HL Deb 07 June 1961 vol 231 cc1216-34

8.7 p.m.

LORD SWAYTHLING rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are going to take to ensure that the progeny of bulls of British beef breeds should be adequately compared with the progeny of the Charollais bulls, the importation of which they propose to allow; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps the moment has come when we may beat our swords into ploughshares, or should I say into bull-ties? I feel I must at the outset disclose to your Lordships that I had the honour to be the President of the National Cattle Breeders' Association and introduced the delegation that gave evidence to the Terrington Committee, but I have no direct interest in the breeding of beef cattle. The National Cattle Breeders' Association consists of every recognised cattle breeding society in Great Britain—that is, 23 in number—and represents over 50,000 breeders. I do not, of course, propose to detain your Lordships with the arguments which were then outlined to that Committee, but there are one or two comments I should like to make.

It was stated by the Terrington Committee in their Report that adequate precautions could be taken against the importation of disease in a limited experimental importation. I hope that is true, but I would remind your Lordships that the disease is one of such vigour that, whatever the precautions one takes, there is always a risk. No better precautions could be taken than are taken at the Research Station at Pirbright, but even from there at least one outbreak has been traced. To my mind, we have to consider not only the question of the cattle of this country contracting foot-and-mouth and other diseases, but the impression that such an importation as is to be permitted makes on the minds of the authorities in other countries, especially in the United Stares of America and Canada. I understand that some countries stated categorically that they would take a serious view of such an importation. This would gravely imperil cur export trade, which the Government always seek to encourage. We learn now, from the statement made by the Minister, that he is satisfied that export from this country to these countries will not be impaired by this importation. I can only hope he is right.

The only other thing I would mention before coming to the point of my Motion is that it seems to me unnecessary to make this importation until evidence is available that the factors which it is believed by some people can be introduced by the Charollais breed are not already available from the established breeds in this country. We have information, too, that the Charollais bull, owing to his conformation, often gives the greatest calving difficulties, even when mated with cows of its own breed. How much more so may there not be risk of calving difficulties when mated, as is suggested, with cows of dairy breeds. The great stress of those who advocate importation is to use these bulls with Ayrshire cows. Be all that I have said as it may, the Government have decided, for better or worse, to permit this importation for experimental purposes.

When the Charollais bulls are imported and stand at A.I. centres, it is essential, to my mind, that the experiment should give us a proper comparison to judge on the merits of using Charollais for such crosses. The Terrington Report has gone into the question of methods of testing and, chiefly owing to expense, has recommended against any particular scientific trials. I should like to suggest to Her Majesty's Government that it could be well laid down that whatever farmers have the use of semen from these bulls for experimental purposes, they should at about the same time inseminate a similar number of their cows or heifers with semen from an approved bull from one of the beef breeds in this country. It should be made a condition of the provision of the insemination from a Charollais bull that all the resulting calves should be brought up as far as possible side by side, enjoying the same feeding and conditions as the other calves, so that they may be fairly compared.

I feel that there is a risk that the farmer will do his calves got by the Charollais bull on a scale or on a plane of nutrition in excess of the usual treatment of his calves, because he knows they will be of considerable interest to his friends and neighbours, who will all wish to come and see what they look like and haw they are getting on. There will be an unconscious desire to feed over-generously the calves which he knows well will be of special interest to other farmers, and so I feel it is essential that the calves to be compared with them should be looked after pari passu.

It must not be forgotten that the Terrington Committee recommended a limited importation for experimental purposes. I do not think they ever contemplated the importation of thirty bulls for use of A.I. indiscriminately—one might almost say quite commercially. This number of bulls could easily provide semen for 60,000 inseminations in the first year, well over 100,000 in the second year and an increasing number thereafter. If the bulls are so used, this importation could in no manner be described as a "limited experimental importation" but would appear to be a commercial undertaking. The receipts from the insemination fees could then in a short time reach well over a quarter of a million pounds.

I understand that the Ministry have recently approached the National Cattle Breeders' Association and other bodies, and have suggested that they should form a group to plan what is to be done. We have all seen in the Press statements made on behalf of the Milk Marketing Board which appear to be an announcement of what is actually going to be done. Do these statements reflect the Government's policy? It is vitally important that the Government should announce, and announce quickly, how this experimental importation is going to be used as an experiment to provide proper data as to the comparative merits of the Charollais bull with our own breeds of beef cattle. I would suggest that the stations where the bulls are to stand should be charged with the overall instruction, which it would be their own responsibility to see carried out, that no more than an arranged limited number of animals of each of the five main dairy breeds—British Friesian, Shorthorn, Ayrshire, Guernsey and Jersey—should be inseminated, and the animals chosen for insemination should be owned by people who will co-operate to the full in providing the data which is required to estimate the merits or demerits of such crosses.

It is necessary that it should be stated clearly whether these bulls will remain the property of the Government, and whether the Ministry will control effectively how they are to be used—how long they are to be used, and when they should be stood off to await the outcome of the experiment—and whether it will be the Minister's decision if these bulls are to be brought back into use thereafter. It is essential to remember all through that this should be a test of the bulls of the Charollais breed as compared with our own breeds. Commercial demand should not have any bearing on the final decision, but only the quality of the beef calves produced. By "quality" I mean not only quality as beef but also the conversion rate and all other matters that breeders have to consider.

In conclusion, I should like to repeat that I am sorry that the Minister has decided to permit this importation; but, as he has done so, I think it is necessary to know whether the Minister is going to control their use, or is it to be handed over to the artificial insemination authorities? Is it to be a national trial or an indescriminate use of bulls by a commercial organisation? It is necessary, I submit, that regulations be made to see that a fair comparison is made between these bulls and the very fine breeds of beef cattle which we have in this country. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.

8.15 p.m.

LORD WALSTON

My Lords, this whole question of Charollais cattle and their importation is one which has been of considerable interest to farmers and to cattle breeders, but I cannot help feeling that in time to come it will be of even more interest to the situation in politics. What is curious about this is that the greatest opposition to the importation of these animals comes not from those people who normally are associated with Government interference and with bureaucracy—I speak for myself, and not my colleagues—but rather from those people who are the backbone of the Conservative Party throughout the country—the breed societies and the breeders of pedigree cattle. What is even more curious is that we now find the noble Lord, Lord Swaythling, who represents most ably in many aspects, a Party which has long stood for free trade and free enterprise, trying to bring about restrictions on what a private farmer may do; whereas many of us who are said to believe that "The man in Whitehall knows best" and so on, are the ones who are urging this freedom for the farmer. It really is a most curious reversal of what, in the public mind, are the usual rÔles of political Parties.

I am extremely glad that the Government have not allowed themselves to be influenced too much by some of their own supporters, and that they have taken this step of allowing a reasonable and fair importation of these cattle into this country. After all, what have we to fear, either as farmers or as breeders of pedigree cattle, or of beef cattle? I do not know what we have to fear. We may find that the animals which are coming in are so excellent and magnificent that we shall use them universally. If that were so, surely it would be to the benefit of agriculture and of the consumer. If, on the other hand, we find, as the noble Lord has suggested—and I think he may well be right—that our own breeds are every bit as good as the Charollais, nobody is going to bother in future, when we have had these tests, and they have failed, to go over to France, pay high prices for bulls and submit to the properly stringent quarantine regulations to bring them in, when in fact a Lincoln Red, or whatever it may be, will provide just as good, if not better, results. So it seems to me that the action which has been taken so far by the Government is admirable in all respects except one—namely, that it has taken so long to do it. But do not let us carp about that.

For the future, in regard to the tests which the noble Lord has mentioned, there again surely it is something which can to a large extent well be left to the farmer, to the butcher and to the consumer. They are all sensible human beings. No farmer is going to continue to use a Charollais bull, paying artificial insemination prices for it, if he finds in the end that he does not get from it a better animal, and one for which the butcher will give him a higher price. Equally, no butcher is going to continue to buy such a cross-bred animal unless he, in turn, finds that he can sell the carcase, suitably cut up, to the consumer for more profit than he can any other animal.

So this seems to me one of those cases where we can, to a large extent, leave the decision on these experiments to the good sense of the various people involved, without bringing in Government action, Government inspectors, Government regulations, or anything of the kind. But I hope and believe that, if not the Government themselves, at any rate the research stations which already exist (some Government-financed, some publically financed and some privately financed: I am thinking of the feeding stuffs merchants who carry out such tests) will all consider seriously the idea of having genuine scientific, well-controlled tests of the progeny of the Charollais bull compared with the progeny of any other bulls they care to choose. I believe that that will happen. I do not think there is any need for the Government to take any action to ensure this. But if it appears likely that nothing is being done on those lines, I very much hope that the noble Earl opposite will see that some steps are taken to ensure that such tests are carried out. I have no objection to the idea. I am just rather more trusting of the existing organisations than the noble Lord. Lord Swaythling, seems to be in this matter.

There is one further point which I should like to mention (I shall not detain your Lordships for many more minutes) and that is the future of this importation. I have already said that my only complaint against the Government so far was that they took too long to come to a decision. I would now suggest to them that, if they have not already done so, they should give some thought to what may transpire in the future, so that there will be no further undue delays. Let us assume that the Charollais does turn out to be a useful bull in this country. After all, let me remind your Lordships that we have profited in the past from the importation of cattle from overseas and livestock from overseas. The British Friesian cow, after all, was not born here originally; it came from Holland and the North West of Germany. The Landrace, after a considerable amount of opposition, has come in and, although it may not be better than the Large White pig, it is at least well-established now and has done no harm but some good to our agriculture. So it is perfectly possible that the Charollais, too, will be of benefit to farmers in this country.

What happens then? We shall want to bring in more bulls. If any more experimental female animals are brought in, we shall want to license the male progeny bred from these imported female animals. As the regulations stand—and I think they are good and correct—no bull can be used without being licensed, and it cannot be licensed unless it conforms to standards laid down by approved breed societies. That is as it should be. But there is no breed society for Charollais, and it is very difficult to suggest that there should be a breed society until the breed is here and has been proved.

I do ask the Government (perhaps the noble Earl will give an indication in his reply as to what he thinks) to say that his Department will begin to give thought to this matter, so that, as the years go by (it will be two or three years before we have the information), if the information shows that the importation of Charollais is going to be of some use, we may take any steps required without undue delay to enable further importations to be made, under properly controlled licences and regulations; and that there should be set up in this country, through the Ministry or some other body, such as the National Cattle Breeders' Association, some organisation which will, in co-operation with the Ministry, lay down suitable standards for the future licensing of these animals.

This is not a matter which we can pretend is of enormous overriding importance, but it is something to which, if we in this country are to retain our much-vaunted place as the stud farm of the world, we cannot turn a blind eye. We must always be prepared to bring in the best animals we can find from abroad, even across the English Channel; and, as we have done so often in the past, not only with animals but with human beings, we must absorb them into this country and make use of them for our own national advantage.

8.25 p.m.

THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL WALDEGRAVE)

My Lords, may I first say how grateful I am to the noble Lord, Lord Swaythline, for having consented to postpone his Motion from the original day put down, largely at my convenience. It was very generous of him, as I wanted very much to be here for this debate. The question of importing bulls of another breed of cattle into this country has aroused widespread interest: and I think I must, in view of what Lord Swaythling has said, briefly remind your Lordships what has led up to the present position, in which we are to have this trial importation of French Charollais bulls.

The proposal was first mooted in 1955 when the Milk Marketing Board for England and Wales asked the Ministry for permission to import Charollais semen to be used to breed from dairy cows of the British Friesian type. That proposal did not command any degree of support. Two years later, in 1957, it was the Experimental Husbandry Committee of the Agricultural Improvement Council which suggested that Charollais bulls should be imported from France, and the idea then was for controlled experiments on the results of cross-breeding with Ayrshire cows in parallel with experiments with other breeds of beef bulls. The National Cattle Breeders' Association questioned the wisdom of this suggestion on three main grounds. They wondered about the risk of importing cattle from France, where foot-and-mouth disease was endemic; they thought there would be a risk of prejudicing our livestock export trade; and they thought that damage might be done—I have never quite understood why—to the prestige of British livestock overseas.

By the end of 1958 we had before us an application to import Charollais from Messrs. Horlicks Farms and Dairies Limited (who operate two artificial insemination centres in Somerset), and there were also applications from a number of farmers in England and Wales, and Scotland, too. But there was no doubt that there were two strongly opposed schools of thought, and your Lordships will remember that the whole matter was remitted to an expert committee under the chairmanship of the late Lord Terrington.

His Committee went carefully into the pros and cons and came down in favour of the importation. I think I must read your Lordships the relevant paragraph (it is a short one), paragraph 114 of his Report. He says: Comprehensive veterinary safeguards that would both protect livestock in this country as well as meeting the technical requirements of overseas countries which import livestock from Britain are practicable. The suitability of the Charollais for cross-breeding can only be determined after a trial and we have weighed the objections of pedigree cattle breeders against the possibility that Charollais might provide for more beef production from dairy herds. We consider that there is a clear balance of advantage in conducting a trial of Charollais bulls for cross-breeding for beef with dairy cows and heifers in Britain. The Committee went further, and in paragraph 126 said: … the best arrangement will be for the Charollais bulls to stand at A.I. centres to permit a wide experimental use of their semen in dairy herds. My right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State for Scotland gave careful consideration to this Report and, in particular, to the health risk and the possible repercussions upon the international livestock trade. After satisfying themselves on these points, my right honourable friend made the statement (which I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Swaythling, well remembers) in another place on April 20, in which he said I am convinced that there will be no difficulty in applying the full rigour of our veterinary requirements to the importation of Charollais bulls from France. He went on: In particular, we Shall satisfy ourselves that none of the animals we shall buy has been in contact with foot-and-mouth disease or has been vaccinated against it and we shall provide for fully effective quarantine on both sides of the Channel. In these circumstances, I have no reason to suppose that any interference with our traditional livestock trade will arise from this trial importation of Charollais bulls and I shall be arranging to obtain a limited number of bull calves from France. The bulls will remain Government property and we shall not allow them or their semen to be re-exported. That was the Minister's statement on April 20. Now, my Lords, surely that was right. In the light of the Terrington Report, and in the light of the subsequent inquiries made by Ministers, it would have been wholly wrong and obscurantist to refuse to let people try these crossing bulls if they wanted to do so.

Accordingly, the importation we are going ahead with is this. The Government are going to import some 30 bull calves from this year's calving. The calves are born mostly in January, February and March, and the general practice in the area where Charollais cattle are bred is to vaccinate against foot-and-mouth disease around September. But because of the freedom from foot-and-mouth disease in that area—they have not had any there for ten years—vaccination 13 frequently deferred until later in the year.

We are therefore proposing to send over to France in July a mission, under the Ministry's Chief Livestock Husbandry Officer, to make a preliminary selection of calves, which we understand breeders will be willing to leave unvaccinated until the mission returns in October to make its final selection. It is, of course, absolutely imperative that we should have unvaccinated calves. The reason, as the Gowers Committee pointed out, is that vaccination can mask infection. The animals will be brought over towards the end of this year under careful veterinary supervision, and after quarantine both in France and in this country. They should be standing in A.I. centres and be available for insemination next spring.

I must emphasise that this is not intended to be a piece of scientific research. It is a practical experiment to see whether the beefing qualities of the French Charollais would make it a worthwhile additional crossing bull for producing beef from dairy cows in this country. The Terrington Committee said in paragraph 121 of their Report: We have come to the conclusion that it is the commercial use of the bull experimentally that will form the acid test. The decisive part of the trial will be the general view of the farmers who have experimented with the use of Charollais bulls in their herds. If most of those who have tried this cross want to continue with it and extend the use of the bull, it will reflect a favourable outcome of the trial. Accordingly, the bulls will stand at A.I. centres, and so be available for wide use in the dairy herds.

The noble Lord, Lord Swaythling, suggested that 30 bulls are many more than is necessary for an experiment, and he quoted some figures to suggest that this importation was really pretty big business for the A.I. organisations. To take numbers first, I should not have thought that 30 bulls is excessive in view of the need to obtain a wide experimental use of them in our dairy herds. I do not think we shall be flooded with Charollais crosses. After all, I understand that there are 270 bulls of other beef breeds standing at the A.I. centres now, quite apart from large numbers used in the herds for natural service. As to the suggestion that this is really big business for the A.I. organisations, I must say I am not quite sure that I followed the noble Lord's figures. At any rate, I do not know where he got his quarter of a million pounds from.

LORD SWAYTHLING

My Lords, may I help the noble Earl? I have learnt that the 30 bulls, in their first year, can easily inseminate 60,000 cows and heifers; in their second year well over 100,000, probably 120,000 or more; and increasing numbers in the following years. In the three years, the £1 standard fee for those inseminations would easily amount to a quarter of a million pounds.

EARL WALDEGRAVE

I am much obliged. I see. I thought it was a quarter of a million pounds a year. If we take this figure of 30 bulls and we take the normal figure for inseminations of 2,500 a year—that is what it has worked out at with our beef breeds—30 times 2,500 will give about 75,000 inseminations. At £1 a time, that will be £75,000. That is the income, the revenue, that might be obtained in a full year, I should have thought, from 30 bulls, all of whom prove satisfactory.

But that is not the profit. We must not overlook the fact that, although the Government is purchasing these bulls and they will remain in Government ownership—that was a question that the noble Lord specifically asked—the cost of their purchase, shipment and incidental expenses will fall on those farmers who wish to experiment with them through their own organisations—that is to say, the Milk Marketing Board and the private A.I. centres. These organisations will reimburse to the Government all their expenditure on these bulls, and they will also undertake the commercial trials. Therefore, if you take the average insemination fee of about £1, and if you take (as, from the figures that I have seen, you should) an average profit of about 3s. or 3s. 6d. under existing conditions, one would expect that, in view of the additional expenditure that will be incurred in bringing these hulls over from France, the profit margin will be significantly less.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

My Lords, could I ask a question on that? I did not quite gather from the noble Earl's figures whether in this case it is to be £1 for each lot of semen actually used or whether there will be the usual practice of up to three services by semen in respect of each cow being served.

EARL WALDEGRAVE

I have no doubt that the normal practices will be followed. These details will all be worked out; but I was trying to rebut the suggestion that there was going to be any vast profit in this matter. After all, some of the bulls may not come up to expectations, and they may have to be slaughtered for one reason or another. It is not impossible that their popularity may wane before the trial is over. So I do not think it is really a very fair criticism that this is going to be a sort of big business bonus. I want to emphasise that it is not intended that any costs should fall on the taxpayer, apart from those incurred in the limited tests to be undertaken at the Ministry's experimental husbandry farms, to which I wish to refer in a moment.

Nevertheless, I can assure your Lordships, and I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Swaythling, that there will be overall Ministry control, and that, broadly, this will take two forms. The Ministry will be the owners of the bulls, as recommended by the Terrington Committee. This will enable us to import them under the strictest veterinary control, and to give absolute assurances about their health. And if it becomes necessary or desirable in the light of experience to slaughter the bulls, then the Ministry, as owners, will be able to take the necessary action. So we own the bulls; that is the first thing.

The Ministry will also exercise control over the experiment and the form of records to be collected. We propose to set up a committee under the aegis of the Agricultural Improvement Council which will consider the records that ought to be collected and which will keep an eye on the progress of the experiment through a study of the records that are collected. We hope, indeed, that not only the A.I. organisations but also the National Cattle Breeders' Association will agree to appoint representatives to this committee. That is not to say that we have not ourselves given some very considerable preliminary thought to this problem. As a matter of fact, we have already had discussions with the Milk Marketing Board and the private A.I. centres, and subsequently with the National Cattle Breeders' Association. There is time for us to work out these detailed rules. After all, it will be about eighteen months at the earliest before any of these Charollais cross calves are born. But I can tell your Lordships the lines along which we are at present thinking with regard to this trial.

First, I must emphasise again that we are not thinking in terms of a full-scale scientific test of the Charollais against our native beef breeds. The facilities for such a test do not exist. Such a test would be extremely expensive and not necessarily conclusive, as the Terrington Committee indicated in paragraph (xv) of the summary at the beginning of their Report. Indeed, they made the point in a number of places, and particularly in paragraph 122, where they said: The breeders of pedigree cattle are not prepared to accept the result of any particular progeny test as conclusive in deciding the merits of the breed of cattle in which they are interested in comparison with other breeds. I take no exception to that statement. This is understandable enough, because each test can measure only a few characteristics of the breed, and then only under a prescribed set of conditions. What we have in mind at the present time is a small Ministry test, within the limits of the facilities available to us, and a larger test under commercial conditions.

First, the Ministry test. Our experimental husbandry farms at Rosemaund, in. Herefordshire, and High Mowthorpe, in the East Riding, have for some years been conducting experiments with Hereford/Friesian crosses. These experiments should be about completed by the autumn of 1963, and we can then bring in some Charollais crosses on these farms and compare the results with those already obtained. These two farms could each rear about 60 calves a year. It may also be possible to use the Ministry's farm at Gleadthorpe, in Nottinghamshire, and perhaps the Norfolk Agricultural Station at Sprowston would be willing to help us. If so, those two farms could cope with 60 calves each, giving us a possible maximum of 240 for the four stations. Such a test undertaken on farms under the Ministry's control, and with facilities for individual feeding, weighing, et cetera, would provide useful information.

But the real evidence on whether or not these cattle are a desirable addition to our crossing breeds will come, I feel, from the commercial trial—one would almost call it the commercial try-out. We believe that we shall readily find farmers who are prepared, in addition to breeding and rearing Charollais crosses, to rear a proportion of British beef bull crosses alongside them. The idea would be to collect records on a standard basis covering weights from birth to slaughter and information about calving difficulties, age of slaughter, carcase assessment and the like.

This commercial trial might indeed be subdivided into two sections. The first might cover farms attached to Government-supported institutions, such as agricultural colleges and farm institutes, who may be prepared to co-operate with us. These farms would not have the facilities, perhaps, for such detailed trials as the Ministry's experimental husbandry farms, but they would be able to make wider breed comparisons. The Department's close association with such institutions would enable the National Agricultural Advisory Service to take a special interest in the progress of this particular section of the commercial trial.

The other section will be the private commercial farmers. I am confident that many of these will keep records, and I know that the A.I. centres have expressed their willingness to arrange for the collection of such records. Of course, in this section come firms like British Oil and Cake Mills, which I think the noble Lord, Lord Walston, referred to, and other commercial firms which have been doing experimental work. We have, therefore, three groups: a small progeny test on, say, three or four Government-controlled experimental farms; a commercial trial on farms attached to agricultural colleges and farm institutes; and a commercial trial along similar lines for the private farmer.

My Lords, I feel that I cannot go any further at this stage to spell out the details of what will be done, for this is a matter which the Committee to which I have referred will be giving its early attention, and on which we shall hope to have the assistance of the Milk Marketing Board, the private A.I. organisations, and also the National Cattle Breeders' Association. But I am sure that the Committee will take heed of the views that have been expressed by your Lordships this evening. I feel confident that we shall be able to supplement the general reaction of farmers to the worthwhileness or not of the Charollais by collecting facts and figures on a uniform basis on the lines I have indicated.

If I may be forgiven, I will not follow the noble Lord, Lord Walston, far into the future. I agree with him that I shall begin to give thought to this problem of the establishment of a breed society. Perhaps I have begun to give thought to it already. I am afraid that I cannot promise him that I will now, or in the very near future, give an indication as to in what direction my thoughts are leading. He has, of course, raised a serious problem. This matter will have to be considered carefully. If the tests are satisfactory, we shall have to see what follows after; but let us do the tests first, and take our fences when we come to them. I hope that what I have said today—and I apologise for having kept your Lordships for this length of time—may enable the noble Lord, Lord Swaythling, to feel that he could safely withdraw his Motion.

LORD SWAYTHLING

My Lords, before the noble Earl finishes his remarks, I should be grateful if he would tell us whether the announcement made by Dr. Edwards, on behalf of the Milk Marketing Board, published in the Press the other day, is in fact the agreed policy which is to be carried out. I understand that when the invitation was given to other bodies to form this group it was understood that no preconceived regulations were contemplated at that stage. But immediately afterwards this announcement by Dr. Edwards, on behalf of the Milk Marketing Board was published, and I should like very much to know whether the Government endorse it or whether it is not a true reflection of what has been settled.

EARL WALDEGRAVE

I am somewhat at a disadvantage because I do not know what was published. I am afraid that I have not in front of me the detail of the newspaper report referred to. It is perfectly true that these discussions were being held with the Milk Marketing Board, and others, when we were beginning to work out these rules and regulations which I have indicated. These will be chiefly the responsibility of this Committee, which we hope to set up, to help to work out. Without knowing exactly what is alleged to have been said, I should not like to attribute any blame. It is always difficult, when discussions are taking place in confidence. Intelligent anticipations can sometimes be made in the Press as to what might have been said. I should not like to accuse anyone, here and now, without knowing more of what is alleged, but I will certainly look out for it. Perhaps the noble Lord will give me these Press reports which he feels were unwise in some way.

8.48 p.m.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

My Lords, may I just follow the noble Lord, Lord Swaythling? I was held up in a Committee and could not be here to listen to his speech. I should like to say, however, that I am exceedingly interested in this matter. I feel that the Parliamentary Secretary has made a good case, based upon the Terrington Report, for the experiment to take place. I am concerned that the A.I. centres, apparently, have already decided, for example, to get rid of red beef Shorthorns standing there because they are not getting sufficient demand for them to justify the maintenance of the animals. I think the figures to which the noble Earl was replying (I did not hear them, so I cannot criticise them directly) would hardly be possible on the basis the noble Lord, Lord Swaythling, was reported to have suggested.

Because of what happens at A.I. centres in regard to the demand for red Shorthorns, and because British farmers are pretty conservative, I do not think that there will be a great rush by farmers, especially if there is a concentration on Ayrshire cows and heifers, because the Charollais is a big animal. I am not a Conservative in politics but as a farmer I would be rather conservative in this matter and see what results the experiments showed before joining in any general rush for Charollais. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Swaythling, ought to have some comfort from the details of the proposals the Government have made, and I think that the experiment ought to go forward.

8.52 p.m.

LORD SWAYTHLING

My Lords, the announcement in the Press that I mentioned just now was given fairly wide publicity in the farming Press. I have no doubt that the Parliamentary Secretary can find it in the Ministry, but if they have not got it, I can easily supply it. I was very glad to hear from him that the Ministry will keep overall control of the method by which these bulls are to be used, and that in a great many cases beef crosses of our own breeds are to be used alongside others. With regard to the extent to which the Charollais will be used, it must not be forgotten that a wide publicity campaign has been going on for a long time, which has gradually built up far more interest in this breed of bulls than I think it inherently merits. I was in France a week or two ago and met one of the biggest French agriculturists. He wondered what on earth we meant by this fuss about the Charollais bulls, because he thought that they would not do us any good, especially compared with our own breeds of cattle.

I thank the noble Earl for the care and trouble which he has taken in giving me a full Answer. I cannot say that I am completely happy about the way these bulls are to be used. I would mention once more the fact that the Terrington Committee, set up by the Government, suggested a limited experimental importation. I think that it would be wrong to use the bulls widely until results are known. It is quite a well-known habit with dairy bulls to stand them off to see what results their progeny will show. Therefore, I hope that the Government will make some regulation that, when sufficient inseminations have been made, these Charollais bulls will be stood off and not used widely until the results are known. Then it would be up to the Minister to decide if and when the bulls might be brought back into use. If experiments were considered to be really successful, they might be brought back straight away; and if they were unsuccessful, no doubt the Minister would have them slaughtered. In view of everything that the noble Earl has said, I ask leave of your Lordships to withdraw my Motion.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

House adjourned at five minutes before nine o'clock.