§ 41. Mr. CAREWasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, considering the importance of the potato crop this year, he will consider the advisability of making the spraying of potatoes, once before Midsummer Day and once again in July, compulsory; and whether he anticipates any difficulty in obtaining the necessary appliances for this purpose by the end of May?
§ Mr. PROTHEROThe Board have carefully considered the question of making the spraying of potatoes compulsory. They are of opinion that, in view of the want of agreement on the subject among experts, the varying liabilities or immunities of certain districts, the different dates at which the disease appears, and the fact that it would not be in. the interests of increased production to burden the farmer with further Orders at the present time, it is not desirable to introduce any general measure of control such as my hon. Friend suggests. The Food Production Department of the Board have taken adequate steps to provide information to growers, by means of lectures arid demonstrations, as to the disease and its treatment, and they have also taken steps to secure that supplies of machinery and material for spraying shall be in the hands of local merchants when they are required.
§ 60. Mr. HUGH LAWasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food if he is aware that a large part of the total increased output of potatoes in Ireland during 1917 is attributable to the cumulative effect of the additional acreage of the crop grown by small farmers, who after supplying the needs of their households are unable individually to place potatoes on the market in four-ton lots; and whether the Government persists in the refusal to allow such men to pool their surplus stocks through their co-operative societies or otherwise, and thus to obtain the benefits given to the larger farmers in Ireland and elsewhere in the United Kingdom?
§ Mr. CLYNESAs I have already stated, the pooling arrangements suggested by the hon. Member would extend the benefits of the guarantee to persons to whom that guarantee did not apply, and would thereby impose an unjustifiable burden on the Exchequer. The Food Controller cannot, therefore, recommend the proposed extension.
§ Mr. LAWWas not a general guarantee given by the Prime Minister without any condition, and was not the intention of the Government to cause an increased supply? Have not, therefore, those persons who have, in fact, increased their supply a claim upon the Government, in view of the Prime Minister's pledge?
§ Mr. CLYNESThe point has been made the subject of discussion already. and prior to the Adjournment before Christmas I expressed to my hon. Friend my willingness to discuss the matter with him and his colleagues. I can only say that up to the present the Food Controller sees no reason to vary the Order.