fall, which I will not repeat because they are not contested. But he concluded that his objective was to check and offset the decline in production.
That statement is not good enough, and it is similar to what was said by the Permanent Secretary tc the Ministry in New Zealand a few weeks ago. Has the right hon. Gentleman forgotten the N.E.D.C. Report last year dealing in great detail with the sheep industry? Perhaps I might refresh' his memory by reading what appears in paragraph 183 of Part II on page 74, under the heading "Import saving". It says: It is estimated that the total increase in output would be of the order of 4,500 tons of lamb and 1,000 tons of mutton a year. The Minister will remember that that refers to the period from 1968 to 1972–73. The paragraph goes on to say: … the net import saving would be i1.3 million as a result of the group's proposals for an expansion of 300,000 lambs. It is quite unsatisfactory for the Government to have merely the objective of restoring our national sheep numbers to what they were when the N.E.D.C. Report was published. The N.E.D.C. laid down clearly that there should be an expansion and that there should be import saving instead of extra imports mounting up.
One factor to which 1. wish to call the right hon. Gentleman's attention is that if sheep permanently leave our farms in the Midlands, so will the fertility of the soil be reduced.
I hope that the Minister will accept the gravity of the situation. It may
1279 already be too late, but I hope that he will take corrective measures if he wants a home sheep industry immediately.

§ The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Hoy)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this subject, because it gives me this opportunity to talk about sheep production.
It enables me to state once again the part which we have said sheep can play in the extended selective expansion programme and to remind hon. Members of the incentives we have given in this sector and of our view on the present situation.
The Government's selective expansion programme to 1972–73 was announced last November. The main emphasis was on the expansion of cereals, beef and pigmeat; and we said that we were not aiming to increase mutton and lamb production. There were good reasons for taking the view that it would be unrealistic to seek to expand production above the level of 1967–68. The selective expansion programme, as the hon. Gentleman knows, whether he agrees or disagrees, is a balanced programme.
We also had to take into account the fact that demand for mutton and lamb had been falling and that in New Zealand we have a traditional and highly efficient supplier.
At the same time, we saw, and still see, a strong case for building up production in the hills and uplands where sheep can be one of the most efficient users of grazing, often in association with beef cattle, and where there is considerable scope for increasing productivity and output.
Having established the general position, and before I go on to discuss the present situation, I would like to make two things quite clear.
The first is that although we have placed considerable emphasis on expanding hill and upland production nothing in what we have said about our objectives—or the way we have chosen to increase support for sheep production over the last three years—lends any colour to the suggestion that the Govern- 1280 ment have in any sense written off lowland sheep.
Nearly half the breeding ewes in the United Kingdom are kept on the lowlands and a major part of our fat sheep and lambs are finished there, and we believe that sheep have a valuable and profitable part to play in the farming system on many lowland holdings, especially in cereals rotations.
My second point is concerned with what I can perhaps call the time-table aspect of the expansion programme. The programme covers the period to 1972, and I have said that over that period we were not seeking to expand sheep numbers and mutton and lamb production. But we also recognised, and have made no secret of this, that the first job had in fact to be to check and then offset the decline in the breeding flock that had already begun and which we had to expect would continue in the short term. My right hon. Friend has never hidden that point, and indeed, has made it clear on many occasions. This, we recognised, was a process that would take time.
Expansion in the hills and uplands must inevitably be a relatively slow business with land improvement and better flock management needing to keep pace with improved stocking.
In the short term we had to accept that expansion in these areas would not be rapid enough to offset the further decline we expected to see in lowland flocks and that there would be a further reduction in the total breeding flock during this year.
We made this clear in the Annual Review White Paper last March and subsequently in answer to questions here in this House.
That brings me to the present position. Last year when we announced the extended selective expansion programme, we had 13,873,000 ewes on our farms at June. This year, there are still 13,315,000. This means that numbers have gone down by 4 per cent. This loss we want to make good; but we recognise it cannot be done quickly.
It must be said that the fall was larger than we expected. It was accentuated by bad weather in the spring which took its toll of ewes in some areas of the country, and I think that the hon. Gentleman will concede that. This will be reflected in future levels of production. We 1281 did in fact consider whether the situation was such as to justify special action and a departure from the general principle that weather risks are borne by the farmers. We concluded that although in some districts individual flock masters had suffered heavy losses it did not.
We have, however, undertaken that when claims for hill sheep subsidy are made in December we will, in appropriate cases, use the statutory discretion which we have to admit bought-in ewes for subsidy in supplementary rate flocks and waive the requirements about the age composition of these flocks and the number of ewe lambs brought into them. All possible steps will be taken to settle claims quickly.
We are not complacent about this reduction. At the risk of repeating myself, I want to make clear our view that it is not in the best interests of British agriculture that this decline should continue at its present rate. Our objective remains, as it has been, to do all that is possible to check and offset this decline.
That gives rise to the pertinent question of what does that mean? What are we intending to do to encourage producers to meet our objective? This is, as I have said, a pertinent question but hon. Members know well that it is one that I cannot answer now. This is a matter for the Annual Review; we shall be looking thoroughly at the sheep sector then, but I cannot anticipate the outcome. What I can say is that we have already done a great deal over the last few years, the full fruits of which have yet to be seen.
The first essential, before getting more sheep on to the hills, is to improve the grazings. In 1967 we introduced the Hill Land Improvement Scheme, which provides 50 per cent. grants for all the land improvements needed to increase the carrying capacity of the grazings—reclamation, pasture improvement, fencing, hill shelters—and a 10 per cent. supplement on drainage grants, making 60 per cent. in all.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite, on the other hand, allowed the 50 per cent. grants under the Hill Farming and Livestock Rearing Acts to run out in November 1963. 'That was their record. We put the hill sheep subsidy on a continuing basis and extended its scope and value.
1282 We also increased the guaranteed price for mutton and lamb by 5¾d. over the last four years.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite may say that it was not enough. That is perhaps their view, but an increase of 5d. per lb. in three years or 5¾d. over the past four years compares, to put it mildly, quite well with the changes in the guaranteed price in the five years to 1964, when they were in power, over which period the price was brought down 1½d. from 3s. 3½d. to 3s. 2d.
So, although the hon. Gentleman may he a little critical of what we have done, in all honesty he must say that our record in this respect compares more than favourably with that of his own party.

§ Mr. Farr
If the hon. Gentleman checks the records, he will also find that in this time of Conservative Government flock numbers continued to expand.

§ Mr. Hoy
I have not checked the figures completely, but it seems a little peculiar to me, as it must do to the hon. Gentleman, that cutting off these grants and reducing the price to the farmer, had that effect. Our action compares more than favourably with anything done by right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and he cannot deny that. But, I say this in no spirit of complacency.
As I have already said, we will be looking at the needs of the industry again at the Annual Review, and I am simply pointing out that we have done a great deal to improve profitability in this sector, to a degree perhaps that has not fully been appreciated.
The Farmers Weekly of 7th November, for example, carries what it refers to as the success stories of a number of flocks in different situations and suggests—remember these are not my words—that, after reading them, its readers may agree that there is little economic reason for the present slide.
We have rendered considerable aid to this industry. I have described clearly the road which we want it to take. If we can get the number of sheep up again, both the hon. Gentleman and I will be very grateful. We shall both regard it as a big step in the right direction for sheep farming.