HL Deb 28 June 1906 vol 159 cc1088-90
THE EARL OF MAYO

My Lords, I rise to ask His Majesty's Government why the contracts for beef for the Army have been changed so as to substitute home-killed beef for home-bred beef. The Question is a very short one, but it embraces many people and many interests. Some years ago imported dead meat was served out to our troops, but in consequence of the great outcry against it an arrangement was made that the troops should have on five days homebred beef and on two days Australian or New Zealand mutton. That went on for some time, and gave every satisfaction. The arrangement remains in force, I believe, where the contract is accepted for live cattle, but in all dead meat contracts home-killed is allowed; that is to say, home-bred is entirely done away with. All cattle imported alive have, as we know, to be killed at the port of entry, and therefore all cattle imported into this country, whether from Canada, America, or the Argentine, comes under the category of home-killed.

This is a great blow to the farmer and to all agriculturists in England, Ireland and Scotland, and it is one they hardly merit. On Ireland, a purely agricultural country, the blow falls most heavily. To show your Lordships that this is not a small matter, I may mention that the annual consumption of meat by the Army And Navy represents 164,250 head of cattle, the money value being about £2,792,000. By one stroke of the pen, by the alteration of one word in a contract, this trade is almost swept away. The cattle and dead meat imported into this country govern the price of cattle in the United Kingdom. If there is an enormous import of dead meat and live cattle the price of stores naturally falls at once, and this is felt throughout England, Ireland and Scotland. I cannot see, therefore, what the advantage is in altering the contract in this way, because if the price of cattle is governed by the importation, surely it is just the same if you allow home-bred cattle to be killed for the purpose of the troops Surely among the millions that inhabit these Islands there are more than enough to consume the imported beef. I am sure the troops would be more than pleased if our farmers were allowed to supply them with the Toast beef of Old England and of Ireland and Scotland.

I should like to read to your Lordships the curt and decisive letter which was received from the Army Council by the Secretary of the Irish Cattle Traders and Stockowners' Association. Here it is— Sir,—With reference to your letter of the 12th inst., transmitting a copy of a resolution passed by your committee on the subject of War Department contracts for meat, I am commanded by the Army Council to inform you that troops in the United Kingdom get fresh beef five days a week, and the main reason for the alteration in the tender form was to widen the source of supply, and to obtain the best quality at the most reasonable price. The words in the tender form are general, And include beef from imported cattle killed At port of entry. There is no intention of again substituting "home-bred" for "home-killed" in the tender forms.—I am, Sir, your obedient servant, (Signed), R. M. BRUDE. The Secretary Irish Cattle Traders and Stockowners' Association. I suppose that may be considered as the law of the Medes and Persians, and that in future English, Irish and Scottish farmers are to be precluded from providing the troops with home-bred beef. Farmers all pay taxes, and I think some consideration might be shown to them.

THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The Earl of PORTS- MOUTH)

My Lords, this question has been raised on several occasions recently in another place, and I would refer the noble Earl to the replies given on those occasions By the Secretary of State. The only object in altering the Army contract forms so as to substitute home-killed for home-bred beef was to widen the source of supply of meat for the Army with a view to obtaining the best meat at the lowest price. As the Secretary of State has said, the policy of the Government in this matter is one of free trade—i.e., to buy meat where we can get it best and cheapest; and I am afraid that I can hold out no hope of a return to the old arrangements. These arrangements, of course, did give a decided preference to the home agriculturist, but it must be remembered that this preference was given at the expense of the public Exchequer. We expect by the new arrangements to effect a considerable saving in the annual Estimates under the Supply Vote. The present demand in this country for foreign home-killed beef points to its satisfactory quality. By opening the Army contracts to it we are both saving public money and keeping down pro tanto the price of meat for the consuming public.

THE EARL OF MAYO

When the time comes I hope the noble Earl will be able to point out to me the saving to the consuming public as a result of this arrangement.