§ (1) With a view to providing working capital for the purposes of exchange operations and undertakings for the manufacture, purchase, and sale of food and other commodities, conducted by or under Government Departments on account of exigencies arising out of the present War, and to providing funds for making advances in respect of urgent services in anticipation of the provision made or to be made by Parliament for such services becoming available, the Treasury may issue out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom, or the growing produce thereof, to the Civil Contingencies Fund such sums and may from time to time berequired for the purpose of increasing temporarily the capital of that fund:
§ Provided that
- (a) the sums so issued and for the time being outstanding shall at no time exceed one hundred and twenty million pounds:
- (b) no sums shall be so issued after the thirty-first day of March nineteen hundred and twenty:
- (c) any sums so issued shall be repaid to the Exchequer not later than the thirtieth day of September nineteen hundred and twenty.
§ (2) In cases where advances of working capital are made from the Civil Contingencies fund for the purposes aforesaid, the Treasury shall from time to time lay before Parliament Minutes specifying the purposes for which the working capital has been provided and the amount advanced in each case.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "food and other," and after the word "commodities" to insert the words "other than food"I move this Amendment because I am very much afraid that the result of giving these powers to the Government has been notonly to impose upon certain classes of the community special taxation, but also to cause an unnecessary rise in the cost of food. Yesterday or the day before questions were asked in this House as to the charge of 11s. 4d. which was made upon every cwt. of cattle sent into market for sale, and the reply stated that the Government had received the sum of £3,400,000 as the result of that charge. The farmer is thus taxed, in my opinion, to that extent, and the consumer suffers accordingly in the price he has to pay for his meat. There has been a good deal of grumbling at the prices charged for meat, and in some quarters it has been asserted that those high prices are due to the greed of the farmer. But it now appears that the real cause is the greed of the Government, who have extracted this large amount out of the pockets of the farmer at the expense of the consumer. This is a very important matter which deserves the attention not only of this Committee and of the House but of the country at large. We have had a great deal too much of this profiteering by the Government in articles of necessity. The excuse was made that the taxpayers had gained something, but the real fact is that this money, or the greater part of it, goes to provide for the salaries ofthe hordes of officials employed by these various Departments, whose activities are not only expensive but unnecessary, and add to the cost of our necessaries of life.
§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of FOOD (Mr. McCurdy)I regret I had no notice that the right hon. Gentleman intended to raise this point, otherwise I would have 1660 fortified myself with information which would have enabled me to give a more satisfactory answer than the one I fear I am in a position to make at the moment. It is true there was a question on the Paper the other day as to this charge of 11s. 4d. per cwt. imposed upon cattle coming into the English markets, and some doubt was expressed as to whether that charge was a lawful and proper charge to be made by the Ministry. With regard to the amount, I am informed that, as a matter of fact, at the present time the charge is not 11s. 4d., but only 2s. 4d. I cannot, however, vouch for the exact figure, as I am relying upon my memory. I venture to suggest that before it is asserted on the floor of this House, and through this House to the country, that the price of meat to the consumer has been increased by the greed of the Government, it is desirable not to confine our attention to a small item like this, but rather to look at the general results of the administration of the Department. With regard to the price of meat, the position is that we have just reduced it to the consumer by 2d. per lb., and this has been done after very close investigation on the part of the Treasury. Hitherto we have been selling meat to the consumer for loss than it cost us. I can only express my regret that, owing to the absence of notice, I am unable to give a fuller reply to the right hon. Baronet, but I hope that under the circumstances he will accept my statement.
§ Captain Sir B. STANIERI would like to ask if it is not the fact that when we were told yesterday, in answer to a question, that there was a difference of £3,400,000 between the price paid to the farmer and the amount paid by the butcher, it was based on the charge of 11s. 4d. per cwt., and that we have still to find out what will be the result of charging 2s. 4d. per cwt., and how much the Department will thereby be enabled to put into their pocket? I should also like to ask my hon. Friend if he can enlighten us on the subject of the legality of these charges. We were informed yesterday that the Law Officers of the Crown had not been consulted on that point. I do not know how we can raise the question in order to induce the hon. Gentleman to consult the Law Officers, but I can assure him that I am not alone in this House in thinking that it is a point which ought to be submitted to them, and that there is a desire 1661 to know whether this is or is not a proper way of taxing the food of the people. The farmers are being denounced for creating these high prices for meat, when, as a matter of fact, it is not the fault of the farmer, but is rather due to profiteering on the part of the Food Controller. I hope my hon. Friend will give an answer to these two questions which are exercising the minds of the farmers and of the community generally.
§ Mr. CAUTLEYI only intervene in the Debate because in the discussion so far as it has gone it has not been brought to the attention of the Committee that the matter does, not rest only with a charge of £3,500,000 in respect of cattle. A similar charge has been made is the case of sheep and pigs, and very large sums have been extracted by a similar process in their case. So long ago as last November, in the last House of Commons, I raised this very point, and I also raised a question as to the legality of making these charges at all. So far as my recollection goes, the average amount taken by the Government on the sale of every sheep is £2, and on the sale of every pig £1. That, throughout the country, amounts to a very large sum. It is unfortunate the Ministry of Food is so ignorant of the disposal of this money that they can give us no information at all about it. My own idea is that the great bulk of it went to make good the excessive prices the Government paid to the American Meat Trust, from whom they bought their meat abroad. Perhaps about 20 per cent. of the amount was used for paying salaries to the horde of officials referred to by the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) with which the farming industry is now burdened from one end of the country to the other. I beg the hon. Gentleman to take some steps to diminish this crowd of officials. In the small markets in my Division alone we have four or five men attending each market, each of them drawing a salary of £150 to £250 a year, the whole of which has to be paid by the taxpayers in some way. I believe—we cannot get accounts out of the Food Controller—that that money is paid out of the excessive charges and taxes that are put upon the production of home-grown meat. Another ground on which I strongly support the Amendment is because I object to this gambling or trading or speculating in food in which the Government is now indulging. The War Office commandeered the 1662 whole of the wool grown in Great Britain. They have done that for two years, and possibly more. They resell that wool to our own manufacturers in this country, and resell it at a profit. For two years we have been trying to ascertain how much profit the War Office is making out of the wool they seize at prices they fix themselves, but we have never been able to ascertain what it is. We do not know how much wool they have commandeered, except that they have taken it all, and we do not know what is the result of this trading. For this reason, and in the hope that by this action we may possibly be able to get some accounts not only in regard to wool, but in regard to the trading in meat and wheat, I support this Amendment.
§ 3.0 P M.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI should like to say I am extremely sorry that I did not give notice to the hon. Gentleman of this Amendment. The reason I did not see him was that an Amendment was put down in another form in the name of another hon. Member, and I thought that, knowing that that Amendment was put down—I did not agree with the form in which it appeared—he would have made himself acquainted with the facts that would be raised on that Amendment. I understand that the charge has now been reduced from 11s. 4d. to 2s. 4d. I am rather surprised that that was not stated yesterday when a question was asked. It is important to know for how long that charge has been reduced. However, it is a step in the right direction. I would point out to my hon. Friend this: He says that his Department is at present selling meat under cost price. That is quite likely, because my point is that the trading of the Government in these commodities involves an enormous number of officials who cause such great expense that in order to arrive at a reasonable price to the consumer there must be a loss. I maintain that that loss ought to be borne by the general taxpayer and not by one particular class. As a result of the trading in food in this particular instance, and in many others, a special toll, not a sufficient toll, to recoup the Government has been put upon a particular class in order that the Government might indulge in dealing in food and becoming butchers in a very extravagant manner. I am glad that the charge has been reduced from 11s. 4d. to 2s. 4d. What I want is that all these officials should go. That is the point. We want to get rid of all these 1663 officials and let things get back into the old lines when a man took his risk. If he has a beast to sell he took the natural risk and the advantage, or disadvantage, of the market, and the butcher dealt in the ordinary way and bought a beast at a price he thought right; and, if he could obtain a large profit for himself, so much the better. We want no interference from all these Government officials. You have no right to charge this expense to a certain class of the community.
§ Sir B. STANIERCan we have an answer from the Government
§ Mr. BALDWIN (Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury)With reference to the last remarks that have fallen from the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury), I understood that the Amendment to which he referred was not going to be moved this afternoon, but that the subject—that of potatoes—was going to be brought up, if in order, on the Third Reading. Probably that is the reason why my hon. Friend (Mr. McCurdy) was not so well posted as the hon. Baronet would have liked in the subject this afternoon.
§ Sir F. BANBURYThen I apologise for raising it.
§ Mr. BALDWINI do not complain of the right hon. Baronet for having raised it. I would merely say, as being in charge of the Bill, that so far as his Amendment is concerned I am unable to accept it, for this reason: This Bill is a Bill, as he knows, to enable us to undertake certain necessary finance in, the course of the ensuing year, and the principle of the Bill has been accepted by this House on Second Beading. With regard to the first part of the first Clause, the part in which the word "food" occurs, the Committee will recognise that it gives the Government power to provide working capital, if necessary, for what really in effect amounts to a continuation and winding up of the business of supplying certain food materials that had to be undertaken owing, as the words of the Bill say, to the exigencies of the War—that and nothing else. As a matter of fact the sum mentioned which will be required for the purposes defined in the first part of the Clause will be very small. The large amount is in the second part. It is quite possible that with regard to the subjects discussed this afternoon not one penny will be required, but there is a possibility that at some time 1664 deliveries may overlap receipts and money may be required, and I dare not run the risk of leaving out of the Bill these offensive words to my right hon. Friend, and therefore I must respectfully ask the Committee to leave them there. Of course if the policy of the Food Controller is to be arraigned on this Clause, it makes it difficult for me, who have no knowledge of the policy of the office, and I should have thought that as the question of potatoes was going to be raised on the Third Reading—
§ Mr. BALDWINI was going to suggest that if the office of the Food Controller had not notice of all the points which could be raised on this it might be an advantage to let them know, so that they could give a detailed and responsible reply on the Third Heading. I understand it has been decided to go on with the discussion on those lines now, and at the moment I will say no more.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI would rather have the Amendment negatived. I will not divide in view of the fact that apparently the subject has not been gone into by the Ministry, but if it had been gone into it would not have altered the fact. It might have enabled them to give a little more plausible excuse, but that is all that would have happened.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI beg to move to leave out the words
for the time being outstanding shall at no time,and to insert instead thereof the wordsshall not.I am not at all sure the object which I desire to attain is not the object which the Government has in view. When I read paragraph (a) I thought at first that £120,000,000 was an enormous sum, even in these days, and that the Bill would limit the expenditure to that sum—that is to say, that until a fresh Bill was introduced it would be impossible for the Government to spend more than £120,000,000. But on looking at it again, I came to the conclusion that it might possibly not mean that, and being of rather a suspicious nature, this is what occurred to me: that as the taxes come in they will be used to repay this money. Supposing the whole £120,000,000 has been spent during the next month, and the taxes come in in that 1665 time, and suppose the Government wants to do something they would rather the House of Commons had no control over, what is to prevent them using these taxes to repay the £120,000,000 already borrowed, so that there will be nothing for the time being outstanding? They can then take another £120,000,000 from the Consolidated Fund without coming near the House of Commons. I propose to leave itThe sums so issued shall not exceed one hundred and twenty million pounds.That is a very simple phrase, understandable by everyone, and it seems to me that the words "for the time being outstanding" are either unnecessary and superfluous, in which case they ought not to be in, or they have been put in with an object. If they have been put in with the object I have described, the sooner they come out the better. Now that we are spending such large sums of money and there is no control over finance, the least this House can do is to see that when it gives power that power is limited to the amount which is stated in the Bill.
§ Mr. BALDWINI do not think the question is of as great importance as the right hon. baronet thinks. There is not very much in it. We have put these words in for a reason, but not for the reason which he has suggested. He asked if it were possible that we had devised this form of words so that we might do something without the knowledge of the House. We have precluded ourselves from doing that under the very terms of the Bill itself, because the money is only used for one or two kinds of purposes, as defined in the first and second part of the first paragraph of the operative Clause. Where the money is advanced for the purpose of what I may call trading capital for convenience, there is a provision in the second Sub-section that a Minute shall be laid before Parliament specifying the use for which that money is advanced, so that Parliament will have full cognisance of every transaction of that nature.On the other hand, where money is advanced to Departments in advance of their receipts coming in, as in the case of the temporary financing of the Ministries of Shipping and Munitions, there the House is safeguarded by the fact that they can obtain full knowledge of what is being done when the consideration of the substantive Estimates for those Departments comes up later in the year. Let me briefly epitomise what really happens in the transaction contemplated 1666 under this Bill. The hon. Baronet is as familiar as I am with the working of the Civil Contingencies Fund in normal times, and the practice under this Bill will be exactly the same as the normal practice. A sum sanctioned by this Bill will be paid into the Civil Contingencies Fund, which will actin exactly the same position as a banking account, and from that banking account will be paid as is requisite, either to the trading account or the Department which may be in need of funds. When repayment is made the usual practice would be to pay the sums received back into the Consolidated Fund and to draw out of that Fund again to replenish the banking account as desired. The only practical effect of the hon. Baronet's Amendment—I have no objection to it—will be that it would immobilise the capital of this banking account, or in other words, we should not consider it a safe thing to do to pay the receipts as received back into the Consolidated Fund. But at some time we might find ourselves tied up when some sudden demand for cash came on the Civil Contingencies Fund. We should keep our balance open in case of accident. I submit that it is better business to act in the other way and to keep up your balance as small as possible, taking over everything you pay out and replenishing it as you want. But there is very little in this. If my hon. Friend, after what I have said, cares to press his point I am willing to accept the words that he proposes, but it has that effect of immobilising the fund, and I do not think that from a business point of view this is as good a method as the method we have put down.
§ Sir D. MACLEANI hope the right hon. Baronet will ask the Secretary to the Treasury to adopt his Amendment because I am quite certain that it will have a useful effect as to the opportunities which will be given to the House for revision or discussion on the matter. All that is going to happen, if my right hon. Friend will look at Sub-clause 2, is that a Minute will be laid before Parliament. What that means we all know. Unless we say in the Statute itself that there shall be Parliamentary opportunity for discussion and decision thereon, we know what happens to the Minute. It passes and we have no chance of control over it. When we come to Sub-clause 2 I am going to move an Amendment to secure as far as we can that we shall have adequate Parliamentary opportunity for discussing these Minutes.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI am very much obliged to my right hon. Friend for agreeing to accept the Amendment. I am afraid I must press it because I still think I am right and he is wrong.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Colonel WEIGALLI beg to move, in Subsection (1 a) to leave out the words "and twenty."
My object in moving this Amendment is to allow the Government to save itself from itself. I desire to ask whether or no any of this £120,000,000 inserted in the bill is to be applied to meet the very large liability which the Government is now under. Rightly or wrongly potato growers, large and small, in this country are under the impression, an impression I do not share, that the Government is not going to play the game under the definite contract they enter into. I refuse to believe there is any intention on the part of the Government as a whole to repudiate a definite contract entered into with the growers of this country at a time when the country was suffering the gravest strain and stress, nor do I believe that the present Food Controller would lend himself to any action of this sort. By his early association, by the high standard of his conduct in various public offices, and by his sympathy in the last Parliament with all agriculturists, I am convinced that if he has any leaning at all it would lead him rather to the producer than to the consumer. I do not wish to delay the Committee by going over the past, but that a contract was entered into there is no possible doubt. I agree that I share the individual responsibility in this matter. In the early part of 1918 I was seconded in the Army for service under Lord Rhondda. I well remember Lord Rhondda telling a farmer one day how grave, owing to the submarine peril, the whole situation in the country was, and informing him that he had determined to concentrate on the potato as the saviour of the country.
He instructed me to go to my part of the world in Lincolnshire and to meet mass meetings of farmers and to authorise them with his full authority to enter into this definite contract that if they would grow potatoes as from the 1st November the Commission would purchase, on behalf of the Government, the whole of their crop. The conditions that were attached have been incorporated in a Ministerial document which has been issued recently, 1668 "M.G. Potatoes 9" Potato Commission, and the conditions applied to that contract were these"The increment fixed in the schedulemust be accepted as covering compensation to the growers for wastage and loss and for deferred delivery. Price, weight, and conditions are to be determined in accordance with the scale set out, as above, at the date when the delivery is taken." The Order goes on to explain that no grower can claim compensation except under these conditions, but the grower had the further opportunity that if there was abnormal wastage he could claim compensation from the Government if he could prove these three things (1) that the site for the potatoes has been properly chosen, (2) that the potatoes were in sound condition when they were planted, (3) that due care was exercised in constructing the pits and examining their contents from time to time. That sounds delightful on paper and in theory it is delightful, but these potatoes have been lying for several months now and the position to-day is that owing to the extremely unfavourable harvest and to deferred delivery over which the farmer had no control there has been enormous and abnormal wastage.
The whole point is how the Government are going to meet this enormous loss. I understand—and I shall be glad if my hon. Friend will confirm this—that the financial obligation will amount to something between eight, nine or ten million pounds. That is a very large sum which has to be met. I realise the difficulty. No one could serve in the Food Ministry last year without realising the enormous difficulties, and I would ask hon. Members who are apt to criticise the operations of the Food Ministry to remember that any Government Department carried on under war conditions is a very complicated and very complex organisation. The Food Ministry had this additional difficulty to face, that it had to hold the scales equal between the producer and consumer. That from my own experience was a difficult matter. Often advice was completely upset owing to circumstances over which one had no control whatever and the whole foundation of some great commercial operation was upset. I fully realise that owing to the Armistice in the early part of November, and owing to the difficulty of transporting potatoes, you had your transport both at home and abroad upset. If the War had gone on you would have had the normal flow of supply and 1669 demand and a great many of these potatoes would have been absorbed, but by deferred delivery they have now become unfit for human consumption. It is an unfortunate position which has arisen and it is not so much due to the incompetence or avoidable delay of a Government Department. What the Government are responsible for is that they have not taken the agriculturists more into their confidence during the last two or three months. Questions have been asked in this House, and it would have been easy for the Government to dispel the suspicion that has arisen. There I must blame the Food Ministry. If only the agriculturists had been taken into the confidence of the Department half these difficulties would have been swept away.
I know there are very many difficulties which are outside the control of the Government, but dealing with this matter I am perfectly sure we shall get absolute justice. If they err at all, they will leave to err on the side of generosity. In my part of the world, in Lincolnshire, the men responded admirably, and had it been anything like a normal season there would have been an enormous increase in the potato crop. They planted their potatoes and in the ordinary course these would have been delivered, and while they were being delivered the farmer could have got on with his ordinary spring work. He has not been able to do that, so that you have hit him in two ways. You have hit him by not being able to take delivery of the crop and you have hit him by preventing him carrying on his normal spring operations by taking delivery at an abnormal time. Further, many of the smaller men have relied upon this increased acreage of potatoes to pay their Michaelmas rent. In my part of the world they are allowed three months' grace as a rule to pay their Michaelmas rent. They have not been able to do that. Therefore on both these grounds I do ask that my hon. Friend will give us a satisfactory answer. I only move this Amendment in order that this matter may be discussed and that the whole of this suspicion maybe swept away once and for all, but I do make a strong appeal to the hon. Member that after the response that has been made by the agricultural producers, not only in this direction, but by every other direction when demands have been made by the Food Ministry, they should receive justice. When an appeal has been made to the agricultural community as a whole to do their utmost, either by Lord Rhondda or the late 1670 Food Controller, and I hope I may say the same of the present Food Controller, the agricultural community as a whole have responded splendidly. Therefore, in justice, I hope that, if the Government err at all, they will err on the side of generosity.
§ Mr. J. W. DENNISI rise to second the Amendment of my hon. Friend. Like himself last spring, I was engaged on platforms up and down the country persuading farmers to grow potatoes for the crop of 1918, on the basis of a well-defined scheme which had been put before them in a pamphlet dated the 1st of January, 1918. At the present moment there is great anxiety in the country, and there is great anxiety in the minds of consumers, because of the enormous amount of wastage of a commodity that presumably belongs to the Government since the 1st of November, but with regard to which the Ministry of Food appears to have some doubt, judging from replies to questions in this House, as to whether the property in that commodity is vested in the Ministry or in the grower. That it the real issue about which my hon. Friend has appealed to the hon. Gentleman (Sir A.Boscawen). Being only an ordinary business man, not versed in the ways of politicians, I have been somewhat nonplussed at the answers given to questions which I have addressed to the hon. Gentleman.
Unlike my hon. Friend opposite, I can only take those answers as they have been given to me. Hitherto I have, not succeeded in reading into them anything which inspires me with that confidence with which my hon. Friend has been inspired. On the 6th of March the hon. Gentleman, in reply to a question put by myself, said that the Commission fixed no separate prices for blighted potatoes, but took the prevalence of blight into account in fixing the price to be paid for the total crop. To previous questions my hon. Friend answered, that the Government accepted no responsibility for or no ownership in any blighted potatoes which were in the hands of growers. The man who has grown those potatoes thinks, and I, as one who did his best to induce him to grow those potatoes, believe that he thinks rightly, that as from the 1st of November all those potatoes belong to the Government, and from this it surely follows that ownership in these potatoes which the Government now repudiate does 1671 vest in the Government. I may draw attention to various announcements of the Government on the question of potatoes. On the 1st of January, 1918, there was issued a leaflet which has been described correctly, at a public deputation, by the President of the Board of Agriculture as the Magna Charta of the potato grower. It sets forth distinctly that as from the 1st of November the Food Controller will purchase the entire crop of Great Britain, with some exceptions that are immaterial to this issue. In Clause 3 we are told that, subject to proper precautions having been taken, the Food Controller will bear the risk of damage other than normal wastage. That is the contract on which the grower planted the potatoes.
But the contract does not stand entirely by itself. It was not considered to be sufficiently definite by the grower upon the question of normal wastage. Therefore, in various parts of the country when officials at the Ministry were doing propaganda work, they were asked by farmers to specify more particularly what was meant by normal wastage. I may give one or two quotations out of many, perhaps twenty or thirty, of things that were said in different parts of the country. I will mention first a statement of the Director of Vegetable Supplies at Doncaster, in which he says that if the potatoes are visited by disease the farmer will receive payment for them although they have not actually gone into consumption. A further platform utterance at Maidstone was to this effect—in direct reply to a question—"Potatoes even if rotten will be taken. Potatoes can be used for producing spirit whether rotten or not. The Government have distilleries, and the Government propose to absorb in this way any potatoes that may go rotten."
That is the position of affairs up to the time when the crop was grown. Upon those representations the farmer plants his crop, and until the crop is produced in the autumn little more is heard or said of the potato question from the point of view from which we are now discussing it. But in October the Potato Prices Commission was to have been appointed to fix prices for the whole of the potato crop, other than the portion which was to be used for seed purposes. It duly reported that it had fixed those prices. It is worthy of note that in the Commission's Report no prices were fixed, and indeed no men- 1672 tion was made of blighted potatoes other than blighted potatoes which were also under size. At that time there were in existence no blighted potatoes, and the crop was sound when prices were fixed. I submit that growers had every right to infer, as they did infer, that the reason why blight was not mentioned by the Commission was that the members of the Commission knew well that if blight did not exist at that time that any potatoes that might become blighted or diseased subsequently became so at the risk of the Ministry of Food. That view is borne out by a leaflet which was issued, as my hon. Friend said in answer to a question of mine the other day, prior to the Commissioners making their Report. That is perfectly true, but it was in force when the Commissioners made their Report, and, therefore, it was clearly in force in the minds of those responsible and doing this work.
The Order No. 4 distinctly tells the farmer that the Ministry of Food will purchase any surplus of blighted potatoes which he may have but does not require to use, and which he does not otherwise dispose of. In connection with this point, in the Holland Division of Lincolnshire, which is perhaps the biggest potato-growing district in the country, the Commissioners, under the impression that the assessors did not assess the tonnage in the way it should be taken, took the extraordinary precaution, as they did in no other county, of sending down their own representatives in order to make test weighings of the crop. It is passing strange that the Commissioners or their representatives chose what were the biggest crops, and it was upon those prices were fixed. One field which those representatives visited contained twenty-five acres of the variety King Edward, which was not allowed on to the market. The Commissioners' representatives found as follows: Ware 12 tons per acre, seed 1 ton per acre, waste—that is blights—nil. The Commission, therefore, finding some 325 tons of sound potatoes, upon which they based the price, it is interesting to know what happened to that crop. I have it upon the signed statement of the grower that out of that 325 tons and which contained no blights, 29 tons 12 cwt. of sound potatoes have been dispatched and that the remainder are rotten. In another field of eighteen acres the Commission found a huge crop with 15 tons to the acre and 1673 waste—that is blights—nil. Out of that field, which according to their estimate should have sent 300 tons of potatoes, there have been dispatched 26 tons 14 cwt. The remainder, not having been dispatched, are there practically rotten. I could go on with similar instances, but I do not wish to weary the Committee. I can assure hon. Members this is by no means an uncommon occurrence, and it is happening now with respect to potatoes grown in East Anglia. This is an exceedingly serious question not only for the grower but for the Treasury and also for the consumer. I do not agree with the Mover of the Amendment that the question is one as between the producer and the consumer. This question is one between the producer and the general taxpayer, and does not in any way affect the interests of the consumer except in this way, that through, I think, maladministration all those thousands of tons of potatoes which are rotting to-day ought to have been available for the consumer, and I presume, therefore, they would have had some benefit in getting potatoes cheaper than they have done. The consumer would also have had potatoes better than he is getting them to-day, because theresult of the first Order, which was issued in the teeth of what trade opinion was sought, was to bring about this position that in London and in all the great towns there were practically no potatoes to be had for a couple of months. Estimates have been made, and I myself made one, that during those two months when the whole distributing trade in potatoes in the country was thrown into confusion and chaos as a result of the first Order, some 300,000 or 400,000 tons of potatoes which should have been consumed during those two months did not get into consumption at all. Those potatoes were varieties which should have been lifted at that particular time. The result has been, therefore, that the consumer has had potatoes of a comparatively inferior quality imposed upon him for consumption and at a price higher than should have been imposed for this particular inferior quality.
4.0 P M.
I do not acquit the administration of the Ministry in this respect. Potatoes could have gone into consumption much more quickly than they have done if they had taken into account the fact that the potatoes of poor quality were generally in much greater supply than potatoes of the higher quality, and if they had put down the price for the poor quality sufficiently 1674 low to induce consumption and given the benefit in the price to the particular classes who would have been content, for the sake of the lower price, to eat the lower quality, whilst putting the higher price upon the potato of higher quality. But, to get back to the real position in which we find ourselves to-day, the Ministry of Food has told us inside this House, and through their officials in the country, that it is their intention to honour to the strict letter the obligations which they undertook. But I have a difficulty in harmonising that statement with the particular reply which tells me that blighted potatoes are not the property of the Ministry of Food. I will ask my hon. Friend on the Treasury Bench as to what is the policy he intends to pursue with regard to these potatoes, which were sound on the 1st November, which were taken possession of by the Government, and which, therefore, in the mind of the grower and, I think, the mind of any business man, became the property of the Government, and any risk incidental to holding that property must be the risk of the Government. The position which these growers are in is strengthened very materially by the fact that when the second Potato Order came out, whilst freedom of sale was afforded to what were called deficitzones, no freedom of sale was given to the surplus zones, and in addition to that they were deprived even of their natural markets which had been allocated to them under the first Order. The consequence of that was that London was opened up to the deficit zones of Kent and Oxford, and we have to-day this position, that whereas supplies in these deficit zones should have been drawn upon coincident with supplies coming into those zones from the exporting zones, instead of that, we have had these deficit zones practically clear themselves of potatoes entirely, so that in the future they will become importing zones themselves. The result of that has been that the growers in the big exporting zones have been obliged to stand idly by and see orders coming forward for their potatoes in very much smaller quantities than they required those orders to get rid of their stuff. Therefore this position has been created, that a grower who had sound potatoes on the 1st November is prevented by the Government from moving a single one of them, except and until they give him the order to do so, and as the result of an 1675 abnormal season, which we all admit it was, those potatoes became diseased, and the Government now turn round and say, "We do not recognise any property in these diseased potatoes. They are yours to do the best you can with, and our interest in potatoes begins only as and when the potatoes are put on rail." I submit that that position is an untenable one or, at any rate, would be an untenable one as between any other two contractors where one was not a Government Department. I cannot think, after all, that the ethics of commercial morality will be entirely ignored by the Government in this matter, and I am hoping that in reply to my hon. Friend opposite the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry will be able to tell us not only that the Government are going to honour their obligation to the letter, but will also be able to tell us what is the machinery which they intend to set up before whom these claims are tobe considered, when that machinery will get to work, and whether the claims from all growers will come before the Commission or Committee at once. The need is exceedingly pressing. You have potatoes in large quantities rotting to-day, to the prejudice of the Treasury, the grower, and the consumer, and not to the prestige of the Ministry, and I beg therefore that the minds of growers will be relieved and that we shall hear that a Commission or some other machinery is to be set up before whom these claims can be brought immediately, and that justice will be done to those men who answered the call made to them by the Prime Minister at the beginning of last year, and have produced a bumper crop of potatoes which, had the War not ended, would have been needed in their entirety.
§ Mr. J. GARDINERI would not trouble the Committee at this late hour were it not for the fact that the subject is one about which I have personal knowledge. I have been connected with the committees dealing with potatoes that have been brought into being since the War, and I therefore know the facts fairly well. I will not refer to details, but only to one or two general principles, and mention one or two things that have happened. I do not think that anything that has ever been done by any Prime Minister in connection with agriculture was more fraught with importance to the country than the pronouncement of 1676 January 1st, 1918. The agriculturists of this country, believing in the good faith of the Prime Minister, rose to the occasion, and, although they did not give him a million acres of potatoes, they gave him the greatest quantity of potatoes this country has ever produced. I do not know if it is because I come from the far North, and am not in touch with the things that happen in the Metropolis, but I confess I am an optimist, and not a pessimist, on the potato question. I believe, and have always believed, that the Ministry of Food intend to fulfil in the spirit and in the letter every promise that the Prime Minister or the Department has made.
There was a promise of a two-fold nature. The first was that there was to be a minimum price fixed. In the case of England it was £5, and, of course, as usual, my poor country came in second, and was only to get 90s. a ton, but the Prime Minister was generous enough to say that, in the event of this not being found a sufficient remuneration to the grower, he would be allowed the cost of production, plus a fair and reasonable profit. Therefore, we must remember that at whatever price the potatoes may have been assessed, or whatever is the position, the promise of the Prime Minister still holds that the grower who has done his part properly, and complied with all the necessary conditions, is entitled to be remunerated at a price that will pay him the cost of production and a fair and reasonable profit. When this promise was made, those of us who knew anything about the subject—I mean the practical men on the Advisory Committees—knew immediately that whoever had given this advice to the Prime Minister did not give him the best advice. Those men who knew anything about the trade and about potato growing felt it was first of all impossible for the Government through any instrumentality to take delivery on the 1st November of all the potatoes grown, and many of the things that have come to us have come not unexpectedly, when we remember that, at one meeting, there was a gentleman connected with the Ministry of Food who is not in this House, and is not one of the principal officials, but who, when he discussed the potato question, suggested that potatoes were perennials, and that they just grew like timothy hay, and you could cut a crop whenever you wanted them. Another gentleman dealing with the question, and trying to solve the 1677 difficulties, suggested that, because matches had been treated in a certain manner, potatoes could similarly be treated; and there was one gentleman in a fairly high position at the Ministry who really thought you could put these potatoes aside, and leave them in the pits for one, two, three, or more years, as required. The unfortunate thing was that practical men in the country sometimes found themselves in this position, that when it came to a vote, if a certain gentleman in the chair desired a certain course of action to be followed, all the officials voted for him, and the minority often consisted of the practical men. I am quite sure that if the advice of these committees had been taken we should not occupy the position we do to-day. You will find thatit has been said that the Scotsmen are always complaining. You do not, however, hear so very much about difficulties with the Scottish potatoes this season, the reason being that we have had the audacity to demand home rule on this particular question, and having received practical freedom to trade in potatoes, we do not occupy the difficult position that our friends in the South occupy at the present time.
May I, before I finish, point out one or two things about the cost? If an individual purchases a quantity of potatoes to be taken delivery of on a certain date, and if he fails to take delivery on that date, he is responsible for whatever loss and damage; happens to the potatoes from that date onwards. I am quite sure that the Ministry of Food will not act in any unfair manner. What about the present position? Why is it that we have so many potatoes wasting in the pits at the present time? One of the reasons is that one Department of the Ministry of Food promised that they would set machinery in motion that would absorb a very great proportion of the potato crop, and that that would be in operation in the early part of 1918. Unfortunately that has not developed. Private representations were made to the Ministry. Machinery for the purpose was proposed by quite a number of leading agriculturists and others, but the proposition was turned down because of several causes into which I need not for the moment enter, except to say simply that the proposal from the Ministry's point of view made it impossible financially for any individual to support it. I only wanted to say, in conclusion, that I think the Ministry 1678 of Food will welcome the discussion this afternoon. It will give them the opportunity of setting at rest a feeling which has somehow or other been spread over the country—I do not know why—it is one in which I do not share, and one in which the best informed men in agricultural circles do not share. Should that assurance be given it will alleviate a lot of the anxiety that has been created, for instance, in crofting districts and amongst smallholders and others who have had a very hard lot and have done their very best. I thank the House for having heard me so patiently on this, the first opportunity I have had, of addressing hon. Members.
§ Mr. ROYCEPotato production has been so fully dealt with by hon. Members that I will not venture, except in a special manner, to bring before the representatives of the Ministry of Food one more argument in favour of action, and that that action should be immediate. Whatever intentions the Ministry of Food may have—and I believe they are good—it is absolutely necessary that they should carry those good intentions into action at the earliest possible moment. One phase of food production was, as hon. Members know, the constitution by the Board of Agriculture of certain agricultural war executive committees. The insistent demands for more food that were made upon them forced their hands to a very considerable extent. I should like to draw the attention of the hon. Member opposite on the Government Bench to the position that those agricultural war executive committees occupy now in their respective districts. They were called upon to increase the acreage under potatoes, and for that purpose they issued cultivation orders for the ploughing up of grass land. Those orders gave a good deal of dissatisfaction, and a considerable amount of resistance was offered to them, and the position of a good many farmers is that they have grown potatoes not because they wanted to grow them but because they were compelled to do so by the Cultivation Orders. In the case of some of the small men it is extremely hard, because when the Cultivation Orders were issued they were not in a financial position to grow potatoes, and in some instances as the cost amounted to about £40 per acre they had to borrow money, and consequently these men were left in a very serious position and immediate action is now necessary.
1679 I think I could offer a suggestion that might perhaps meet the case, and I think it would satisfy the farmers. I think if Committees were immediately instituted—I would suggest two representatives from the Ministry of Food and two local representatives with an independent chairman—to go over the various pits or graves where these potatoes have been contained, I think they could make an estimate of the quantity which have been destroyed based upon the acreage grown, and they might arrive at a conclusion and payment on account should be made.Why has this not been done? In many cases orders for removal have not been sent, and therefore the farmer has been saddled all this time with a very large outlay. Why could not the principles which have been applied by the Forage Department in dealing with hay and straw be applied to the growers of potatoes I Why should the grower of potatoes not have some advance on account What is more, I think there ought to be a date fixed by the Ministry laying down when the responsibility of the farmer ceases, and if the potatoes are not removed, say by the 1st July, payment in full should be made. That is a suggestion of a constructive character which I hope may help the Department out of their difficulty.
There is another thing that the Minister might very well do. The present scarcity of labour renders it necessary that the farmer should employ a considerable amount of labour for the cultivation of his spring crops, and I think the Ministry of Food might take it into consideration, in the matter of the removal of these potatoes, the inauguration of a few gangs of workmen who might be shifted about from farm to farm in motor lorries, and thus help the farmers at a critical period of the year. I would like to join with the hon. Member opposite in believing that the Ministry of Food have no desire to repudiate their obligations: in fact, they have given me some encouragement that they will assist smaller growers up to fifty acres. I wish to state, however, that I have received a telegram which informs me that up to now no steps have been taken in that direction. Time is of the utmost importance, and I ask the representative of the Ministry of Food to take immediate action.
§ Mr. McCURDYI welcome the opportunity which has been given by the moving 1680 of this Amendment to make a statement which I hope will allay some of the unfounded suspicions which appear to have been recently prevalent with regard to what we propose to do with reference to the potato crop. I say at once that nothing is further from our minds than to repudiate any obligation, whether it be a legal obligation or an obligation of honour which we have entered into towards the potato growers of this country. We are not, of course, dealing with an ordinary commercial problem, because the growing of potatoes for this season was undertaken, not upon any ordinary commercial lines, but as an urgency measure against what was then regarded as the very serious menace of the German submarine. It was thought that an abnormal development of the potato crop would be a useful weapon against the submarine. It is quite true, and I do not disguise the fact from myself for one moment, that on behalf of the Government and of the Ministry of Food every inducement was held out to the farmers and the potato growers of this country to increase their crop, and I desire to acknowledge that in respect of those appeals and other appeals they did their utmost. They did not fail in their patriotic duty towards their country. There is undoubtedly, as appears from the speech of the hon. Member for the Deritend Division (Mr. Dennis), some doubt with regard to what really is the contract that the Government made with the growers and whether the Government really intend to carry that contract out. Therefore, I desire briefly to state what is the actual contract that was made last year on behalf of the Government between the Ministry of Food and the potato growers.
The hon. Member has referred to a circular which was issued on behalf of the Ministry of Food on 1st January, 1918. I think he referred to it as the Magna Charta of the potato growers. That was a circular stating that it was the intention of the Food Controller, as from 1st November, 1918, to purchase the entire crop of potatoes, with certain exceptions which we are agreed are quite irrelevant to the discussion to-day. The circular announced that the purchase price would be eventually assessed with due regard to the size of the crop and the quality of the potatoes and that for some potatoes it would not be less than the scale therein mentioned. The scale, as the hon. Member for Kinross (Mr. Gardiner) has reminded us, provided that for sound potatoes the price should 1681 not be less than £5. The circular made it quite clear that it was contemplated at the time by the Ministry of Food that the purchase should be of the entire potato crop, coupled with the guarantee that so far as the sound portion of the crop was concerned the price should not be less than £5 and also with the intimation that regard would be had to quality in assessing the price. Therefore, speaking strictly, I suppose that was an intimation that we were prepared to buy the potatoes whether they were blighted or sound, whether they were eatable or rotten; but of course it did not impose any obligation upon the Ministry to pay for rotten potatoes as though they were sound, or to pay more for them than for Rotten potatoes.
§ Mr. CAUTLEYWill the hon. Gentleman read the last portion of the circular?
§ Mr. McCURDYI will read it with pleasure.
Delivery in both cases is to be madeas and when required, and the price, weight, and condition are to be determined in accordance with the scale set out above as at the date when delivery is taken. Subject to proper precaution having been taken, the Food Controller will bear the risk of damage other than normal wastage.That circular also announced that the purchase price would be eventually assessed, merely indicating for the moment that it was not to be less than the figure I have named. Upon that the Potato Growers' Purchase Commission was appointed for the purpose of fixing the price to be paid in accordance with the circular, the said price to be fixed having regard to the condition of the potatoes at the date fixed for delivery. The Potato Growers' Purchase Commission proceeded to issue an inquiry form to typical potato growers up and down the country, to make local investigation, and to draw up what I may describe as a kind of rough balance-sheet, giving the cost of the potato crop which the Government proposed to purchase on the one side, and what was to be expected to be the result in sound potatoes on the other. Forms were sent out which required growers to state, on the one hand, what expenses they had incurred in respect to the acreage of potatoes planted, their rent, rates and taxes, and the cost of cultivating, lifting, clamping, and inspection. On the other side, the estimate was to show how many tons of sound potatoes they expected ultimately to be in a position to deliver at 1682 the date fixed for delivery. Then the Potato Growers' Commission fixed the prices for the crop in this way: They said, "Here, on the one hand, are so many acres planted with potatoes. The cultivation cost so much. On the other hand, here, after allowing for the incidence of potato disease,blight, and the casualties which may be expected in cultivation, is the net result expected in sound potatoes. We will fix such a price for the sound ware potatoes, and the sound undersized potatoes as will give the grower a reasonable profit not merely on the proportion he has grown of sound potatoes, but on the whole of the production, including the cost of producing potatoes which have been wasted and failed to come into account with the sound crop.
§ Mr. B. DENNISMay I ask on what authority my hon. Friend is making that statement?
§ Mr. McCURDYI am making it on my own authority. I am merely stating the effect, in the first place, of the form of inquiry which was undertaken by the Potato Growers' Commission for the purpose of arriving at the price. The document which I hold in my hand is headed "Joint Commission of Inquiry on the Potato Crop, 1918—Forms for the use of assessors and witnesses in assessing the cost of production." Then follows a schedule of cost on the one hand, and an estimate of the crop of sound ware potatoes to be ultimately harvested, and coupled with that document is the report of the Potato Growers' Prices Commission which was issued in July, and which made perfectly plain the basis on which the prices of the potato crop had been fixed. That is my authority for the statement I have made. That document is headed, "M.G. Potatoes 9."It has already been referred to. That is a document addressed to the Food Controller and the Minister of Agriculture by the Commission. It begins by saying:
We beg to present our unanimous report on the results of our inquiries, and we give in the Schedules annexed hereto the prices we have fixed for the potato crop of 1918 produced in England and Wales.Paragraph 2 says:We have conceived it to be our duty so to fix the prices that they should be such as would, having due regard to the average cost of production and yield per acre in different districts, give to the grower a fair profit; at the same time we 1683 have endeavoured to fix such prices as, having regard to all the circumstances of the present time, shall be just to the consumer.(3) We have devoted one day in each of the fifteen districts selected by your Departments to hearing local evidence submitted by representative merchants and growers. Wherever our meetings and itinerary allowed, we have inspected typical potato crops in the areas. Since our return from the country we have heard a number of representative witnesses on matters relating to costs of production, and equitable scale of profits on cost, estimated yields, the incidence of the various potato diseases throughout England and Wales, and other points germane to our inquiry.Then they fixed the prices in this manner: Instead of giving a flat rate, which would have been, of course, the natural way of fixing the price for the crop if you intended to take delivery of the whole crop upon a given date, they fixed not a flat rate, but a rate varying from month to month, increasing practically month by month as the dates for delivery were postponed; so that as regards potatoes of which the Government chose to take delivery in November they obtained them at a less price than they would have to pay if delivery were delayed for a month, and a still less price if delivery were delayed for two or three months. Having given these substantial increments of prices, which brought up potatoes which would cost £7 in November or December so that by May and onwards the Government were paying as much as £9 for them, what was the extra £2 for?
§ Mr. CAUTLEYNormal wastage.
§ Mr. McCURDYI should prefer to be allowed to answer my questions in their own words, because I think they know best. They said:
The increments fixed in the above Schedule must be accepted as covering compensation to the grower for wastage and loss in pits, and for deferred delivery. Price, weight, and conditions are to be determined in accordance with the scales set out above as at the date when delivery is taken. No grower is entitled to claim further compensation for any losses save those which are quite exceptional in character. In such cases it will be the duty of the grower, when making application for compensation, to satisfy the Government that (1) the site of the pit has been properly chosen; (2) the potatoes were in sound condition when pitted; and (3) due care was exercised in constructing the pits, and in examining the condition of their contents from time to time.Do not let it be supposed, because I have read the exact terms of the contract, that I am going to take any hard and fast line, and say that outside the limits of our liability in this matter we are not pre- 1684 pared to go. That is not the attitude of the Ministry of Food. It never has been the attitude of the Ministry of Food, and there has never been a shadow of excuse for any man in this country saying that it is. The hon. Member for Deritend appears to have fallen into some confusion. He says that the real difference between himself and the Government with regard, I suppose, to the meaning of this document—which contains the contract—was whether the property in blighted potatoes was vested in the Government or the grower. From my point of view that is a wholly irrelevant question. If I may be allowed to say so, we do not care in the least in whom the property in blighted potatoes vests. In view of this contract, which I put forward with some diffidence, I should say it was vested in the Government. But the question is not in whom the property is vested, but what are the terms of payment. What was contemplated by the Government was that they were to take the entire crop, and no doubt the entire crop would include blighted potatoes and wasted potatoes of every kind. But they were to pay such a price for the sound potatoes as wouldgive the grower a profit upon his blights as well as upon his sound potatoes. That is my construction of the actual contract, and I hope it will clear away the misconception that there is any legal quibble as to the persons in whom this property is vested. The intention of the Government, as was quite fairly stated by the hon. Member for Kinross, was to fix those prices in such a way as to give the potato grower a fair profit on the whole of his expenditure, on the whole of his labour, after the strong appeal which the Government made to him. I think it would probably be agreed between myself and most of the hon. Members who have spoken, that, whatever construction be put upon the words which I have read, the words which define the increments provided by the Prices Commission were intended to cover compensation for wastage and loss. I suppose we should all agree that those increments were intended to cover such compensation as may be due to what would be described as normal wastage. The question that really will arise and on doubt will have to be determined—and I will say a word or two presently as to the best way of determining it—will be the serious question whether there are not in some parts of the country losses being incurred 1685 by potato growers owing to the wastage of potatoes or the rotting of potatoes which is not due to any normal causes, or, which is more material, to any causes which were contemplated or brought into account by the Commission who fixed the prices. If and so far as potato growers can satisfy the Ministry of Food—and there must of course be some cases in which they can—that they have sustained losses by reason of wastage which was not intended to be covered by the compensation included in the prices fixed by the Commission, I can assure hon. Members that we are prepared to meet such claims in the most sympathetic and unprejudiced manner. There are obviously two possible grounds upon which such claims may be put forward. As to the first, I am not in a position to say much.The first is obviously a question of some difficulty. I cannot assent to the suggestion of the hon. Member (Mr. Dennis) that blight had not appeared in this country at the time the Potato Commissioners say they were considering the incidence of potato disease, and allowing for it in their prices. I am otherwise informed. But this much I can assent to: When the time came for lifting the potato crop last year we not only had exceptionally wet weather, but there were also in some parts of the country exceptional difficulties with regard to labour, and it may be, if not on legal, certainly on compassionate, grounds there may be farmers who may have a claim to put forward which we should be very glad to accept. The interpretation which I have put upon the documents issued by the Ministry of Food appears not only to be my interpretation, but to be the interpretation which commended itself to the Lincolnshire farmers at the time when that document was first issued. At a meeting of farmers and small holders held at Spalding on 5th November shortly after the issue of the schedule of prices, a Resolution was passed which contained the following passage:
In consequence of the development and continuance of blight the estimate of yield then presented to the Commission has been found to be much higher than the facts warrant. The price appears to be based on the tested weight of the present crop. The tested weight will be far above the actual weight delivered, in some cases up to 30 per cent.In December, 1918, in view of representations to the Food Ministry by the Lincolnshire farmers, and in view of the fact that the prevalence and increase of blight had falsified the calculations of the Commis- 1686 sioners so that the prices allowed were no longer adequate, an increase of price was made upon the prices fixed by the Commission to apply to Lincolnshire and certain other counties.
§ Mr. DENNISIt was to meet the extra cost of labour.
§ Mr. McCURDYThe "Lincolnshire, Boston, and Spalding Free Press" in the following week expressed a different view. It said:
A feeling of gratification was prevalent at the meeting of the General Committee of the Holland Farmers' Union at Spalding on Tuesday that, as the result of their efforts, the Food Controller had given the farmers of Lincolnshire an additional 10s. per ton on their potatoes. This means, as stated in the column last week, roughly an extra £200,000 in the Holland Division of Lincolnshire, not as the farmer contends in extra profit, but in mitigation of the losses he has suffered through blight.
§ Mr. DENNISThat is what the newspaper says. I was present at the deputation.
§ Mr. McCURDYThe newspaper merely confirms our own records and I am very much surprised that the hon. Member should think fit to suggest that when in December, in response to representations made by the growers of Lincolnshire and three or four other counties, the Ministry granted an extra 10s. on the prices for those counties, the abnormal development of blight, which was certainly apparent all over the country, was not taken into consideration and was not, in fact, one of the grounds upon which that 10s. was granted. It does not rest either with the records of the Ministry or with my assertion. I will read a letter from the secretary of the Holland Farmers' Union. I do not know whether the hon. Member (Mr. J. Dennis) will suggest that that union have no authority to speak for the farmers. This letter is dated 28th December, four days afterwards, and is sent to the Food Ministry:
I am directed by the Holland farmers' Union to thank you for the courtesy with which you recently received our deputation on the question of price of potatoes in Lincolnshire, and for the increase of 10s. per ton which will be very helpful in mitigating the very serious loss which is being suffered by the extensive development of blight.I do not know if the Holland Farmers' Union include any potato growers.Our members are repeatedly writing of their clamps falling in as a result of disease, and from a farm in Holbeach Marsh, which was weighed 1687 by your inspectors, who based their estimate of about 10 tons an acre upon this and other crops, not more than 1 ton an acre of sound ware potatoes will be secured.
§ Mr. ROYCEThe hon. Member will hardly suggest that they contemplated that the 10s. would cover the clamps which had already fallen in?
§ Mr. McCURDYI do not know to what extent the clamps had fallen in by December of last year; but I should be surprised to hear that there had been any extensive subsidence of raised potatoes by December of last year. The point I want to make—and I am not speaking in any controversial spirit, or with any desire to stand upon technicalities—is that whatever may be suggested to the contrary, so far. as have ruin of food was concerned we did receive representations in regard to the abnormal blight in December of last year, and as a result of those representations we went beyond our legal responsibilities at that time. We voluntarily gave them an increase of 10s. a ton, and if it be a fact that there are substantial reasons why the potato growers should come to us and say, "There are other facts which have arisen since last December, by reason of which we are incurring losses which were never contemplated and which we ought not to suffer,"is there any reason to doubt that we shall meet them in the same friendly spirit and with the same practical desire to remedy their grievances as we did last December? The hon. Member for Holland and Boston threw out some very useful suggestions in regard to the actual machinery for dealing with these grievances. Let us get to the practical question as to where is the actual damage that is complained of, and let us investigate it and see what it is due to. Then possibly we shallfind that there is no misunderstanding. The hon. Member for Holland and Boston was good enough to suggest that possibly it would be a good step at a very early date, as soon as such machinery were available, to conduct local investigations in every district where there is any substantial claim of this kind being put forward. I agree entirely. So far as actual machinery is concerned, whether it should be a Committee appointed on such a basis as he suggests, is a matter which I would have to refer to my right hon. Friend the Food Controller and my right hon. Friend 1688 the President of the Board of Agriculture. We are already in communication, or if not already we certainly shall be in a few hours, with them on the subject. There is one other suggestion of the hon. Member which is very reasonable—that this is a contract under which the Government are open to take deliveries at such times as suit them, and that they should promise to insert a time limit at the end of which they must either complete the delivery or must pay for the goods. I think that a very reasonable suggestion and will lay it before my right hon. Friend. I desire to thank hon. Members who have taken part in this Debate. On the whole they have expressed confidence in the Ministry of Food in this matter and they will not be disappointed.
§ Mr. CAUTLEYI am a little disappointed that the Food Controller has not told us how he intends to deal with this question. With a great deal of what he says I entirely agree, but I think that he was wrong on one point. I have not the slightest doubt that, from the document of the 1st January, every farmer or grower who grew potatoes thought that he would be paid under the terms of that document. The vital condition, so far as it affects growers at the present time, was the Clause which he has read at my request, which states that in the case of a grower who had taken proper precaution the Food Controller would bear the damage other than normal waste. There is not the slightest doubt as to the meaning of that contract. I understand the Minister of Food to take up the position that under this contract he is bound to pay for everything except normal wastage. In other words, where there is abnormal wastage he has to pay. It is immaterial whether the abnormal wastage was caused by blight or any other cause. It is on this point that I take exception, because he seems to suggest that he is not bound to pay where the blights are abnormal, though he is bound to pay for any other cause. There is no ground, legal or otherwise, for that attitude, and the whole position, as I understand it from communications that I have had, is that they claim to be paid for abnormal wastage, whether caused through wet or labour or excessive blights, and if the Minister of Food has any doubt as to accepting that position, then I would ask him to take the advice of the Law Officers of the Crown,and that 1689 will solve a great deal of the difficulty and dissatisfaction that exist at the present time.
§ Lieutenant-Colonel WEIGALLHaving heard the explanation of the Government, I prefer to withdraw my Amendment on one condition. I do not agree with the last speaker that the Government have not satisfied us as to payment for abnormal wastage. I understand from my hon. Friend that wherever there was abnormal wastage which had occurred under the three conditions laid down in the document, then a claim for compensation will lie. The other condition I make because my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is sitting on the Treasury Bench, and in these matters once bitten twice shy. I was in a precisely similar position to this on the last day of the last Parliament in a discussion with the War Office representative. I made a similar suggestion to that made to-day, and the War Office representative gave an answer similar to that which has been given that he would consult his right hon. Friend, and that the matter would be considered. It was referred to the Treasury three months afterwards, and the whole thing was wiped out. I am perfectly prepared to withdraw my Amendment if I can get an indication that the Food Ministry and the Treasury will most sympathetically consider the suggestion made by the hon. Member for the Holland Division.
§ Captain FITZROYMay I ask about the position of those farmers who have not yet received any payment. I would like to know whether the Government propose before they take charge of the crop to pay something on account.
§ Mr. McCURDYI had the pleasure of meeting a deputation of Lincolnshire farmers the other day, and the point was there made that this was a hardship upon men of limited financial resources. At that conference an assurance was given by the Food Controller that if cases of that kind were brought forward they would be dealt with promptly and sympathetically. With regard to the assurance asked for by the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Weigall) I can assure him that I know the matter is under the consideration of two Departments, and there really is an intention to set up an inquiry.
§ Lieutenant-Colonel WEIGALLWill the hon. Gentleman use his powers of persuasion with the Treasury?
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
1690§ Sir F. BANBURYI beg to move, at the end, to add the words
If either House of Parliament within twenty days resolve that the Minute be not approved it shall cease to have effect.As a matter of fact, the Clause as it was drawn afforded very little protection, and my Amendment, if accepted, would afford a great deal more. I think the House ought to have some opportunity of discussingthese Minutes, and I therefore hope the Government will accept the Amendment.
§ Sir D. MACLEANAlthough the proposal in the Amendment is nothing like an adequate Parliamentary opportunity, I am afraid it is the only one which under the circumstances we canget, and I hope my hon. Friend will see his way to grant our very moderate request.
§ Mr. BALDWINThis is a manuscript Amendment, and raises a matter which requires some consideration. I have told my hon. Friend that if he would withdraw his Amendment now I would look into it before the Report stage, and I hope he will consider that that is fair, as it is impossible for me now to see what is exactly the bearing of the Amendment. I shall be very pleased to consider it between now and the Report stage.
§ Sir F. BANBURYUnder those circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 2 (Short title) agreed to.
§ Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.