CALF SUBSIDIES (ENGLAND, WALES AND NORTHERN IRELAND) SCHEME, 1961 (Hansard, 20 June 1961)

THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL WALDEGRAVE)
My Lords, in moving that this Scheme be approved, may I say a few words about both Schemes? My noble friend Lord Craigton will be moving the Scottish Scheme, which is identical in all material aspects. These Schemes, which were laid before Parliament on June 8, extend the arrangements for the payment of calf subsidy for a further period of three years, which is the maximum period permissible under the Calf Subsidies Act, 1952. We do not make an annual scheme—this saves Parliamentary time, especially when the scheme remains unchanged, as it does this year—but if any changes are necessary (such as rate of subsidy) we can make a Variation Order, as we did in 1959, raising the rate of subsidy for steer calves from £8 10s. 0d. (as in the 1958 Scheme) to £9 5s. 0d. The rates of subsidy under the present Schemes are unchanged. They are £7 10s. 0d. for heifer calves and £9 5s. 0d. for steer calves. Neither the rates nor the conditions under which they are paid are altered by the proposed Schemes.
As your Lordships know, the purpose of the subsidy is to encourage the rearing of calves for beef production. Since the subsidy was introduced in 1947, there has been a significant increase in the numbers of steer calves retained, particularly from the dairy herd which were previously killed when only a few days old. The figures for June, 1961, I am afraid, are not yet available, but on June 4, 1960, there were 1¼ million steer calves and 1½million heifer calves under one year old in the United Kingdom. This is an increase of 183,000 steer calves and 96,000 heifer calves over the figures for June 4, 1958, the year in which the current scheme came into operation. The calf subsidy has been operating for rather over thirteen years and is generally accepted, I think, throughout the 497 farming community. It is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to encourage the production of home-produced beef, and I am sure that this scheme is a valuable means of obtaining this objective. I therefore commend the scheme to your Lordships' House with confidence.

§ LORD WISE
My Lords, the noble Earl has said that this scheme will not come up for annual revision in the ordinary way, and for that we are pleased, because it shows that there will be three years' stability, at any rate, in a subsidy which is of importance to the agricultural industry. The noble Earl also mentioned that this stability will remain unless the subsidies are raised. The calf subsidy scheme is highly desirable and I do not think that anybody who has the prosperity of agriculture at heart will disagree with it. As the noble Earl has said, subsidies have been given in the past for steer and heifer calves of specialised breeds and high standard, and these have enabled breeders and rearers to show a small profit on their efforts which otherwise they would not have shown. According to the last Review figures the cost of the scheme was £18 million. That tells its own tale of the direction of the agricultural industry, because this figure has increased from £16½ million in the previous year lo £18 million last year and the number of calves have increased accordingly during that time. It seems to me that the fact that £18 million has been put into the industry has meant at least an average of £100 per annum to small and large farmers, taking into consideration the numbers of farmers who would be breeding and rearing calves.
As the noble Earl has said, the subsidy is for the grading of our young stock, and a calf of a certifiable standard is more likely to be acceptable and of better quality on maturity than an inferior breed and badly reared animal. The young stock of to-day becomes the beef of to-morrow, and in days when some of us are persistent in our desire that our farmers should "breed British" and our consumers should "buy and eat 498 British", whether it be beef or bacon, any lowering of the standard of production or consumption of high-grade home products would be detrimental to the national health and national economy. We want to aim at putting on the market the best that money can buy, at prices which satisfy the producer and the consumer, and any aid to efficient breeding of our cattle and livestock in the first instance, such as this subsidy gives, may perhaps serve a beneficial purpose even beyond its cost to the taxpayer and remuneration to the producer. We on this side welcome this scheme and are glad that it is likely to prevail, even at present prices, for the next three years.

§ VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH
My Lords, may I ask a short and simple question? The Order is to cover three years. Is that three years to be inviolable even if we enter the Common Market?

EARL WALDEGRAVE
My Lords, the Scheme is laid for three years, but if necessary it can be varied. I perhaps ought to mention that the noble Lord, Lord Wise, said that he rather took my remarks to mean that it would be varied only if the subsidy rates were to he moved upwards. I did not say that. It could be varied if the subsidy rates were determined to be too high or too low. As for the point about the Common Market—this is a three-year Scheme. I do not want to go further than I should, but I understand that if any negotiations are started with the European Economic Community, there would be in their agricultural policy a very long transitional period (which, I suspect, would be much more than three years) during which subsidies of this kind would go on as before.