§ LORD WALSTONMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government what have been the percentage changes in the monthly average prices of fat cattle since January 1, 1961, and the percentage changes over the same period in the retail price of beef; and further, what were the total sums paid to farmers as deficiency payments on fat cattle during that period, and during the corresponding period of 1960.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL WALDEGRAVE)My Lords, with 418 permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the information about monthly average prices for cattle. Taking January, 1961, as 100, they show a steady decline from about 105 for March to about 72 for July, and a gradual recovery thereafter to about 89 for November. Prices are, of course, normally lower in the summer and autumn months, and higher in the winter and early spring. In answer to the second part of the question, I cannot give exactly comparable figures for retail beef prices, because the published index of retail prices does not contain an item for beef alone. The index gives a figure for meat including bacon, and during the period January to October the retail price fell by 7 per cent.
In answer to the third part of the question, I would say that in the period January to November the total sums paid under the guarantee on cattle were £43.74 million in 1961, and £8.87 million in 1960. The higher expenditure this year reflects not only lower market prices, but also larger numbers of home-produced cattle and the higher rate of guarantee awarded at the last Review.
§ Following are tile figures referred to in the foregoing Answer:
| U.K. monthly average prices for fat cattle certified for guarantee | |
| Comparison based on January 1961=100 | |
| January | 100 |
| February | 98.9 |
| March | 104.6 |
| April | 102.7 |
| May | 94.9 |
| June | 81.4 |
| July | 72.4 |
| August | 75.4 |
| September | 81.7 |
| October | 83.8 |
| November | 88.7 |
§ LORD WALSTONMy Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his comprehensive, or fairly comprehensive, Answer to my Question, but I should like to ask him this supplementary question. In view of the fact that there has been this staggering increase in the deficiency payment of something over five times the amount in the previous year, coupled with the fact that there has been a very considerable decline in the price paid in markets to the farmer, is he satisfied with the fact that the decline in price for meat as a whole has been so very small and, in particular, as I think most people who actually have to pay for beef know, that 419 beef prices have, if anything, gone up and have not fallen at all? In view of that, will he not agree that the present method of deficiency payment, which is costing the taxpayer so much, is failing completely in its first purpose of giving confidence to the farmer (because he realises that these deficiency payments cannot keep on indefinitely), and in its second and possibly more important purpose of reducing the price to the consumer? And, that being so, will he not give an undertaking that he and his colleagues will seriously reconsider the whole system of deficiency payments in meat marketing?
EARL WALDEGRAVEMy Lords, that was a somewhat long supplementary question. It is not possible to generalise about retail prices, which vary according to the quantity and quality of different cuts of meat in different parts of the country and at different times. They also depend to a certain extent on the pricing policy of individual butchers. But there have been, as I said before, substantial falls throughout the country in the retail prices. The noble Lord went on to ask whether I would agree that the deficiency payment system had failed. I would agree with no such thing. I think that it would be quite unjustifiable, because this year there was a high deficiency payment, to throw the whole scheme out, when it is doing what it is designed to do: to give a guarantee to the farmers to supplement possible low market prices.
§ LORD STONHAMIs the noble Earl aware, my Lords, that the Answer he has given shows that from March to July the price of fat cattle dropped by over one-third, the retail price of meat dropped not at all and the additional cost to the taxpayer was £35 million, for which the consumers got no benefit at all? In those circumstances, and having regard to the fact that I myself have frequently pointed to a similar situation with regard to other guaranteed commodities, how can the noble Earl possibly stand at the Box and say to my noble friend that the present system of support prices is justified and he does not propose to discuss with his right honourable friend abandoning the system? Does it not mean that the 420 Government are squandering the taxpayers' money without benefit to the farmer, without benefit to the consumer—merely to inflate the profits of the middle men?
EARL WALDEGRAVENo, my Lords, those are not the facts. The noble Lord said that the consumer had not benefited at all. The retail price index shows that the meat retail price has fallen in the period, January to October, by 7 per cent. That is not "nothing at all". I have some figures from an individual chain of shops, which show that retail prices have fallen very considerably, especially for the cheaper cuts. I have nothing further to add.
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, could the noble Earl undertake that his Ministry would inquire into the retail prices of beef over the last twelve months and report to the House?
EARL WALDEGRAVEMy Lords, the figures of the retail prices of a large number of items are known to the Government. The Ministry of Labour collect information about prices for all goods and services, including beef. But what I explained to your Lordships is that individual items collected for the purpose of compiling the retail index are not disclosed.
LORD HAWKEMy Lords, would my noble friend not agree that it is about time that we disclosed them individually, if the subsidy is given on an individual item of food? Quite clearly, individual figures must exist, otherwise the Ministry of Labour would not be able to produce a comprehensive index for meat. They must know the index for beef separately, and I would suggest that they should be willing to disclose it.
EARL WALDEGRAVEMy Lords, the question of the disclosure and the publication of individual items of the index of retail prices does not fall to me to answer. I should need notice of that question, and then it would not be for me to answer it. That is all that I can say in reply to that question.
§ VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHMy Lords, I take it that in the ordinary course the Government will be reconsidering the whole position 421 before the Review of prices next February; and would not the Government take into consideration that when beef on the hoof falls to 105s. to 102s. per cwt. there is very little difference in the retail price? If we are to have a standard price to farmers, then we ought to have a reasonable standard price to the consumers, and does that not mean proper control of prices to consumers, as they are controlled to farmers?
EARL WALDEGRAVEMy Lords, of course these matters are all taken into consideration. I think that we should not view this matter with too much pessimism. The noble Viscount is correct in saying that prices fell in July to about 100s. a cwt., but I am glad to say that they are recovering now. As a matter of fact, the latest figures I have are something in the nature of 134s. a cwt., which is very little different from what they were at this time last year. Of course, these facts will be taken into consideration in connection with the next Annual Review of Prices.
§ THE EARL OF SWINTONMy Lords, if it is right for the Government to reconsider the position and the whole policy before the next Price Review, would it not also perhaps be reasonable for the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition to reconsider his hostility to the Common Market?
§ VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHMy Lords, I will be glad to pass that on to the Farmers' Union. They will enjoy it.
§ LORD WALSTONMy Lords, if I may revert to beef prices once again, the noble Earl is doubtless well aware that the International Labour Review publishes from time to time retail prices of different cuts of meat and other foodstuffs in certain countries, including our own country. In order to allay any suspicion that there may be that there is an attempt to mask the issue with regard to beef, would he not provide us at some future date with figures culled from this source, if from no other, showing in fact how the seasonal changes have taken place in regard to items of meat—for example, sirloin of beef without bone, which is one of the figures actually published in theReview.
EARL WALDEGRAVEMy Lords, if the noble Lord will put down a specific Question I will try to give a specific Answer. But I am sure he would not expect me to carry these sort of figures in my head. The prices of beef are substantially lower in this country than in most other European countries.
§ LORD STONHAMMy Lords, would the noble Earl say whether his Department investigated the evidence which was produced by the B.B.C. and the Observer of a beast being sold in the market for £58 and in a butcher's shop for £123, and was that found to be accurate? And what are the noble Earl's comments on that?
EARL WALDEGRAVEMy Lords, without having notice of that question, I cannot say whether that particular story was investigated or whether we were asked to investigate it, but I will find out.