§ 3.5 p.m.
§ LORD WISEMy Lords, I beg to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government the numbers of cattle, sheep and pigs respectively certified during the last two years ending 31st December, 1956, or other convenient date, as being eligible for deficiency payments, with the total annual amount of such payments and the total live weight of such animals in their respective categories for each year.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL ST. ALDWYN)My Lords, as the reply contains a number of figures I will, with the permission of the House, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
§ Following is the reply:
§ The numbers and weights of certified animals and the guarantee payments in the calendar years 1955 and 1956 were as follows:—
| — | Numbers | Weights—actual or estimated | Guarantee Payments |
| '000 head | '000 tons | £ million | |
| 1955 | |||
| Cattle | 1,124 | 569 liveweight | 0.45 |
| Sheep | 7,378 | 150 dressed carcase weight | 4.73 |
| Pigs | 10,260 | 611 deadweight | 52.20 |
| 1956 | |||
| Cattle | 1,916 | 953 liveweight | 27.47 |
| Sheep | 8,696 | 169 dressed carcase weight | 8.67 |
| Pigs | 9,417 | 565 deadweight | 32.05 |
§ LORD WISEMy Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that short Answer. I shall look at the figures with great interest when they appear in the OFFICIAL REPORT. He will understand that, in the circumstances, it is impossible for me to ask him any supplementary question today, but when the figures are seen I may refer to the matter at a later date.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government—
§ (1) How many animals amongst the 80, 000 head of cattle exported to the Continent for slaughter up to the end of 1956 were certified as being eligible for deficiency payments to be made to the British farmer, the total amount of such payments; and, if this export trade is allowed to be continued, can some arrangement be made in the interests of the British taxpayer whereby sums equal to the deficiency payments can be recovered in future from the exporter or foreign importer, inasmuch as the cattle will be exported for slaughter and consumption abroad;
§ (2) What was the amount of the deficiency payments paid by the United Kingdom Government to the Australian Government in respect of beef exports to the United Kingdom during the year 1955–56, and if Her Majesty's Government can say what this subsidy to Australian farmers is likely to cost the British taxpayer in the current year.]
EARL ST. ALDWYNMy Lords, the Answer to the first of these two questions is that we do not know the exact number, but it is estimated that subsidy amounting to about £500, 000 has been paid on rather less than one-third of the cattle exported in 1956. The question of whether this trade should be allowed to continue is one that is being considered by the Committee, under the Chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh, which has been set up to inquire into the whole question of this 691 export trade. It would clearly be wrong for the Government to anticipate any action which they might take as a result of the Committee's Report. On the second part of this question, the amount of the deficiency payment on beef paid to the Australian Government was £2,603,465 for the year ended on October 26, 1956. I cannot now anticipate the estimate of the deficiency payment for the current year, which will be published in due course in the estimates for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for the next financial year.
§ LORD WISEMy Lords, may I deal first with the first part of my Question? I do not want to deal in any way with the humane aspect in regard to these cattle, but there is an economic point which I think might well be raised, and that is the saving of a sum of £500,000—and possibly more, if more cattle are exported. Is it not possible for the Government, in some way or another, to levy a toll upon the exporters, in order that we, as British taxpayers, do not have to face these deficiency payments on cattle which are exported and consumed abroad? Is it possible to do that?
EARL ST. ALDWYNMy Lords, I do not know whether that would be possible. We certainly could not levy anything on the foreign importer; we have no means of doing that. As regards the exporter, I do not say that it would not be possible, but there would be considerable difficulties, first, in identifying which of the exported beasts had attracted a deficiency payment, and, secondly, because such action might depress prices here, as it would mean that the exporter would be paying a much lower price than he is paying now. The exporter would presumably pay a lower price on the cattle on which he was not being taxed as well as on the ones that he was and so on. How it would work out I could not say. But in any case I cannot anticipate what we shall do when we have the Report of the noble Lord's Committee, to which I referred earlier.
§ LORD WISEMy Lords, may I put a further question on that point? It seems to me that at the present time the exporter may be making much higher profits, by reason of the fact that we are paying a deficiency payment on the cattle. 692 If that is so, then he gains all his profit, or the consumer overseas does, to our disadvantage. I should have thought it would be possible to levy some sort of toll—a fixed toll, if you like—per head on the exporter, in order that the Treasury may be reimbursed for something which is paid out by ourselves. With regard to the second question, may I ask the noble Earl if this amount of £2 million-odd goes into the pockets of the Australian farmer or the Australian meat companies, and whether, if there is an agreement of a long-term nature, it is possible to terminate that agreement so that the Australian farmers do not get unduly rich at the expense of the British taxpayer?
EARL ST. ALDWYNThe meat agreement was signed in 1951 with the Australian Government and covers all their exportable surplus, other than a very small amount which they are allowed to export elsewhere. That runs until Septemmber 25, 1967. The minimum prices will, in fact, be reduced by 5 per cent. after October, 1958, so that there will be a reduction there. There is no other break that we could make at the moment.
§ VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHMy Lords, may I ask whether this is the full extent of deficiency payments of this kind to meet imports from overseas? We have been given the Australian figure. What is the total figure made in respect of meat generally imported?
EARL ST. ALDWYNMy Lords, I should not like to say categorically that there is nothing else at all, but the figure I quoted is virtually the whole figure, because under the meat agreement with Australia, though we are also liable for deficiency payments on mutton and lamb, the prices of these have been such that no deficiency payments have been due. Therefore, to the best of my knowledge, the sum I have mentioned is the total figure.
§ VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHIs it to be understood that we are, in fact, paying out of the British Exchequer a certain sum per annum in a manner which, however desirable it is from the Commonwealth point of view, depresses the price to the British farmer?
§ LORD SALTERMay I ask whether, apart from the reasons which have been given, the Government have considered the undesirability on general grounds of the principle of giving export subsidies? This is, in effect, as I understand, an export subsidy.
EARL ST. ALDWYNThat seems to me a very much wider aspect of the question, and I do not think we can really go into it this afternoon.
§ VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHIt is as well to be thinking in advance about it. In this particular case, a sum of over £2 million a year is involved.
§ VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHYes, and this was in respect of a trade which it was vastly important to do something about at the time, because there was such a paucity of meat imports from South America. Now, we are getting very near the old flood level of imported meats from South America, yet we are paying out of the British taxpayers' funds money to depress the price, as it has been depressed, to the British farmer. Is it not time notice was given of some reconsideration?