HC Deb 23 November 1977 vol 939 cc1685-712

11.32 p.m.

Mr. John Peyton (Yeovil)

I beg to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Artificial Insemination of Cattle (England and Wales) Regulations 1977 (S.I., 1977, No. 1260), dated 25th July 1977, a copy of which was laid before this House on 27th July, in the last Session of Parliament, be annulled. At around midnight we are to spend an hour and a half discussing for the first time a complex set of regulations covering two rather difficult and intertwined subjects of great concern to all livestock farmers, and particularly to some people who have spent their lives acquiring a degree of expert knowledge. This does not seem a very good way for Parliament to win respect for itself.

Nobody would complain about lack of consultations, although whether they have always been directed to the right people is another question. Certainly, consultations started in 1971 on whether the 1957 regulations on artificial insemination should be amended. At the end of July this year—and this is one of the points to which we particularly object—new regulations were suddenly published. We were told that they would become effective on 1st September, which meant that there could be no debate before they came into effect. Now, some months after the event we are left debating the simple question whether we shall throw them out or accept them. There is no possibility of amendment.

Faced with these very complicated regulations, I should say that as recently as last week the Conservative Agriculture Committee received representations from the National Farmers Union, the National Cattle Breeders Association and the Milk Marketing Board asking that we should give our support to the regulations. In those circumstances, bearing in mind the weight of that representation, it would be very difficult for me to advise the House to vote against them. But I shall ask the Parliamentary Secretary for some clear undertakings about his approach to these matters in the future.

As I understand it, the main change brought about by these regulations—the Parliamentary Secretary will correct me if I am wrong—is that for the first time there will be very strict control over the distribution of semen. It has been said—the hon. Gentleman used the phrase in correspondence with me—that some people have "exploited a loophole" in the 1957 regulations. For a start, I say that that is a rotten bad argument. The mere fact that regulations allow people to do something does not necessarily mean, save possibly in the language and in the world of Whitehall, that they should subsequently, for that reason, be stopped from doing it. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not spoil his case by deploying an argument that smacks of costive bureaucracy rather than common sense.

I want to be fair. As I understand it, the arguments that the hon. Gentleman will adduce in favour of these regulations are twofold. First, there is the question of animal health and the control of disease. I particularly want the hon. Gentleman to say how these regulations provide for animal health. What safeguards for health do they provide which could not be assured by other people who are active in the industry and are just as concerned as are the Government?

Secondly, the argument is put forward—and on the whole this is a more respectable one—that there must be a viable network in order to assure a comprehensive service to all farmers, no matter how small they may be, or how remote. I believe that that is a fair and important argument, and one that, I understand, has commended itself to the National Farmers Union.

At this stage it is fair to outline the duties which I understand the board will undertake. Not only will it be obliged to provide an inseminator service; it will be obliged to train personnel for D-I-Y A1; it will be obliged to provide flasks and service them with liquid nitrogen and, in addition, to provide semen from any approved bull—not just bulls belonging to the Board.

The farmer who wishes to carry out artificial insemination for himself will be free to store semen of any approved bull and will be allowed—if he lives in Scotland—straws amounting to three times the number of breeding females in his herd. If he lives in England he will have straws amounting to only twice the number of females.

I move for a moment to the general question of livestock quality controls, with which the AI regulations have been somewhat confused. A great deal of the controversy aroused refers rather more to the livestock quality controls generally than to the AI regulations particularly. There is much criticism of the criteria adopted by the Government for the selection of bulls on the grounds that they are altogether too narrow, that far too much weight is given to butterfat on first lactation, and that other important factors are treated too lightly.

In Regulation 5 very wide powers are given to the Minister with discretions to himself, but with no discretion at all to anybody else. It is clear that Parliament has no formal opportunity to comment on the criteria or upon any change in them which the Minister in his wisdom may adopt from time to time.

I should like to deal briefly with the principal objections. The first relates to the scheme of things. I have always thought that the way Whitehall produces this strange literature stands entirely on its own. One has only to look at the first page to find something that sticks out like a sore thumb. We have in the interpretation provisions the astonishing announcement that 'animal' includes a domestic fowl, turkey, goose and duck". I dare say that it has some relevance, but it seems a strange way to start the thing off.

One of the first objections made, with which I have a certain sympathy, is that these regulations spring at least as much from a desire in Whitehall to know what is going on and what everybody else is up to at all times as from any concern for animal health or the welfare of our breeding herds.

There is a reasonable anxiety that monopolies tend to overcharge, not to be brisk in the performance of their duties and to be somewhat inattentive to complaints. We have plenty of experience of State monopolies, and it would be fair, in passing, to mention that the Milk Marketing Board, which is a producers' organisation, has performed distinguished service for the dairy farmers. Nevertheless, there are these anxieties, and I think that the Minister should closely concern himself with them.

Thirdly, there is the fear that breeders will find these rules unduly restrictive, particularly that a breeder will not be able to store semen from his own bulls on the farm unless it is delivered to him by one of the authorised centres. It seems that the control has gone a little crazy.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley (Cirencester and Tewkesbury)

In view of the powerful arguments adduced against these regulations, does my right hon. Gentleman intend to vote against them?

Mr. Peyton

I am obliged to my hon. Friend for his constructive intervention. In view of the powerful representations that we have received in support of the regulations and the arguments that have been adduced—and I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary will echo them—my right hon. Friends and hon. Friends would be ill-advised to throw the regulations out. However, I hope to get from the Government some really fair and clear undertakings about their attitude in future, and we shall watch carefully to see how the Government will perform.

I now return to the various objections that have been expresed to the regulations. We must ask what other countries do and learn from the example of others.

Mr. Hamish Watt (Banff)

Is not the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) being somewhat illogical in saying that he fears a monopoly in the use and sales of AI by the Milk Marketing Boards when, in other spheres, he has argued in favour of the retention of the boards. Surely the power of the boards in the sale and control of milk is far greater than for a few straws of semen.

Mr. Peyton

That point was hardly worth making. I suppose the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Watt) did so for fear of the risk that he might not be able to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, later on.

Mr. Peter Mills (Devon, West)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Watt) should declare an interest as a member of a Milk Marketing Board.

Mr. Watt

I am an ex-director of the Banff Milk Marketing Board. I no longer have any interest whatsoever in the workings of that board.

Mr. Peyton

I hope that I may be allowed to congratulate the board on now being without the hon. Member for Banff.

I now want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary what lessons the Government have learned. They must have considered what happens in other countries. Do other countries that are not unsuccessful in breeding cattle find it necessary to resort to such a battery of regulations, and, if not why do we?

My next question is one that is being asked by many people: why are there different regulations for Scotland compared with England and Wales? In Scotland farmers will be allowed to store three straws per breeding animal while in England and Wales the limit will be two. I cannot really believe that the Government will seek to pursue that absurd distinction and deny breeders in England and Wales something that will give them a little more flexibility.

I also wonder why it is that, while special provisons are made for such areas as the Secretary of State for Scotland may consider to be remote, no such discretion is given to the Minister responsible for England and Wales in respect of remote areas. The Minister must be aware that there are three points in the regulations for Scotland in which special provisions are made for remote areas but there is no such provision in the regulations affecting England and Wales. Why is that so?

The regulations provide for a plethora of licences. One in particular seems to me strange. It is a requirement that firms supplying liquid nitrogen to farms must have a licence. It seems a little odd and pedantic to impose such a requirement when it is not imposed on the same firm when it supplies the same product to a hospital.

I seek three specific assurances in addition to the questions I have asked. First, I hope that the AI part of the regulations will soon be reviewed, and in a genuine manner. In a letter to me not long ago the Minister said that he would like to leave this for two years. I do not believe that that will be adequate. There must be an early review and a readiness on the part of Whitehall to listen to the objections made by people of great knowledge, wisdom and experience in this business. Too often Whitehall finds the business of listening tedious, tiresome and unpleasant. But in this ease the people there must get down to it and show themselves ready to listen to those who perhaps know more than they do.

I hope that there will be a permanent standing body to consider livestock quality controls, and particularly the criteria for the selection of bulls. The Ministry is reviewing the criteria and will be making a statement in the near future. But I hope that the review will be continued after that and will include the review of the AI part of the regulations that I have referred to.

Will the Minister make a concession by allowing the three breeding straws pct animal permitted in Scotland to be extended to England?

Mr. Ian Gow (Eastbourne)

With my right hon. Friend's knowledge of the Parliamentary Secretary, does he not think it clear that the assurances my right hon. Friend seeks will most emphatically not be forthcoming, and in those circumstances will my right hon. Friend give different advice to his hon. Friends from that which he offered at the beginning of his speech?

Mr. Peyton

I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will gave me the assurances for which I have asked. because they are very reasonable. I have given him notice of my intention to seek these assurances. But if he is not able to give them I should certainly be prepared to reconsider the advice I have given to my right hon. and hon. Friends.

In advising against a Division tonight I am counting heavily on the Parliamentary Secretary's willingness to take a constructive view of the problem and of what I have said. It is possible that before many months are out there will be a change of Government. In that event—the Parliamentary Secretary may laugh, but I have seen people laugh from the Treasury Bench before and the laughs have turned rather sour. I say to the hon. Gentleman—if he does not want to listen I address my remarks to a wider audience—that, if there should be a change of Government, let there be no doubt that a Conservative Minister would wish to look again carefully at the regulations and the livestock quality controls, and ensure, above all else, that intelligent and wise people with great experience and knowledge of the industry are listened to and that their voices are heard and weighed well in the balance against the arguments of mere bureaucratic convenience.

11.56 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Fraser (Stafford and Stone)

I am sure that the House and my hon. Friends are familiar with the 1957 regulations on artificial insemination that run to seven regulations. The present regulations run to 29 regulations with six addenda. What has been the change? When the 1943 regulations on artificial insemination were introduced the whole concept was novel, but between 1957 and today it has become a familiar process for a great many farmers.

I must ask immediately why it is necessary now to impose complicated regulations on an industry that is doing fairly well. I say "fairly well" because I happen to be connected with the breeding of cattle and I speak with some knowledge. My Scottish friends will agree that in the shorthorn sector my family are rather distinguished as breeders. They do a fair amount of cattle exporting.

I regret to say that this country has little to be proud of as regards the excellence of its average livestock. Two years ago my family and I exported about 1,500 head of Friesians. I must tell the House that much the cheapest and best animals did not come from the United Kingdom but from Canada. When the Milk Marketing Board, the National Farmers Union and the breeding societies come to my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) to tell him that they think the regulations are good, I very much question their judgment.

I am involved in the cattle trade, and I and others have been brought up to believe that British cattle are the best in the world, rather like we have said that the British racehorse is the best in the world. I regret to say that that is no longer true. The essentials in cattle breeding are freedom and initiative and, if one likes, the whim. It is those essentials that lead to the design, planning and construction of a successful breed or herd. However, the Whitehall bureaucrats and the Milk Marketing Board, whose back is being scratched by the NFU, say "We can do it better". I have never heard such nonsense.

One of the greatest cattle breeders I have known in the world was a man named Bob Kekerg, a Texan, who developed a breed—I am sure that the House will know that it is difficult to get an established breed within a generation—called Santa Gertrudis. That breed is now of great use throughout the world. If Bob Kekerg had been faced with people like the Parliamentary Secretary, he would either have emigrated or gone out of business.

I am amazed by the attitude of the Conservative Party on this issue. This is one of the outstanding areas where private enterprise really has something to contribute.

Mr. Peter Mills

Is my right hon. Friend saying to the House that he is dismissing all the work that the Milk Marketing Board has done over the years to improve cattle, not for expert breeders, but for rich breeders, but for ordinary small farmers? Is he dismissing this as of no importance and as of no value? Will he please think again?

Mr. Fraser

Of course the cattle have improved. Of course the yields have risen. Of course the Milk Marketing Board has done a good job. But any suggestion to the effect that we are producing the best average cattle, as we used to do, is just a load of codswallop. Of course the Milk Marketing Board has done a fair job. What we want to do is an excellent job. We want to restore this country to its former position. It used be the marvel of the world, with the finest breeds. Does my hon. Friend want to see a dead flat, below average, sort of Socialist type of animal, a good average sort of 1,000 gallon animal? It is not I who should think again. My hon. Friend should examine what he is thinking of. If my hon. Friend is in the export business, he knows the trouble I have had. The fact is that this country has a chance now, by chucking the regulations out.

The regulations that exist under the 1957 Act are perfectly satisfactory. Have there been three-horned animals, five-headed monsters, bred under the present regulations? Has there been a disgusting exploitation of ancient semen? People talk as though farmers are half-wits. They are not half-wits. They are extremely able, competent people. If the semen service offered is unsatisfactory, they will reject it. There is now an opportunity to go on developing a system which has grown up over the past three, four or five years of individuals trying to go in for building up their own semen banks and making co-operatives, by which they become keen on improving the breed. This should be encouraged.

What is proposed now is the establishment of a monopoly which is not in the interests of the cattle bred, not in the interests of the farmers, but mostly in the interests of the NFU, which, as I said before is inevitably scratching the backs of the Milk Marketing Board. I hope that the Conservative Party will show some guts and throw this regulation out.

12.3 a.m.

Mr. Wm. Ross (Londonderry)

We in Northern Ireland have a slightly different kettle of fish in regard to AI. At least, we import semen from the rest of the United Kingdom. Because of that facet of our problems, I have decided to say a few words about our problems.

So far as I can see, one of the principal reasons for th introduction of the regulations is an apparent need to improve the standards of hygiene in the collection, storage and dissemination of semen. I do not think that any practical farmer can logically argue against the highest possible standards in this matter.

I want to question one or two aspects of the order. First, it is said that we shall have the best bulls, or that we shall have good bulls. What are good bulls, Who chooses them? Who decides what a good bull is. Are we seeking, as a lot of the stuff that has come through the post and a lot of the stuff that I have researched for this debate has suggested, the highest milk yield? Are we seeking beef? Are we seeking dual-purpose animals? Or are we seeking animals that simply look good and have good conformation? What are we looking for?

Indeed, in one of the pieces of material that I came across the comment was made, by what I can only describe as an interested party, that ordinary bulls were all right for commercial service because the ordinary farmer simply wanted to get his cow in calf. If there is any ordinary farmer who is satisfied simply with getting his cow in calf, he will not be an ordinary farmer for long. He will be broke. It is as simple as that.

A number of things are endangered by the introduction of these negotiations if they should create a monopoly. I believe that we need as many blood lines as possible. There is no guarantee that that will come about under the regulations. We need a great many bulls under test. From what has been said, it is clear that there are simply not the facilities to hold and investigate the potential of the bulls available in the country. We need to test many bulls for the characteristics that we need—or, rather, the characteristics that the market is prepared to buy. That is the final arbiter of whether the standard of bulls being selected is correct.

As I have mentioned, Northern Ireland now imports semen. At one time we had a considerable stud of bulls there for the Northern Ireland AI service. I am pleased to see that the Minister in charge of agriculture in Northern Ireland is present for this debate. I very much regret the big fall in the number of bulls in that stock, because it is a retrograde step that the Northern Ireland livestock producers will live to regret.

Furthermore, I must ask another question. How many cattle breeders do we want in this country? I sincerely believe that all farmers, in their own way, are cattle breeders, because they are breeding the stock that they need for the purpose for which they want it. It does not matter whether it is for milk or for beetf. If he is sensible, every individual farmer who wants to remain in farming will pursue the line of breeeding that is successful on his farm. Therefore, in that respect and in the facet of farming, every farmer is a breeder, be he breeding for himself or for sale.

What assurances can the Minister offer to us that individuals will have the freedom to experiment? Is he prepared to say that if the line that he is now drawing between the various interests is proven by events after three or four years—it will take at least that long, and possibly longer—to be drawn in the wrong place, there will then be a willingness on the part of the present Government to draw it in a different place in the light of experience? Will there be a similar willingness to that indicated by the Conservative Party?

It was neither this House nor the Government who created the very successful breeds of cattle that we have in the United Kingdom. It was private breeders who did that, and it is private breeders who will continue creating and maintaining new breeds and maintaining and improving the standards of existing breeds. To some extent the private operators fulfil that function today.

Sir George Sinclair (Dorking)

Does the hon. Member agree that the point he is making is at the heart of the failure of Russian agriculture? The Russians have taken away from their farmers their natural interest in the upgrading of their stock and the management of their crops, and they have left their farmers no choice. The farmers have had to rely on the advice and direction of some "qualified" person—in my view, some unqualified person—who is divorced from both the local scene and the seasonal changes of weather in that sort of country. This is the sort of thing that will take the heart out of initiative and skill in the breeding of livestock in this country.

Mr. Ross

I certainly agree with what the hon. Gentleman says. As he is well aware, a totalitarian process operates in Russia. There is no private enterprise there at all.

The regulations do not cut out private individuals completely. They simply place them under very severe restrictions. I have asked the Minister whether he is prepared to change the line that he is is now drawing if it should eventually prove to be in the wrong place.

If, however, all semen has to be stored at a central point and distributed from there, can we be given an assurance this evening that the financial burden that will be placed on the private individual will be shared in equal measure by institutions such as the Milk Marketing Board? If it is not, the individual will be placed at a very severe financial disadvantage which will inhibit the putting forward of his particular facet of cattle breeding, perhaps to the long-term detriment of the rest of the cattle herd in the country.

The House will recall that a short time ago it abolished bull licensing. It is claimed that no harm has come from it. However, in the regulations we find the reintroduction of standards to be applied by the Government to the bulls that are being used in this country. Why is there a difference here? What is the diference? Is there a difference other than in the number of cattle and the number of cows which are affected by a given bull? If there is, we need to be told about it.

I believe that in a position such as this the only thing the Government can ask for is the right to control the spread of disease and the maintenance of bull health. This is very difficult because the health of a bull can alter from day to day. I think that the Government should also ask that the very clearest details of the quality of the progeny of the individual bull should be made available to those who wish to make use of the semen, because that will sell the cattle produced by that bull.

Finally, I return to my central question. If experience shows that this line has got to be re-drawn, are the Government prepared to re-draw it?

12.11 a.m.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley (Cirencester and Tewkesbury)

I must immediately say that I have no interest in this industry, nor do I have any technical knowledge of cattle breeding. But I think that I can smell a monopoly when it is coming, and I think that what is proposed in the regulations is about as blatant a national monopoly as I have recently seen.

I cannot understand, first, why the Government propose it, because I remember the speeches of the right hon. Gentlemen the Secretary of State for Energy at his party conference when he railed against the monopolies in this country and said that they were the cause of our economic decline. I cannot understand why my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), who made his point about the monopoly, was so hesitant about expressing his views in the Lobby against the monopoly which is proposed here. I know that it is not a perfect monopoly. I know that the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) said that some private breeders can select their own semen and their own bulls, but the economics involved and the weight of the licensing arrangements and bureaucracy are unlikely to allow full freedom to develop. The House is excusing itself from asking questions and asking for assurances, having been bought off by the promise of a review.

I have a letter from the Minister of State to the effect that next year the standard of bulls will be reviewed, but that will be too late if we pass the regulations. Next year he can do what he likes because he will have the regulations on the statute book. I am not persuaded to grant a monopoly by hearing the monopolist promising to be a good boy while his application is being granted or not granted by this House.

It is alleged that the Milk Marketing Board knows best which bulls to use and which to develop for the health of the cattle breeding industry. We are told that the main criteria are lactation and butterfat, but there are other characteristics which farmers who breed cattle care about. This sounds rather like the Miss World contest. I understand that the cattle should have good feet, good legs, sound-wearing udders and longevity. These are also qualities which are essential in cattle for various purposes. I do not know, and I suspect that the Milk Marketing Board does not know and that the Government do not know, from which particular bulls to breed in order to produce the optimum combination of these qualities. The only way in which this can be done in a free society is by allowing different people to take different mixtures, different breeds and different strains to ensure against the calamitous national mistake that we have backed the wrong breed with all that we have.

I hope that I shall be forgiven for giving an industrial analogy. The total monopolistic concentration upon Magnox nuclear power stations proved to be a mistake, and the nation paid dearly for the fact that it did not have several people making different sorts of nuclear power station, because one of them might have been right instead of the whole effort having proved to be wrong.

Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn (Kinross and West Perthshire)

This is a question that I shall put to the Minister, and, therefore, I give notice by raising it with my hon. Friend. If he looks at Part I he will see under the heading "Interpretation" that "animal" includes a domestic fowl. If he looks at Part IV he will see that "teaser animal" means a bovine animal which is used as an aid in the collection of semen from a bull". Can my hon. Friend help by telling me what is a teaser fowl, turkey, goose or duck which is used as an aid in the collection of semen from a bull?

Mr. Ridley

My hon. and learned Friend declared that he was slanting his question off me to the Minister, and I must plead with the Minister to deal with it because I said that I had no great technical knowledge of this subject.

I want to draw one more analogy in what will be a brief speech, because it is possible to take this question of the monopoly selection of breeding into a more advanced and sinister sphere to demonstrate what I am trying to say.

Let us suppose that some future Socialist Party, in some future country, took upon itself the development of the most ideal human being through selective breeding organised by the bureaucrats. That is not very far from reality. That is what Hitler tried to do before the days of AI. He and his party tried to breed the perfect Socialist, abounding in bogus compassion, not clear about the facts, and equipped with a cloth cap or long beard, depending upon the age at the time. They could achieve all that, but what a loss in human diversity there would be, because it is by the very diversity of the animal kingdom, as well as the human kingdom, that progess is made.

I believe that the entrusting of this monopoly to the Milk Marketing Board could be a death-blow to the independent development of different breeds of cattle for different purposes. It could well be a distaster for the future of this industry, just as it has been in all the State monopolies that we have seen, whether coal, steel, nuclear power, gas, electricity or any other. The development of State monoplies has probably been the biggest error that this country has ever made, and to impose it upon the farming industry after midnight on a night like this seems to me a decision that my right hon. and hon. Friends should oppose.

I plead with my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil, who made some powerful points against the regulations, to allow his vote to follow his voice, because once these regulations are through it will be very much more difficult for a future Conservative Government to take them off the statute book than it would be to prevent them from going on it now, even at this late hour.

12.20 a.m.

Mr. Geraint Howells (Cardigan)

In accordance with the tradition of this House, I declare an interest as a farmer and a member of one of the producer boards in this country.

I have listened with interest to the debate and I was impressed by the powerful speech of the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Fraser). I also listened with interest to the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton). He made a powerful speech too, condemning the Government and saying that he was against the regulations, but he was weak when he advised his hon. Friends not to vote against them. My hon. Friends and I take a different view. We shall vote against the regulations, and I hope that Conservative Members will follow our example.

The intentions of those who formulated the new regulations were, no doubt, laudable, but, having studied the implications, I have concluded that they should be rejected. I stress that in opposing the regulations I am not against upholding the highest standards of hygiene and health control, but these can be maintained without additional burdensome regulations.

The effect of the regulations would be to ensure a monopoly in the service for the Milk Marketing Board, and as a Liberal I am against any sort of monopoly, whether in the private or the public sector.

Mr. Peter Mills

Is the hon. Gentleman against the monopoly of the Milk Marketing Board as regards the collection and distribution of milk—something that has done so much for all producers and consumers?

Mr. Howells

We are discussing artificial insemination regulations. They cut across the right of the individual and the small man and hand over control of the semen market to what has been described in some quarters as "co-operative supermarkets".

We must not allow further bureaucratic control of the farming industry, or any other, if possible. This is one instance in which we can dispense with the red tape. We did away with bull licensing, and I have not heard any adverse comment on that from farmers. I believe that we must do the same with these regulations.

The regulations are an intrusion on the liberty of the individual in society. We have no such regulations for sheep or pig producers or for producers of any other livestock. We shall oppose any such regulations that may be introduced on the Floor of the House in future.

The NFU brief says that, in general, the regulations provide for the supply of semen through the AI network, controls over "do-it-yourself" AI—I am worried about these controls—and the approval of bulls for use in AI. It goes on to say that the NFU and the National Cattle Breeders Association have jointly approached the Parliamentary Secretary for assurances. I wonder whether they are satisfied with the assurances that they have been given. Can the Minister give us the assurances, because unless we oppose the regulations they are here to stay?

I turn now to the views of another group of people who give a great service to the industry. The British Association of Independent Artificial Insemination and the National Association of Semen Suppliers ask: What's wrong with the regulations? With regard to livestock quality control, they leave the Minister with the right which he uses to interfere. The Minister will have the right to answer that query when he replies to the debate.

The associations maintain: With regard to distribution of semen, they enhance, indeed secure, the AI/MMB network's monopoly position. They also say that the regulations Create a heap of unnecessary red tape and humbug. I am very interested in this paragraph from the association's brief: The regulations leave the Minister's finger firmly in the pie! He controls the quality criteria which bulls must attain before semen is released on the market. The associations go on to say—and I agree: We believe farmers are not idiots—in a free market they will continue to use the progeny test as only one important tool in deciding which bulls to use. They will not use so much unproven semen as to materially affect the genetic make-up of their own herds or the National herd until they have proved the traits for which they are looking. Let us look at the comparisons. The associations state: The firm control of livestock quality in Britain in the last 20 years has not shown great results: In Britain 1954–1973 Pedigree Friesian recorded average had increased by only 8.4 per cent. In Canada the Pedigree Friesian Holstein recorded average has increased by 20 per cent. The Canadian Government guides, the farmer decides.

Mr. Watt

Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that in gaining this extra milk the Canadian Holstein lost all ability to transmit any beef qualities to its progeny?

Mr. Howells

I do not accept that. According to the figures, the Canadians are doing much better than British farmers.

The associations points out that The recorded herd average of Canada, America, Holland, Israel and Japan are all higher than ours—without rigorous statutory control. On the Milk Marketing Board's monopoly rights, the associations state: The regulations fully protect the AI network monopoly of the semen market. No other firm or person will be given a licence to distribute semen. However, the private breeding companies are now forced to distribute their semen through the established AI network, thus disclosing to their main competitors 'who is buying exactly from what'—a market intelligence service competitors in any other industry would pay a fortune to obtain. Finally, the associations point out: Note: During the recent BOC strike the MMB refused to deliver semen to DIY users for six weeks. Private distributors managed to continue operations. During the recent AI inseminators strike no AI services took place at all. Private competition would at least maintain the DIY service. What should the legislation do? In my view, it is required to achieve sensible material control of semen production and distribution and to promote the production of statistics for the farmer to consider in his breeding plans.

In view of the shortage of time, I shall leave it to other hon. Members to speak against the regulations. However, I have advised my colleagues—I hope that many other right hon. and hon. Members will support us in the Lobby—to seek to annul the regulations.

12.30 a.m.

Mr. Charles Morrison (Devizes)

The Parliamentary Secretary and the Ministry are open to criticism for the appalling publicity and the way they have presented the new regulations. They have created unnecessary fears which have caused a great deal of consternation among those who practise DIY AI. That was quite unnecessary. At the beginning, they created a belief among farmers that the Milk Marketing Board was to have a complete monopoly of the supply, collection, storage and distribution of semen. I understand that that is not the situation.

I was approached by farmers in my constituency on this matter. I wrote to the Minister at the end of July. I received a reply and I hope that he will be able to reiterate what he told me then. The Minister of State pointed out that, far from creating a monopoly, the new regulations would enlarge the range of genetic material for breeding programmes. I hope he will confirm that.

The Minister also said that farmers previously had had access only to semen which derived from privately-owned bulls, whereas in future the choice of semen would be extended to that derived from all bulls that were approved for use in AI in Great Britain. That was not made clear.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Gavin Strang)

Nonsense.

Mr. Morrison

The Parliamentary Secretary may say that it is nonsense, but we were at the receiving end of the worry and concern expressed by farmers. Whatever he may have thought he did to publicise the provisions in the regulations, he failed completely. I hope that he has learned his lesson and that he will not do this again. The extent of the misunderstanding has been emphasised during the debate.

Mr. Christopher Brocklebank-Fowler (Norfolk, North-West)

Does my hon. Friend feel that hon. Members such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Fraser) have confused the definitions in the regulations of permitted person" and "qualified person"? Is it not clear when one reads the regulations carefully that the definition of "permitted person" allows a considerable amount of freedom of the kind which worried my right hon. Friend in connection with the use of artificial insemination from a bull in that person's ownership which is applied to a cow or cows which are also in that person's ownership? Is it not a fact that a "qualified person", as described in the first part of the regulations, is a veterinary surgeon whose duty is confined to supervising the collection of semen from "permitted persons"?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton)

Order. The time is short. The hon. Member must not confuse an interjection with a speech. I hope that he has finished his interjection.

Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler

I shall be brief. I invite my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison) to say whether he feels that the misunderstanding may have arisen out of that confusion.

Mr. Morrison

My hon. Friend has, with great dexterity, clarified the situation even further. If hon. Gentlemen turn to paragraph 4 on page 4 of the Statutory Instrument, they will discover precisely what my hon. Friend has said. That helps to make it clear what the regulations in respect of AI set out to achieve.

Nevertheless, I want to criticise the Parliamentary Secretary for the inadequate way in which he has publicised the proposals that are now before the House. Secondly, I want to add my brief support to what has been said by a number of hon. Gentlemen with regard to livestock quality control. From the points that have been made to me, it is perfectly clear that the existing criteria are too narrow and that the time is long past when they should be widened to take account of a situation which has developed since the original AI regulations of 1957. It is no longer adequate to think solely in terms of milk production. Other considerations such as longevity and the need to maintain a variety of blood lines are of growing importance.

As far as I am concerned, I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to give the assurances that my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) demanded. Even on the basis of those assurances, I shall regard the Government as being on probation and no more. It is essential to look further at the livestock quality controls with the intention of relaxing them.

I finally want to refer to the extra cost to individual farmers. What estimate has the Parliamentary Secretary made of the effect of these new regulations on AI in terms of cost to farmers?

12.38 a.m.

Mr. Hamish Watt (Banff)

I am surprised to find so many Opposition Members out of their beds at this late hour in order to pray against this Statutory Instrument.

The hon. Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills) suggested that I had a particular interest in this subject. I must point out that I am no longer a director of the Aberdeen Milk Marketing Board. I am a dairy and beef farmer, but I am not a pedigree breeder and I do not breed bulls. Therefore, I have no special pecuniary interest in this matter.

I have been involved in farming for a long, time. For 17 interesting years I was a director on the AI Committee of the Aberdeen Milk Marketing Board. During that time I saw the rise and fall of an advance in the AI service.

In the course of the few minutes available to me, I want to warn the House of the dangers that may arise if we fail to pass this Statutory Instrument this evening. There is the danger of allowing what I would call the "cowboy" operators to continue in the service, and there is also the fear of the Milk Marketing Board that they might lose their position of being able to supply an AI service to the average breeder in this country.

The Aberdeen Milk Marketing Board ran no fewer than seven sub-centres throughout the North of Scotland, many of them at the behest of its neighbour, the North of Scotland Milk Marketing Board, in areas where cattle were very thin on the ground and the Milk Marketing Board had to subsidise the AI service from its other activities. We ran a very interesting service with our own stud of bulls for a time. When frozen semen came in after a few years, we soon found that we could not give our herd owners the service that big brother in the South of Scotland or even bigger brothers in the Milk Marketing Board in England could give, because of their sheer size.

Any hon. Members who have been to Warren Farm in Hampshire and have seen the excellent job that the English Milk Marketing Board does in assessing the beef-transmitting qualities of many of the beef bulls in the AI stud will surely not be voting against the regulations. No private individual could afford to lay off the tremendous number of dairy bulls that the English Board can throughout the proving period. A very small percentage of animals return from the proving farms as proven bulls. Therefore, it is essential that we allow the Milk Marketing Boards to continue the excellent job they have done in providing AI over the years.

Although the Aberdeen Milk Marketing Board gave up its AI stud, it still managed to run a fairly viable service until some of the private insemination services came into the field. Although it has not been licensed until now, the system of do-it-yourself has been operating on the quiet for several years. The private insemination companies have been selling large quantities of semen to individual farmers, and as a result the inseminator service of the Milk Marketing Board is no longer viable and must be heavily subsidised.

If the regulations do not go through, the "cowboy" operators will be able to take an even bigger share of the market and the inseminator services now provided by the Boards will no longer be able to operate. The small man who cannot afford to keep a flask of semen or the time to learn how to do the job himself will suffer. I hope that hon. Members will take note of that when they vote.

We had to listen to many irrelevances from the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Fraser). These regulations in no way seek to stop the private cattle breeders using their own bulls to establish breeds, as was done by the gentleman of whom the right hon. Member spoke. But I wonder whether the Minister has made the regulations tight enough. Has he given thought to the practice that is becoming prevalent of the syndication of the ownership of bulls and certain breeding cows? It is in everyone's interest that the regulations are tight.

The hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells) said that doing away with the licensing of bulls was not a retrograde step. I cannot agree. He and I know that immediately after the licensing regulations were withdrawn we saw cross-bred bulls of all kinds being used on farms throughout the country. There are very few of those cross-bred bulls left now, because within two years we saw a hotch-potch of animals coming through the markets from them. We saw the 57 varieties taking over. These cross-bred bulls quickly disappeared as the farmers found that they could not put an even bunch of cattle on the market. I should not like to see the same thing happen to the AI service, where anyone can do as he pleases. I therefore ask the House to reject the Prayer and support the regulations.

12.45 a.m.

Mr. Peter Mills (Devon, West)

I must declare an interest as a farmer, and I want to ask the Minister some questions. I am in favour of the regulations, although I have some reservations about the livestock quality control side of them. That is a very important subject, and the Minister must look into it again. The problem must be decided in terms of what is a fair balance between the needs of the DIY AI service and the needs of the majority of farmers who still require an economic inseminator service. It is a question of finding a balance between freedom and the whole system that we have grown up with—a service that is giving an economic service to farmers, many of whom are small farmers. That is the problem to which we should be applying ourselves. On balance, I say that these regulations represent a fair compromise between the two.

We must bear in mind the economic case. At present, throughout the country, in the remoter areas as well as in the heavily populated ones, farmers have a first-class service of the highest quality, with semen from the best bulls. I do not want that to be destroyed, and those who talk glibly about freedom should think carefully before they destroy a system that has been so good and has seen such great achievements in the past, built up by the Milk Marketing Board.

Mr. Hugh Fraser

Why is it that the Friesian herd in this country, compared with the Friesian herds in Holland, Canada and other countries where there are no controls, is dropping behind? The improvement has been much greater where there is no control.

Mr. Mills

I do not accept that.

The other problem is that of monopoly. I can understand people being concerned about the monopoly situation, but we must be consistent. In the collection and sale of milk we are prepared to accept a monopoly situation that is of great benefit to the consumer and the producer. I believe that in view of the very real problem of disease we should accept the monopoly position of the Milk Marketing Board. In farming, we have a monopoly situation in the veterinary service. We cannot buy penicillin or terramycin freely; we have to accept a monopoly situation. What about the sale of sugar beet? That is a monopoly situation. A similar situation exists in respect of the inspection of meat and with the Wool Board. All these are for the benefit of the farming community as a whole, and I do not think that we shall be inconsistent.

As for the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells) and his Liberal attitude, I assure him that many small farmers in North and West Devon will be interested to hear about the Liberal position. It will be a great help in the extension of the Liberal cause.

The Milk Marketing Board is entirely controlled by farmers. It is composed of democratically-elected farmers. The regional committees set up with democratically-elected people. The way in which the Board is run is decided by the farmers. That is what they want. I can understand those who are keen to see the monopoly broken, but we must accept the position and realise what benefits have accrued.

Lastly, there is the problem of disease. I fear very much that if we had "cowboy" operators—and that is possible—anybody who was willing to take short cuts and to save money in this business might be tempted to do so. The dangers of VD in our cattle are very great. When I think of the record that we have had for many years—a record of disease-free herds—I for one as a farmer do not want to see the problem of VD in cattle grow and grow. I suggest that those who want complete freedom in this matter should carefully consider the problem of disease, and its possible effects. That possibility cannot be dismissed.

I believe that these matters should be examined frequently because the situation does not stand still. Therefore, I hope that we can have assurance that the Minister will re-examine the matter. My right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) was right to raise this important matter, and I agree that its importance should be stressed.

12.50 a.m.

Mr. Hector Monro (Dumfries)

This has been a most unhappy affair and has arisen because of a lamentable failure of public relations on the part of the Ministry. I hope that in his reply the Minister will make amends by explaining that the regulations are not quite as restrictive as some hon. Members have come to believe.

The point has already been well made that we have had a successful AI system basically through the Milk Marketing Board, and it is a system that is available in remote areas. I have made use of the system, as have many of my farming friends on their farms, and it has undoubtedly been successful.

I hope that the service will continue wherever possible in Scotland and, where the MMB cannot compete effectively, through the DIY AI service, which I hope will be given a special licence to operate. On the one hand we have the Milk Marketing Board's excellent service, and on the other hand there are the activities of the independent associations who have made their points most effectively in letters to hon. Members. We must try to reach a balanced judgment, and the NFU in Scotland believes that on the whole it is better to support the regulations.

12.52 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Gavin Strang)

I am glad that the House has this opportunity to debate the Artificial Insemination of Cattle Regulations. There has been a certain amount of misunderstanding about the content and scope of these regulations. It is fair to say that throughout the industry much of that misunderstanding has been corrected, but, regretfully, some of it still exists among some hon. Members, and I shall seek to correct some of it.

I do not need to remind the House of the importance of artificial insemination to the livestock industry, especially to our dairy herds. About two-thirds of all inseminations in Britain are now carried out by AI. Equally, it is generally agreed that the control of AI, from both the genetic and the animal disease standpoint, has been necessary and continues to be so. Since AI first became a commercial proposition in the 1940s, we have seen it develop into the sophisticated techniques that now exist. The 1957 regulations, which have been revoked by these regulations, were made at the time when the present practice of using deep-frozen semen was in its infancy. Quite apart from the issue of DIY AI, new regulations were needed to reflect the technical progress made in the last 20 years.

Because time is limited in this debate, I shall address myself to three main points mentioned by the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), who spoke on behalf of the official Opposition, and the points raised by the National Cattle Breeders Association and the NFU of England and Wales. First, I wish to deal with the subject of the genetic and veterinary quality controls applied to the use of bulls in AI. I must reiterate that the regulations will not alter these quality controls.

As the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison) indicated, there was considerable misunderstanding at the outset—but that was not because of anything that I said in my answer in the House on 27th July. If the hon. Member reads Hansard of that day, he will find that I made clear that DIY AI had a real role to play, and I explained that role.

In response to the views expressed by the National Cattle Breeders Association, I said that we proposed to institute a comprehensive review of these standards in consultation with all the interested organisations. This review has already begun and the team of officials of my Department and the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland, under the chairmanship of the Director-General of ADAS, has already had discussions with some interested organisations. This round of discussions is likely to be substantially completed by the end of the month, but it is quite likely that there will have to be further discussions before the results of the reviews can be put to Ministers, and we must think in terms of the results of the review being announced early in the new year rather than before Christmas.

This is a difficult and complicated subject, and I am sure that no one would wish us to reach over-hasty conclusions. The selection of bulls for use in AI, whether at Government level, breeder organisation level or the level of the individual farmer, is a matter of great significance for the future of the British livestock industry. The Government's aim, therefore, must be to ensure as far as possible that it makes the best contribution to the overall process of making, selection as efficient as possible.

I recognise that there is a balance to be drawn between the testing of as many bulls as possible and the fact that the resources available for progeny testing are limited. We must strike a balance between the maximum evaluation of new bulls on recorded females and at the same time ensure that we are not reducing the efficiency of the progeny-testing schemes and, furthermore, not reducing the average performance level of bulls used extensively through the whole industry and thus reducing the rate of progress. I assure the House that we are taking serious account of the views of individual breeders, of societies and of the National Cattle Breeders Association.

Mr. Hugh Fraser

Surely the 1957 regulations could equally have allowed increased progeny testing. There is no improvement in these regulations.

Mr. Strang

The right hon. Gentleman does not seem to appreciate that under existing regulations private DIY AI breeders are not able to use semen from bulls—some are very good bulls—held at AI centres. That, among other things, is what we are talking about when we refer to the loophole. Clearly, those who drafted the 1957 regulations had not anticipated DIY AI, or they would not have framed them in such a way.

This is a new restriction, ensuring that the semen must be distributed in future through a national network and not just through the Milk Marketing Boards. However, we are providing some additional freedom to DIY AI. Farmers will be able to use the best and privately-owned bulls at the AI centres.

I want to refer to the number of straws that an individual farmer can hold in his farm storage unit. It must be accepted that by permitting the storage of semen on individual farms we are running a risk which is effectively absent with the inseminator service. This risk arises out of the possibility that that some of the semen may be passed on to other farmers for use on their cows. That in itself could, in certain circumstances, result in some spread of disease, and that hazard would be magnified if no records, or inadequate records, were kept of the use of this semen.

In view of these considerations, it has seemed to the Government that we should seek to minimise the risk by ensuring that farmers who have their own flasks are not holding more semen in them than they require for the proper running of their own business.

The question has been, where should we fix the limit? In England and Wales the regulations provide for the limit to be the equivalent of twice the number of breeding cows and heifers on the farm. In Scotland, where the general picture is perhaps of more difficult geographical conditions and rather more remote farms, the limit is fixed at three times the number of breeding cows and heifers. It has been strongly represented to me—by the National Farmers Union, the National Cattle Breeders Association and by the right hon. Member for Yeovil—that the limit for England and Wales should be raised to three times the number of breeding cows and heifers, as it is in Scotland.

I have accordingly consulted the other interested organisations about this proposal. The majority view favours an increase to three times the number of cows and heifers, and after considering the matter I have decided it would be right to amend the regulations in this sense. In reaching this decision I am aware that two of the organisations consulted, the Associated AI Centres and the British Veterinary Association, are not in favour of this change and consider that the regulations should not be altered on this point. I believe, however, that an increase to three times would not create an unacceptable risk of abuse and is justified in the light of the majority opinion expressed.

I turn to the third point concerning the review of the regulations. We spend a great deal of time endeavouring to get the balance right on these regulations, but I am glad to give the right hon. Member for Yeovil the assurance that we shall have a look at these regulations and watch them closely, including how they cope with the situation. Certainly we do not claim infallibility, and we shall be prepared to bring forward amendments, in consultation with the existing organisations, to seek to correct difficulties which come to light as all concerned get practical experience of the regulations as they work. The change we have made tonight is an indication of this flexibility.

Let me come to the heart of the matter. I welcome the contribution by the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), because at least he stated the position clearly. He is against the milk boards—

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, the debate stood adjourned.