AGRICULTURE.

HC Deb 20 March 1919 vol 113 cc2288-341

4.0 P.M.

Captain FITZROY

I make no excuse in introducing the question of agriculture into the discussion on this Bill, because I can assure the House that the anxiety which has prevailed for a long time among the agricultural community is growing worse every day. That anxiety has been by no means allayed by the speech which was made by the Noble Lord the President of the Board of Agriculture at Taunton. As far as I can make out from the report of his speech in the newspapers, he seemed to Lake an almost unnecessarily gloomy view of the situation, and he held out to agriculturists the prospect, that they were to take two lines of action. Both these lines of action, he told us, had risks attached to them. As far as I can make out, if we took the first line of action the risk was disaster to the nation, and if we took the second line of action it was disastrous to ourselves. The first line of action was that of "taking it lying down"; the second was the "lighting action." The only prospect he held out was that if we took that line of action we should at any rate go down with flags flying. I hope the Government as a whole do not take that view of the agricultural position. I do not want to go down, anyhow, with flags flying or otherwise. I would prefer to keep the ship afloat, and I do beg of the Noble Lord the President of the Board of Agriculture to be more cheerful on these occasions. I can assure him that if he will only take firm hold of the helm and steer a straight course, without being diverted from his lines by the influence of other Government Departments, that at any rate we agriculturists in this House will give him all the support we can. If he does that, and we have confidence in his pro- found knowledge of the industry and his shrewd common sense and statesmanship, he will steer that ship into calmer waters in the near future.

The Noble Lord told us that after all agriculture was only on exactly the same footing as all the other interests of this country. I beg to differ on that point. In the first place, it stands on a different footing from almost every other industry in that any increased cost of production which the industry has to bear cannot be put on the consumer in the same way as in other industries. Besides that, we have been, through the action of the Government, put upon a different footing to other industries by the Corn Production Act. We have had maximum prices put upon the produce. We have, on the other hand, had wages boards to fix the wages, and when it is said that industry all through the War has had support and help from the Government, I absolutely deny it. If we had been allowed to take advantage of economic prices as they were, we should have made enormous profits, no doubt, but to say that we are on the same footing as other industries is to take a wrong view of the case. One of the chief things that the agricultural industry suffers from, which is not the case with other industries, is the want of interest which is taken in it by the public in general and the apathy of the House of Commons. Nothing could prove this to a greater extent than an article which I saw in the "Pall Mall Gazette" the other night. I have no doubt that that is a newspaper which has high standing in this country, but the remarks that it made with regard to agriculture were as misleading as they were untrue. If that is the kind of stuff on which the public are fed as regards the agricultural industry, there is not much doubt as to why misunderstanding exists in the public mind and why so little interest is taken in it.

But I do not intend to take up the time of the House by ranging over the whole field of agriculture. I only want to approach the question from one point of view, and that is the disadvantages from which the agricultural industry hag. suffered—certainly in the past—and will suffer in the future if nothing is done—from being unable to afford as high a wage as can be paid by other industries. I propose to confine my remarks more especially to the interests of the agricultural labourer in the prosperity of the industry. I believe that of all classes en- gaged in that industry there is no class whose interests are more affected by it than that of the agricultural labourer. I think there is no doubt that the agricultural labourers' wages even now do not compare favourably with the wages paid in other industries. I am quite certain that the men themselves to not think so. We have had recently a great dearth of employment, a great lack of men coming into the agricultural industry, and, notwithstanding the fact that men have been recently demobilised from the Army to come back to agriculture at the rate of 4,000 a day, yet of these 4,000 only a very small proportion indeed ever find their way back to the land. It is quite true that the moment the man is demobilised the War Office or the Government ceases to have any control over his action, and if He chooses to get an advantage over his comrades, by being demobilised on what one might call false pretences, that is his own look out and no one else's; but I must say that I find considerable fault with the Government in that they are the very worst offenders in inducing him to take up some other employment instead of going back to the land. I have had several instances recently brought to my notice. One is in my own county, near to Peterborough, where a Government aerodrome is in course of construction. I understand that many firms in that district have applied for and got the demobilisation of men with the view of taking them back into their employment, but when they came back and had enjoyed their period of leave the Government contractor from the neighbouring aerodrome comes along and offers them £3 a week, and not only does that, but sends a motor lorry to fetch them. That really is notfair of the Government, because the agricultural industry has not got the long-suffering taxpayer behind it to pay these very high wages, which are out of all comparison even with the highest wages paid in other industries for ordinary unskilled labour.

I understand that the question of the minimum wage is now under consideration by the Central Wages Board, and I understand certain proposals have been, made by the representatives of the labourers and by the representatives of the farmers, and at present no definite decision has been taken, between these two proposals. I understand, also, that the suggestion on behalf of the labourers for an increased minimum wage is based on the rise in the cost of living and the fact that the agricultural labourer's wage, at any rate before the War, with which I entirely agree, was not sufficiently good to maintain him in a decent standard of life. But I also understand that the original demand which was made by the representatives of the labourer was that his minimum wage should be increased to correspond in amount with that which prevails in the railway industry. As far as I understand it, the prevailing rate of wages in the railway industry is, for an ordinary labourer, a platelayer or a porter, 50s. a week, and I should be the very first to support any proposal to increase the agricultural labourer's wage—indeed, not only to put it on the same footing as the wages which are given in other industries, but, if I had my way, I would make it a higher wage than can be given in these competing industries.I should much prefer that agriculture should be looked upon by the labouring classes in this country as a privileged industry to which they could all go if they could get the chance, and they were anxious to go andwork on the land. But it is no good holding those views and putting forward those suggestions unless you can show that the wages can be borne by the cost of production, and that reasonable profit can be given to him who invests his capital in the industry. I know there are some who hold the view that however prosperous agriculture is, it does not by any means follow that the agricultural labourer's wage rises accordingly, and I have often had it held out to me that previous to 1870, when agriculture was very prosperous, the wage was lower than it was after 1880, when the great period of depression was at its height. I believe that is true, but no apprehension need be felt on that subject at present, because conditions have entirely changed. Before 1870 there were more agricultural labourers applying for places than the industry could absorb. Subsequent to that time, the demand for labour in industrial centres has enormously increased, and from that point of view, if from no other, the whole situation has changed. But of course at present, what with the Corn Production Act and the public feeling behind it, it is obvious that if the industry is able to afford a good wage that good wages should be paid by the industry.

There are three distinct classes—though I dislike class distinctions—engaged in agricultural industry—the landowner, the farmer, and the labourer. As far as I can see it, the landowner, at any rate for the moment, is going out of the picture. I regret it for more than onereason, and when one contemplates that shortly we are going to have a great Housing Bill, to meet the demands not only of the town but of the rural districts, I am quite sure, if he had been fairly treated in the past, one of the greatest helps we could have had in securing housing for agricultural workers would have been the large landowners. Of course, when they go out of the picture they will not be available for that purpose. They saved agriculture in the worst time of depression. Since that time theyhave been content to take certainly not more than 2 per cent. on the capital value of their money and now that they are taking advantage of the opportunity that presents itself to them to get out on the most favourable terms they are abused by the generalpublic for taking that course. Therefore for the moment they disappear from the scene. That leaves the agricultural labourer and the farmer. The farmer provides capital for the equipment and stock of the farm, but he has a certain amount of capital at hisdisposal, and although in most cases he is a man who has pursued the industry for the whole of his life, and perhaps his family before him, he is in a position, especially at this moment, to sell his stock at a very high, price and invest his money on the most favourable terms. But the agricultural labourer is not in that position. His capital is his labour, and if he and his forebears have been employed on the land for generations, and he is anxious to continue on the land, unless the industry is in a prosperious condition He must be the one to suffer, for his wages must come down or he must clear out.

Formerly the agricultural labourer was in a bad position for no other reason whatever than that the industry could not afford to pay him a sufficient wage. During the War, through the enemy's submarine activity, our position as an island became very much more dependent on its own food supply than it had been in the past, and it called upon agriculture to come to its assistance, which it did to the best of its ability. The Government forced farmers to plough up the land, against their better knowledge, knowing that it was not the most economic way if prices remained as they were to continue the industry, and they did it on the understanding that after the War they would not be left in the lurch. At present not only is there plenty of opportunity for men to get employment on the land, but a good many farmers in many districts are complaining that they cannot get sufficient labour to work their farms, especially at present. I quite agree that in many cases the farmers are quite capable of paying the minimum wage which is fixed by the wage board. I go further than that, and acknowledge that many farmers can afford to pay the increase which is suggested, but at the same time, there are many farmers who cannot do so. If statistics could be obtained of the condition of the industry during the last few years, you would find that the large farmer with good soil, in spite of the restrictions, has made very large profits; and also the small farmer on moderate soil in many districts has made not very large profits. It costs just as much to grow 3 quarters of wheat on some land as 5 quarters on other land. As long as you accept the principle of a flat rate for the agricultural labourers wage you must do a great deal of injustice to some people and you must let off some others extremely lightly. But it is quite certain that unless the Government will at this period safeguard the interests of agriculture, under these conditions of high wages and poor land in some districts, the labourers wage will have to suffer or there will be fewer of them employed on this land. I must almost apologise for the referring to agriculture in the way I do. Before the War ploughed land was laid down to grass, not as some people think because the farmer liked to do it for a hobby, but because it did not pay as arable. There is no other reason. I have been farming for a great many years and I can remember well the time when the agricultural labourers' wage was only 15s. a week at the same time that wheat was being sold inthe market for 20s. a quarter. It did not pay me anything like as well to grow wheat then as when agricultural wages had risen to 35s. I was growing wheat at that time at an absolute loss, and in 1892 and 1893, when wheat was at its lowest, the farmers in my district, instead of selling it for human consumption were feeding their cattle and their pigs on it.

I only put this question before the House because I want to know what the country wants. Does it want to return, to that condition?Wheat is the foundation crop of British agriculture. In a great many parts of this country wheat and beans are the only crops that can be grown. We want to know what the country wants. Of what advantage is it if, after ail this legislation, the effect is that you, reduce the numbers working on the land? There is not the smallest doubt as to what the Government's policy was during the War so long as there was some danger to the country. I took the opportunity the the other day of looking up a speech which was delivered in this House by the Prime Minister on 23rd February, 1917. He said: No doubt the State showed a lamentable indifference to the importance of the agricultural, industry, and to the very life of the ration, and. that is a mistake which must never be repeated."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd February, 1917, Vol. 90, col. 1398.] Speaking of the farmer, he said: You must give him confidence. It is no use promising him big prices for next year and then dropping him badly for the next few years."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd February, 1917, Vol. 90, col. 1600.] That was the policy of the Prime Minister in 1917. I went a little further in my researches and I found a speech which was delivered on the Second Reading of the Corn Production Bill by the then Parliamentary Secretary for the Board of Trade, who is now the Minister of Food. At that time he was a Labour representative in the Coalition Government as a Labour Member, and he was speaking, as he stated, from the point of view of the agricultural labourer. On 24th April, 1917—the date in question—he said: I veature to submit that the only possible security will come when this country is self-contained and able to produce its own food necessities….Who will deny that the neglect of agriculture in the past and our extreme dependence upon overseas supplies is the main cause of weakness in this war…..I therefore, respectfully submit that one of the lessons that we have learned from this war is that agriculture in the future shall not be neglected. It must be regarded as a matter of primary concern to the State…..You will not attract men to the land under existing conditions."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT. 24th April, 1917, Vol. 92, cols. 2303–4.] If the Government and the country do not want to attract men to the land, let them tell us so. What cant and hypocrisy it is for this House, for the country, and for the newspapers to suggest that they are going to ask soldiers and others to settle on the land if they are not going to give some security to agriculture in the future. I referred earlier in my remarks to the attitude taken up by those who directly represent labour on the wages, boards. I understand their demand—with which I sympathise entirely—for an increased minimum wage for the agricultural labourer was based almost entirely on the rise in the cost of living and on the rising standard of life of the agricultural labourer. But I think we must take into consideration also the cost of production and the profit of the industry for those who have invested their capital in it. We have the instance of the railways before our minds. It was brought to our notice, in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, who introduced the Ways and Communications Bill. We know that the average minimum pre-war wage of 33s. for the railway labourer is about 49s. to 50s., and the right hon. Gentleman told us that the railways represent a loss at the rate of £2,000,000 a week or £100,000,000 per annum.

I do not know whether the Government are prepared to treat the agricultural industry in the same way that they are treating the railways. Is the Government prepared to say, "No matter what the wages are, we have a long-suffering taxpayer behind us who is willing to supply £100,000,000 in order to pay the wages of the agricultural labourer." If that is the position, let them say so, and let us know clearly where we are. If you do not take some notice of economic laws, it is quite certain that the cold grip of economic laws will come in at some time or other. You can carry on by assisting economic laws and getting the best out of them that you can, but if you ignore them I am quite convinced that whether it is in railway management, in agriculture, or in coalmining, the economic laws will turn some time or other and destroy you. It is not a question of what the position is at the moment. We have been assured by the hon. Gentleman who represents agriculture so admirably in this House that, at any rate for this harvest, we are to be safeguarded by the Government, but that is not enough. We want to know what is the policy of the Government in regard to agriculture, so as to be able to attract men to the land instead of the men taking up employment elsewhere.

I have been asked, and it is a very frequent question, what one would do, what is the best thing to do to give this safeguard. I have quoted from the speech of the Prime Minister in 1917. I know that that speech was made when the country was in great danger; I know that he wanted at that time to get Parliament to accept a certain policy in regard to agriculture, and for that reason he may have produced arguments which in other times he would not have done, but I can hardly think that is the case, otherwise it would lead me to have a very poor opinion of the Prime Minister. I have not a poor opinion of him. What I want him to do at the present time is to tell us definitely, in exactly the same wayas he did two years ago, that the policy of the Government is that it shall not neglect agriculture in the future.

I have tried to put the point of view of the agricultural labourer, because I am convinced that his interests are identical with the interests of the industry in which he gains his livelihood. I have ever since I have been in this House represented a purely rural constituency, and I have been sent to this House largely by the votes of agricultural labourers in my Constituency. If anybody thinks that on this occasion I am out either to get votes or to retain them, they are perfectly welcome to that idea, but I can assure them I do not do it with any motives of that kind. I have the greatest possible regard for the agricultural labourers of the country. I have amongst them many close personal friends. I have always found them men of broad-minded views, with a great sense of duty, and loyal to their calling. I think that they gain some of their charm from being always at work in close contact with nature, which never does anyone any harm. If I can do anything for them as their Member I shall always try to do it, knowing perfectly well that if they choose at any time to select someone to take my place they are perfectly at liberty to do so, and the only wish I should have in that event would be that they would get a representative who would much better serve them than I do. I have put the case on their behalf, because I know they are the backbone of British agriculture. It is no use at this late stageof agricultural discussion to go into the questions of the physical condition of the people and into the question of the towns being constantly recruited from the country. That is a fact, and it is a fact we ought always to bear in mind. I implore the House to unite with the agricultural representatives in this, House to safe- guard the interests of agriculture upon which, whether in peace or in war, so much of the welfare of this country depends.

Major LANE-FOX

I do not think there is any need to apologise for again bringing agriculture before this House after the recent discussion. I think we are justified by the fact that on the previous occasion and on a good many previous occasions we have tried in vain to get a definite announcement by the Government as to what their policy would be as regards the future of agriculture. I hope to-night that the definite announcement will be made, and that before we finish this discussion we shall have some greater knowledge as to the policy for the future than we have obtained on other occasions. Farmers are getting very disheartened. They want to know their position. They have the future of their farms to consider, they have their programmes to set out and their whole policy to decide, and unless they know whatthe future policy of the Government is to be and what are the lines of action the Government wish them to take, it is absolutely impossible for them to put any energy or any money into their farms, or to settle on and carry out any fixed definite policy. We have had on other occasions many pleasant assurances and smooth words, but those pleasant assurances and smooth words amount to nothing, and if nothing is to be done, that is far worse than telling the farmer now straight out that the Government have absolutely nothing for him, that the Government have no hope for him, and that he can go back to the old bad days and try to raise a certain amount of meat and milk and to struggle along as best he can. The Parliamentary Secretary with perfect courtesy and studied vagueness has put us off in the most pleasant and agreeable manner, but this subject will be raised again and again until we get a definite answer. The time is passing and the Board of Agriculture do not seem to realise that this question which is being brought forward now is intended to be brought to their notice until we get an answer. It is impossible to leave things as they are now.

I hear that a circular has been sent round to various war agricultural executive committees stating that all ploughing-up orders are cancelled, also that the supervision of farmswill not be carried out so long as they are kept reasonably free from weeds, and that as an ample supply of foreign corn is coming in now there is not such an urgent need as there was forgrowing a home supply. If that is a blunt blank announcement of the future policy of the Government, by all means let us have it here in this House. If that is the real policy which the Government wish to pursue why on earth tell the war agricultural committees and not the House? I hope that the hon. Gentleman will state now to the House what is the definite policy of the Government. The farmer wants to know before he can settle what he is going to do. He wants to know what is to be the labour position, how is the shortage of men to be settled, what are to be the arrangements in regard to hours and wages? He also wants to know what the Government are going to do about the prices that are going to be paid for corn, meat, potatoes, and other things; in other words, what is he going to do on his farm? Is he to produce a certain amount of milk with a little meat, and to grow cereals at a dead loss? There has never been such uncertainty in his position before.

The labour position is obviously difficult. Men are being demobilised from the Army, but are not coming back to agriculture. I partly blame for that the unemployment donation. I believe that the situation is improving, but as long as you go on paying men a considerable sum of money in order that they may do nothing, obviously a great many of them will continue to do nothing. I heard only the other day of a party of three girls who were working on a farm. One of them got rather bored and went away and got the unemployment donation. She wrote to her pals and said: "What fools you are! You are working hard and only earning 27s. 6d. a week. Here am I doing, nothing and getting 25s.!"Very naturally, one of the other two tried to do the same thing. It has the same effect on agricultural labourers. What the hon. Gentleman has. said aboutpaying the agricultural labourers as compared with other trades cannot be too strongly emphasised. We heard only the other day a speech made by an hon. Gentleman, one of those who are supposed specially to represent Labour—though I do not know why, because I contend that we all represent Labour: there is not one of us here who has not a very large proportion of labourers among his supporters—that the railwaymen are not prepared to be sweated in order that the public might be convenienced by cheap travelling. That is a perfectly reasonable thing to say, but does it not apply to other industries also I Why should not the same consideration be given to the agricultural labourer as to other classes? If you are going to allow a position in which the agricultural labourer cannot be employed because wages are too high or that else wages are to be put down to a scale corresponding to prices, then that it is a gross injustice to him. As much as anyone else he is entitled to afair return for his work.

As the hon. Gentleman has said, a great deal of grass has been ploughed up. Farmers were perfectly willing during the War to take these risks and make some sacrifice. I admit that they have not done badly, but they cannot go on, in view of the future, without some certainty as to what the position is going to be. Unless the Board of Agriculture can give us some assurance that growing cereals in this country will be profitable for farmers to continue, then undoubtedly a large proportion of the ground ploughed up will return to grass, and we shall be back to the old state of things. It is for the Board to decide, but I do plead again that they should decide before this afternoon is out, and let us know. If we are to employ a large proportion of labour on the land, something must be done to maintain the prosperous condition of the agricultural community. It is a perfect farce to pretend that you are going in for any large scheme of settlement for soldiers coming back if all the time weknow perfectly well that you are not preparing for a position in which prosperous settlement on the land will be possible. It is a most dishonest thing to do to invite these men to come back, as we all want them to come back, knowing all the time that we are making no preparations for their prosperity. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to give us some definite announcement as to the policy of the Government.

Lieutenant-Commander WILLIAMS

It is with some considerable fear that I rise for the first time to address this House, and I ask you to give me the usual indulgence which you give to a new Member. I have the good fortune to represent one of the largest agricultural divisions in the West of England, and I follow in the footsteps of a Member who at any rate knew as much about agriculture as the average Member of the House of Commons. I have listened to the two previous speakers. Both of them are very unhappy as to the future possibilities of agriculture in this country. At the last General Election we were told by the Prime Minister and others, and we in turn told our constituents, that it was absolutely essential in the immediate future that the whole of the agricultural policy of the country should be reformed. I cannot see how that can be done by subsidising the production of corn. It may be a help; it may be a temporary alleviation of the trouble. To my mind you must go right down to the root of the question and see if you cannot make agriculture permanently prosperous in every way. I have always believed that to get the best out of the agricultural labourer you must make it easier for him eventually to become the owner of the land he cultivates. I would like to impress as strongly as I can on the members of the Government—perhaps they may want some little encouragement—that, though we may bring forward this Bill, yet unless the Bill is based on continually increasing the numbers of the cultivating owners of the land in the future our position as a nation is hopeless in this respect. We are told that you will have a very increased number of smallholders in this country. I do not think it would be altogether wise to take from towns men who have absolutely no knowledge of agriculture and place them on small holdings in any part ofthe country you may choose. The policy which would be best to follow would be to encourage the men who are already on the land and who know their job to stick on the land and produce according to the best of what they know.

To do that you have got first of all to make it easier for them to get a bit of land. There are, I believe, possibilities of obtaining land under the Small Holdings Act. There are also ways of obtaining land by direct intercourse with the present owner. I believe that many of us who have had a very close connection with the agricultural labourer during the last four years, though we may have lived with him before, have come very much closer to him than before, and we wish that his whole position may be made stronger and better, and thatit may be easier for him to obtain the land which he does desire more than anything else. You cannot hope to get him and his children to remain on the land with the attractions which the town offers, and the attractions which the Government itself have held out by high wages in aeroplane factories, docks, and other places, and the attractions of picture shows and things of that sort, unless you can give him on the land definitely better attractions than the towns have got. Otherwise, he will go to live in the town. The only attraction which I can see which will be sufficiently strong will be to give him facilities to obtain land, first in small quantities, perhaps half an acre, and then making it possible for him continually to increase his holding until he may have forty or fifty acres, or perhaps a large farm.

5.0 P.M.

But before you can hope to make agriculture permanently prosperous, one of the first obstructions you must take away is the enormous cost which our legal friends have artificially set up with regard to the buying and selling of land. I have followed closely the system in Canada. We had set up in this country some few years ago a very expensive, costly, and not very profitable system of registration of land for the purposes of taxation. Icannot see why those same offices should not, with a very little change, be altered so that the whole of the land of this country is automatically registered, and anyone can find out exactly whom the land belongs to on payment of a small fee to keep thoseoffices running. Then, when that is done, any two men can buy and sell land as freely and easily as any other article of commerce to-day. That system works fairly well in Canada; it works fairly well in other countries. Then, again, if the man whom you propose to put on the land to work it is to prosper in the future, it must be made far easier for him to get the goods which he produces from the country into the markets. That is absolutely essential, and I do hope that in the new Ways and Communications Bill, which will probably be costly, and which may not be quite such a success as some of the hon. Gentlemen on my right think it may be, will, at any rate, give increased facilities for us to bring our goods from the country districts to the market. When wehave got them there, I maintain that it is the duty of the Government in the immediate future to do all that they can to protect those markets—not in the case of food—from the foreigner, so that, instead of having low-paid, badly-conducted British industries in our big towns, the men in those big towns may be well paid, and a big demand may be created for the products of the country districts. I think, if I may be allowed to say so, that beyond that particular point there is one question of vital importance, which was brought up the other day. It is a financial question, and one of very great interest to those of us who live in the country districts, especially in the South of England. Under any future control of the railways of this country, it is absolutely essential, if we are to give a through preference to anyone, it should be given to our own people, and especially our people living in agricultural districts, and not to the foreigner, over the Englishman living in this country. I should like to thank the House for the way in which they have listened to me. I do not pretend to be an agricultural expert, but I have had the fortune to live in a country district, and I do hope, and I think everyone in this House hopes, that in the immediate future the whole of those districts may be placed on a basis of permanent prosperity, and not left to lump it as the Governments of the past have left them.

Mr. G. A. TALBOT

I rise with some diffidence to address the House for the first time, but I have been in it long enough to see the kindness which new Members receive, and what I may call the hospitality extended to them, and so I address it in the confidence that what I say will be listened to with attention. I wish to approach this subject of agriculture from a rather different point of view. Nobody who has listened to the previous speeches in this Debate can fail to see that at the present time agriculture is disorganised, and that as far as we can see, if nothing is done, it will become still further disorganised. The cause of that disorganisation is, I may say, in a great measure the interference of the State in the industry. In the first place, one of the matters which has disorganised it is the rise in wages. I may say at once that the farmersI represent have no objection to that at all. The farmers that I have met will be quite willing that wages should be raised, because we shall get a better class of labourer. They have in some cases objected to the system of overtime being stopped, but on the wages question the agriculturists whom I represent are quite satisfied. Another matter leading to disorganisation is the ploughing up of pasture. I am a member of the county agricultural executive committee, and I have gone round to persuade farmers to plough up their land. They have done that willingly and loyally in the interest of the country, and neither the farmer nor the landowner, knowing that it was in the interest of the country, objected. But it meant State interference. I admit that allthis was necessary because the War was going on, and because the price of food had to be regulated and supplies obtained in anxious times. But now that the War is over, I think everyone will admit that we must do what we can to reorganise this industry for the good of the country. In the first place we must reorganise it because it is the largest employer of labour in the country, and therefore it is absolutely necessary in the interests of all classes that we should reorganise it as successfully as we can. We must also reorganise it for the sake of increased production. In all these discussions which have taken place lately we have heard that increased production is necessary in order to establish the better financial position of the country. That will notbe denied, and if agriculture is more productive it is more to the benefit of the country in every respect than importing food from outside. What is essential for the reconstruction and reorganisation of this industry? The one thing necessary, in the first place, is information. We must have information as to the policy the Government wish to pursue. Everybody who knows anything about agriculture knows that you cannot settle to-day what you are going to do to-morrow.

You must settle to-day what you are going to do for the next two or three years, and the agriculturist must be in a position to know what style of farming he is to pursue—whether it be corn growing or the raising of stock or of small products—in order that he may organise his industry and be successful in the future. Therefore I say without hesitation that one of the chief things we want to know is the policy which the Government are going to pursue for the next three or four years. If agriculture is to succeed another thing that we must have is information as to cost. Information is necessary for all classes that are engaged in agriculture. It is necessary for the landowner who has his own farm—generally run at a loss for the benefit of the neighbourhood; it is necessary for the farmer; and it is necessary, most of all, for the smallholder. In the county from which I come we have started committees to push forward the acquisition of land by smallholders. Committees have been started and are working successfully for selecting land and interviewing smallholders and settling them on the land that is most suitable for them. That is working satisfactorily. They have also determined to have an inspector to go round these small holdings and assist by advice or information the smallholders in order that they may carry out their work properly. But there is another matter in this respect that is very much more important and absolutely essential if these small holdings are to be successful—that is information as to what cropsshall be grown or what products raised, and the cost of their production, so that the smallholders may determine for themselves what they shall grow and what it will pay them best to grow. That determination of cost, as everybody knows who has had any experience of agriculture, is a very difficult matter indeed. The manufacturer can tell from time to time what his products cost him, but it is very difficult, indeed almost impossible, for any individual to say what a certain crop or what a certain operationcosts from one year to another, so that he may be able to determine what pays best. That information can only be collected by collaboration, over large areas and over a series of years. I submit that the only way in which this, information can be securedis by some action taken by the State.

I am sure I do not wish to advocate the formation of any further Government Department. Nobody who listened to the Debate yesterday would wish to start new Departments or new officials. But we have already the Board ofAgriculture, and I am informed, after inquiry, that it is in a position to collect and supply information, as to the cost of growing different products. It may be argued that this should be done by the farmer or the landowner, but, as I have said, it is very difficult for any individual to determine successfully the cost of raising any agricultural product. It is sometimes said that the farmer is very ignorant or very pigheaded. I should like to quote something which I heard from the late Sir John Lawes at Rothamsted when I went there to inspect, his experiments. We know that he was one of the greatest agricultural experts in the country. I asked him who would benefit most by his experiments, and he said, "Well, the people who will benefit least are the English farmers, because they knew more before." I submit that the English farmer in his way knows his business as well as anybody else, but this matter of cost, which is now becoming such a serious one, is almost out of his reach, and he must be assisted in it by the State if it is to be done successfully. It has been argued that agriculture should not be sacrificed to other industries or other interests, and I feel perfectly certain that it is the wish of all classes of the community, and I am sure ofall parties in this House, that agriculture should be made successful, as it can be, by every possible means, and for the benefit of all classes.

I may say that, knowing as I do what farmers have done in the past, they have a great claim to assistance and direction from the State, for they have made very great sacrifices in ploughing up their pastures. I have heard the Noble Lord the President of the Board of Agriculture on various occasions give them credit for patriotism, public spirit, and industry in making that sacrifice of their pastures for the good of the State. Therefore I have no hesitation in saying that if there is one class which deserves some consideration—I do not say any concession, but some consideration—it is the class who inthis time of trouble assisted us in supplyng the food of the country at a very critical time. They have a further claim because, now that the land has been ploughed up, it has become very much diminished in value, and, owing to difficulties in regard to labour, the transport of fertilisers, and so on, it is very difficult to get it back into an effective state of cultivation. That, I think, cannot be denied. With regard to general policy other questions, of course, arise. What is to be the future of agriculture? Is it to be carried on by subsidies or is it to be protected? I take it for granted that it is not the intention of this House or this country to let agriculture fail. Agriculture will be carried on, and I feel perfectly certain that this House is quite willing that it should be carried on. But if any State assistance is given, there is not the least doubt that efficiency will be demanded from those who cultivate the land. It is necessary that we should give them the opportunity of having that efficiency, and the only way of giving them efficiency is to supply them with information as to the cost of the different products of their land. I would ask the hon. Gentleman who represents the Board of Agriculture to consider very carefully whether they couldnot forthwith start a costing de- partment, which should have branches at different centres with the latest information available for agriculturists, so that they may cultivate their land to the best advantage.

Nobody who has any experience of small holdings can look upon this matter without some misgiving. In my county small holdings, as a whole, have been a success, but I can say, as one who has inspected them and taken an interest in them, that a good many are a failure. We have every wish that they should be carried on successfully, and it would be a calamity if we settled upon the land men who have fought for us gallantly and if their work and labour were a failure. I am bound to say that during the election, when addressing farm labourers or agricultural labourers, and when speaking about small holdings and the facilities that would probably be given for obtaining them, I did not get much encouragement or much applause. They knew the difficulty of working small holdings under present conditions. Those difficulties are real, and if small holdings are to be a success, as we all hope that they will be, there is not the least doubt that the men who work them must have all the information and all the assistance that can be given them by the Board of Agriculture. I feel perfectly certain that all the Members of this House of every party are only too willing that this matter should be carried through, so that agriculture may be successful. I remember a very eloquent speech by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Norwich (Mr. G. H. Roberts) in the autumn. He quoted the amount that we spent in 1913—it was some millions of money—upon importing food and corn, and he said that he was quite sure that it was not to the interest of this country that we should spend all this money upon importing food. We should do all we could to push forward agriculture in the interests of the labouring classes as well as in the interests of others. I am ashamed to say that in this respect we are very much behind other countries. In the United States, for instance, they have set up a department, and information as to the cost of the different products is available to all. In Germany they were very much more advanced than we were before the War. Therefore, for the sake of the honour and credit of England, which in the past has had some success as an agricultural country, I would beg the representative of the Board of Agriculture most earnestly, in the interests of agriculture, to set up a costing department, giving information to all classes.

Mr. PRETYMAN

I do not wish to weary the House with a further long disquisition upon agriculture, nor do I desire, and I do not think that any of us desire, at this particular period to add to the difficulties of the Government, which are great enough. If the Government had only been content to leave agriculture and the agricultural community to try and struggle through on their own, we should not have to come here and ask the Government for their consideration. But the Government have taken the responsibility of interfering with agriculture—I do not say that they were not obliged to do so owing to war conditions—and have created for themselves a responsibility, we are bound to ask them to fulfil that responsibility. I should like, in the first instance, to show how the Government have dealt with agriculture in ways which are not quite fully understood by the public. When, for instance, the Government fixed maximum prices for agriculture, or when they fixed minimumprices under the Corn Production Act, I well remember the great flourish in the Press and among those who knew nothing about agriculture, proclaiming the enormous advantage those minimum prices were going to confer on agriculture. Everybody who had any real experience of agriculture knew perfectly well at the time that the Bill was before the House that there was no human probability that any of those minimum prices would ever operate to the extent of one penny, and they never have operated. The impressionwas created in the public mind, however, that by putting those minimum prices upon paper an enormous benefit was being conferred upon the agricultural industry. That kind of impression prevails, and where agriculture is in a difficulty it is supposed to be the industry's own fault. There is an impression amongst those who are not agriculturists that the country is making sacrifices for the sake of agriculture.

Let me give one instance of the way agriculture and those interested in it are dealt with by Government Departments. I do not say by the Board of Agriculture, because our greatest trouble is that we are not dealt with by the Board of Agriculture, but by about fourteen other Government Departments, who all work with agriculture as they like. My complaint with the Board of Agriculture is not that it ill-treats agriculture, but that it does not sufficiently stand up against other Government Departments. Let me take the interesting case of wool, and let me show how it has been dealt with by the Government and how it affects the industry and the country as a whole. The wool is first produced by the farmer and the shepherd. It is next commandeered by the War Office at a price below the cost of production. I have been into the matter very closely, because I happen to have been President of the National Sheepbreeders'Association. I have had to go into all these figures most carefully, and I can tell the House with full responsibility that the wool has been commandeered below the cost of production. The, wool having been commandeered below the cost of production, part of it, very properly, is used for the manufacture of khaki and the remainder, which is not required for the making of khaki, is sold to the manufacturer at a large profit by the Government. May I say, incidentally, that that appears to me to be taxation which is unauthorised by Parliament. I have never yet heard any authority given by this House for the imposition of that indirect tax upon the consumer and the farmer. The manufacturer having got the wool, he proceeds to turn it into cloth, and a good deal of light was thrown upon the matter by a very interesting speech that we had yesterday from the hon. Member who represents Dewsbury (Lieutenant-Colonel Pickering), who told us that the manufacturer who wanted to make an extra shilling profit on a yard of cloth put on an additional price of 5s., of which the Government took 4s. in Excess Profits Duty, leaving him a shilling for himself. Then we get to the next stage, when it passes to the wholesaler, who has a similar transaction and a similar Excess Profits Duty. Possibly the retailer has one as well. The Government in each case take 80 per cent. of the Excess Profits Duty. The result is that although the farmer has had his wool requisitioned below the cost, of production it is doubled or trebled in. price by the time that it gets to the consumer. The agricultural labourer who has produced the wool when he goes to purchase the coat which he wants to wear has to pay two or three times the proper price for it, not because the farmer who employs him has got an excess profit, but because the Government at three or four stages have taken a large profit on the wool on its way. What is the next stage? The next stage is that the agricultural labourer, very rightly and properly says, "If I have to pay so much for my coat, I must have more wages to pay for it." The Government say, "Quite right. The wages board will see that you get a much higher minimum wage. You are absolutely entitled to it. But we are not going to pay it out of the excess profits that we have made on the wool. The farmer must pay it, although the wool was taken from him below the cost of production."That is an instance of the way in which the Government deal with the agricultural industry. I say that the Government, having taken the responsibility of fixing these prices, must take the responsibility of seeing that the industry is able to pay the wages which are a consequence of the high prices which the Government themselves have caused.

Here is another small instance. The War Office have commandeered a large quantity of hay. Hay in this country is very badly required on the farms, and every stack of hay, particularly in the light land district where I live, is precious. In many dry seasons we get no hay. We cannot grow permanent pasture. We have to plough up land and put in temporary pasture. Some seasons we get a hay crop, and some seasons we do not. When we get a hay crop we preserve our hay most jealously in case we do not get a crop the next season. The Government come along and commandeer our hay in the natural interest—I do not complain—and they pay a controlled price for it. I had two stacks of hay commandeered. I do not complain, although I very urgently required the hay for farming an area of poor light land. When the Armistice came and the demand for hay for the Army was reduced, many farmers like myself immediately asked that some of our hay might be released from requisition, because we considered it more in theinterests of the nation that we should be able to use it to feed our stock than that it should be taken by the Army and possibly re-sold. Some of the hay has been released. I have had a stack released, and, curiously enough, this morning I received from the War Office a little bill of £6 6s. 8d. for releasing me a stack of hay.

There is a stack still standing on my home farm. The Government have never paid me one single farthing for it. I am about to use that hay to feed my own stock, and I have grown it and have paid agricultural labour to help me, and I am now asked to pay the Government £6 6s. 8d. Here is the bill, and I see that it is for the costs of commandeering. This is a case where I venture to appeal to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to stand between me and my brother farmers and the War Office. I shall not pay this bill until my hon. Friend has assured me that he is unable to get it remitted. I have heard of a similar case with regard to straw. I really think whorethe farmer produced articles for his own use on his own farm that he should not be charged by the War Office for their expenses in having to commandeer it before they released it. I do not mean to labour this point, but that just shows the kind of spirit,and that is what I dislike, in which Government Departments deal with agriculture. I am glad to see present the right hon. Gentleman who was lately Food Controller (Mr. Clynes), and who through that obtained a very great insight into agriculture and food questions. I read with very great pleasure the speech which he made yesterday, and in which he distinctly stated to the House that in his belief it was absolutely necessary, if we were to maintain our industries and our position in this country, to increaseproduction. That really is the crux of the whole matter. If the agricultural industry is to pay the continued minimum wage, or, as everybody desires to see, to pay a still higher minimum wage, it is absolutely necessary that it should be done in one of three ways, either better prices should be obtainable for the produce, or the produce must be produced at a lower cost, not at all by reduction in labour, or we must be enabled by some kind of State assistance to increase production in a greater proportion than the cost of producing that increase.

We hear constantly from those who are so ready to tell the farmer how to improve his position that what we want is intensive cultivation. I have seen so much of it and heard so much of it that I know perfectly well what intensive cultivation means. It means spending a sovereign to get so much more produce as you would sell for 10s. Anybody could show how by intensive cultivation you are going to get bigger production; but that is not what you want. No doubt that bigger production would be good for the nation, but if that bigger production is produced at a cost which exceeds the additional value of the crop, then it is not economic, and you cannot get the farmer to undertake it. The real test of successful production, from the point of view of the industry, is not how much you get on an acre, but what balance there is in the value of each unit produced over the cost of production. Take meat. On an English farm you will get three or four times more production of meat per acre than you will get on a ranch in the Argentine, but the man on the ranch in the Argentine can undersell the intensive farmer in this country in beef because he produces each animal at an infinitely less cost under the conditions there than the farmer can produce meat here under the intensive cultivation conditions in this country. Exactly the same thing would apply if you tried to grow wheat in a garden. Everybody knows that a garden is cultivated intensely and more so than a farm, but does anybody suggest that a gardener with his intensive cultivation growing a small plot of wheat could compete with a large farmer growing wheat under less intensive conditions, but at the same time under conditions which enable him to produce each unit of wheat ata cheaper cost than the gardener, although the gardener has got more on his half acre than the farmer has on any half acre on his large farm. That is where intensive cultivation fails, because it only goes half way, I am not opposed to intensive cultivation provided that those who advocate it will make the increased produce grown more than cover the cost of that intensive cultivation. If that is understood, I think it will go a long way to remove misapprehension.

As regards the agricultural labourer, I think it might perhaps be interesting, in view of what is happening to make not an invidious but a friendly comparison between him and the miner. We have at this moment very vividly the position of the miner before us, and we have, every one of us, seen the miner's case put before the country. What is the case the miner puts before the country? He puts the case that he has a moral right to a better standard of living and to more leisure, mainly because his industry is a hard one and a risky one. I do not thinkI misstate the case in saying that. But not only has the miner a moral right, and a recognised moral right, to those advantages and improvements, but he has also the material means to get them, pretty simply, because when his wages are raised the price of coal is immediately and consequentially raised to the consumer, so that the industry can bear the increased wage which has to be paid by shifting it on to the consumer. I claim that the agricultural labourer has just as much moral right to a betterstandard of living and more leisure as the miner. I was amused to see in one of the discussions which took place before the Mining Commission a comparison which was drawn between the conditions of the miner and the conditions of the agricultural labourer,and the one instance selected as a soft job in agriculture was that of the shepherd. The miners are asking for a six-hours day and a very high wage. I should rather like to see one of the miners spending the month of March with a shepherd lambing down a flock of four hundred ewes. [An Hon. Member: "Why not put a miner there?"] Because all the sheep would die. [An HON. Member: "A mine-owner!"] A mine-owner either, if you like. I am not finding fault with the miner. Nobody has a greater admiration for him than I have. They are a fine body of men and we are all proud of them, and why should they not have the improved wages and leisure if they can get them. I am speaking of the agricultural labourer, who is just as fine a man as the miner. [An Hon. Member: "We agree!"] And has just as much moral right. The difference is that the miner has not only the moral right but the material, because he can shift the improvement on to the consumer, while the agricultural labourer, who has as much moral right, has no materialmeans by which the money can be found. That is the difficulty. If the Government impose a minimum wage it is their duty to see that the material means are there to pay it. I venture to say that it is deceiving the country and agricultural labour or any other form of labour to put a minimum wage on. It is like putting a price on paper, and to make the country and the Government responsible for that wage being paid without being absolutely certain that there is sufficient money in the industry to pay the wage which has been imposed. In other words, what happens? What is the use of promising a man a minimum wage when the only result is that he is discharged and gets no wage at all because there is not sufficient money to pay him. How is that going to help him?

I venture to lay down this proposition, that it is and must be a definite responsibility on any Government which imposes a minimum wage or a maximum price that it must ensure to those who are to receive the minimum wage that that wage is payable, and that it must ensure to the industry to whom the price is guaranteed that there shall be a market in which those engaged in the industry can obtain that price. Otherwise it is all smoke and hot air and the industry cannot live upon that. The Government have already taken that responsibility and that is why we are pressing them now. My hon. Friend, who made a very admirable speech in opening this Debate, pointed out that the agricultural industry is not like any other industry. There is no industry in whichyou have got to look so far ahead as agriculture or in which you have to fight the weather as you have in agriculture. Look at this month. I venture to say that there are thousands of acres of heavy land which will not be sown this year at all, and, as far as I have heard, not a single acre has been sown with oats yet, and it ought to be in in the first week in March. There is a little in on the light land. Here we have had forty-eight hours more rain, and as to what will happen I tremble to think. The farm labourer has got a minimum wage which apparently falls on the farmer, but it also falls on the labourer from the point of view I have been stating, because if the farmer cannot make enough to pay the wage then it will fall on the labourer who will sufferas well as the farmer. Agriculture is an endless circle. I listened with great interest just now to the speech of an hon. Member who suggested that we should have a Government Department to get out the costs of each particular crop. I venture to say it would be as easy to square the circle. It is the same problem as trying to tell what is the actual cost of any crop in any field. It is literally squaring the circle, because agricultural operations are an endless circle. Every crop contributes something tothe crop which follows it and owes something to the crop which precedes it. You have got to value in and to value out and the real value in and value out must be a matter dependent upon circumstances which no man can foresee. People, for instance, talk about stock farming as if it were a different kind of farming from that of grow- ing cereals, but you cannot grow stock on arable land unless you grow cereals. How are you going to keep stock without straw? It is impossible. You cannot shift your farm about according to some political nostrum of the moment. You have got to farm your land according to the local conditions of the district in which you live, because you may alter the laws of man, but you cannot alter the laws of nature. The farmer has to deal more directly with nature than any other industry. You may do what you like in this House, but the Government cannot alter the weather or the quality of the land by one hair, and the farmer has got to deal with the weather and the land, and they are inexorable. Therefore, all that the Government can do is to give him what help they can, and try and realise his difficulties.

I do appeal to this House to try to realise what the difficulties of agriculture are. There are two definite principles, and the House has got to choose between them. One definite principle, which, I think, we have always accepted here, is that it is desirable that the people of this country should be able to obtain the necessaries of life at the cheapest possible price, and an addendum to that, which, I think. I heard stated from the Labour Benches, is that no industry ought to be carried on unless it can afford to pay a proper living wage to the labourers who are engaged in it. Now apply that to agriculture. You get the definite alternative principle, which has been very fully accepted by this country and House, and has been enforced upon us by the War, that you must cultivate all the land in this country, as far as you possibly can, and get the largest amount of produce out of it. Those two principles come into direct issue on poor land. You cannot get more than a certain amount of produce off poor land on the average, do what you will. In 1917, I grew 400 acres of oats, and I have not one single bushel of oats to sell. The land was well farmed. It was the doing of the Almighty, and not of man. We had a. drought in the summer and a wet harvest, and not only was there not a bushel of oats to sell, but there was not enough to keep the stock on the farm. In a season like that, on poor land, we cannot pay these very high—for that land—wages, which we are delighted to pay if we have got the money. We recognise the full moral right of the men to have a living wage, and to live under proper conditions, but we cannot pay the money if we have not got it, and if we are to farm this land at all we must have sufficient profit off it to pay the wages. It is for the country to decide between the principle that the industry of agriculture on poor and moderate land is not to be carried on, because the country desires cheap food and will not have cheap labour, and the principle that the land of this country must be cultivated. Therefore, some means must be found by which this poor and moderate land may grow a crop. That is what the Government have to decide, and they have to decide it for a long period ahead.

There is an idea that every farmer is making a large profit. I have no doubt whatever, as has been pointed out, that many farmers on good land have made considerable profits, and are making them now, but I would make one comment on that. They have grown the maximum of cereals to meet a national need, and the land is impoverished and run down, and a lot of what appears to be profit has got to go back into the land again. And, therefore, just as it is impossible to get the cost of a particular crop, so you cannot, merely by looking at a farmer's books, estimate what is the real position, and where he stands. I do enter that caveat. I have never been lucky enough to farm good land, but let us hope and believe that those who do farm good land have made a good profit, and boon able to pay more wages. But I say those who are farming poor land cannot do so. I have had notice of two large farms from two responsible tenants, each giving solelythe ground that he cannot afford to go on farming because he cannot find the money to pay the present minimum wage. Those two farms, of over 1,000 acres between them, will be on my hands next Michaelmas, and not an offer for them. That does not look as iffarming is profitable. My own experience in farming 4,000 poor acres through the War is that we have just been able to make ends meet. The question is, Can we go on or not? I hope we may continue as long as we can. We will do our very best. We have been farming all our lives and working with men doing their best, and who are the salt of the earth. At any rate, we have provided them with what, according to the evidence, the miners have not got. Labourers in my district have a five-roomed cottage, a garden, and pigsty. Their surroundings are not bad, anyhow. But we cannot get the money off the poor land, and unless the Government, who have put this minimum wage on us, and treated us in the way I have suggested, act up to the responsibilities they have undertaken, I tell them this minimum wage cannot be paid, and that tens of thousands of acres of this poor land will go out of cultivation. I do not believe that is the wish of the House, and I do not believe it is the wish of the country.

Mr. W. R. SMITH

I have been extremely interested in the way previous speakers have spoken on behalf of the agricultural labourer. One could have hoped that the great interest they seem to display at the moment had been displayed years ago, because I can say, from personalknowledge, that when the industry was in a condition to permit of better wages being paid those better wages were not forthcoming, and I am rather inclined to think that this great interest in the labourer at the moment is but a peg upon which they are attempting to hang their hat, in order to get consideration for their own specific point of view and their own specific remedy. I do not deny the need for this House to give a serious consideration to the question of agriculture in this country. It is an important question, and one that demands the development of a national policy. I think the country generally is of the opinion that this nation ought never to be faced with the same risk it was during the past four years, and that, if possible, we ought to grow the food that is necessary for the people, and it may be that that will not be possible unless there is established some national policy which will give to the industry some greater guarantee than exists at the present moment. Whether we be able to agreeon what the exact policy shall be is a matter of speculation, because I am inclined to think that those of us who sit in this part of the House will require to be convinced upon certain points before considering the advisability of adopting some suggestions that are put forward in order to save the industry of agriculture. We should want, I venture to say, something in the nature, possibly, of an inquiry similar to that which is taking place in connection with the coal industry. We should want to know if the industry is carrying more dead weight than is reasonable for it to do. We should want to know how far the land is being properly farmed, because some of us, who have been associated with the work of organising the agricultural labourers, in our travels through the country have seen fields that by no means suggest that good farming is the universal condition of the industry. When one sees fields growing three crops at a time, with the heads of the dock soaring majestically over the struggling corn and the competing thistles, showing evidence of a very bountiful supply of their species for the coming season, one is not convinced that the land of the country is being used in a way and fashion that is in the interests of the nation or in the interests of the industry of agriculture. It may be argued that these are the exception, but at least we should want to be assured that the land is being put to its proper use, is being properly cultivated, and that the principle of three crops in one field is not a paying proposition so far as agriculture is concerned.

I have always felt that our friends who speak on behalf of the farming interest in this country have always been far too ready to complain of their conditions. In fact, I think their readiness to complain has very largely destroyed their opportunity of getting a ready ear to any real grievance they may have. I think it would be well to concentrate on what are real difficulties rather than to put forward what, in my judgment, in one or two instances this afternoon have been more or less imaginary ones. It was suggested that the unemployed benefit now being paid is a serious handicap to the industry of agriculture. That means, if anything at all, that men are not prepared to go to work whilst they are receiving unemployed benefit. I want to say that that is a charge that ought not to be made unless it can be backed up with facts, and I am in a position to state at the present moment that labourers drawing unemployed benefit in the county of Norfolk are unable to obtain employment in the district in which they reside.

Major E. WOOD

My hon. and gallant Friend is not here; when he made that statement he gave facts in support of it.

6.0 P.M

Mr. SMITH

All I can say is, that I have put down a question asking for information, if possible, as to the number of agricultural workers who are drawing unemployed benefit. Possibly when that information is forthcoming, we shall be better able to say how far it has any real bearing on the question. But the real reason why I put it down was that I have been informed on reliable authority that labourers at the present moment are out of employment, and, although they have sought strenuously in their neighbourhood, they have not been able to obtain it. [An Hon. Member: "Where is that?"] That was in the village of Heacham in Norfolk, and when, as I say, we get this further information as to how far unemployed benefit is being drawn by men or women associated with agriculture, we shall be better able to say how far these charges are justified. I am more concerned at the present moment with the position of the agricultural labourer from the standpoint of his wages, and I want to put before the House the position in which the labourer is at the present moment. I happen to be a member of the Central Wages Board, and have taken part in the discussions of the past few weeks on the question of the labourers' wages. It is quite true that we have put forward a claim on behalf of the labourer for an increase of £1 per week on his present wages. We make no apology for putting that claim forward. We are convinced that a minimum wage of 50s. a week is absolutely essential if the labourer in the villages is to be assured of that standard of comfort in his home to which he is reasonably entitled. We have been told that this country is to be made a place fit for heroes to live in. Some of those heroes reside in the villages of this country. They are looking forward to a condition of things in connection with agriculture which will permit them to receive wages that will convey into their home life a far different state of things than that which obtained previous to the War. The previous speaker, in drawing comparisons between the miner and agricultural labourer, stated that there was one point in which the agricultural labourer had an advantage, and that was in connection with his cottage. He said that he had a very good cottage to live in, and a good piece of garden ground. That may apply in the districts with which that hon. Member is best acquainted. But it cannot be said to be a general condition so far as the agricultural labourer is concerned.

Mr. PRETYMAN

I guarded myself against claiming it to be universal. I was referring only to my district, and I was referring to the poverty of that district.

Mr. SMITH

I think it would be very undesirable to have it go forward that this condition of things has any general application in this country. I know cases where the housing conditions of the agricultural labourer are absolutely disgraceful. The accommodation is entirely inadequate. Growing boys and girls have to be herded together in the same bedroom in a way that makes it impossible for us to expect them to grow up the men and women that we should like them to be. I have known caseswhere the only ventilation of the bedroom came through the roof, which not only let in the sunshine but the rain as well. Umbrellas have had to be spread over the beds to prevent the children getting wet with the heavy rain. Overcrowding is prevalent in anumber of these districts. Some time ago I was discussing with a medical man in the county of Norfolk the position of the agricultural labourer with regard to the disease of consumption. I said it appeared to be a disease more prevalent in the industrialcentres. This gentleman was a medical officer for the county health insurance committee, and he informed me that consumption was as prevalent amongst the agricultural labourers as it was in the case of the town workers. [Hon. Members: "Worse!"] He said it ought not to be so, and the only explanation he could give of the fact was the wretched housing conditions and the overcrowding, which lowered the vitality of the workers, and which, coupled with low wages, made it impossible for the housewife to provide all that was so necessary and essential for the well-being of the family.

The agricultural labourer at the moment is attending to these things differently to what he did previous to the War. He has seen in the papers how other sections of labour are receiving consideration so far as their wages are concerned, and also in regard to their working hours. He is demanding that some of these advantages shall be brought into his life. He is taking this question very seriously—so much so that I would like tosay to the House in all sincerity and earnestness that we may have to face what is known as industrial unrest in the villages almost as intensified as we may have to face it in the towns. I happen to be an official of the Agricultural Labourers'Union. Letters are daily coming to our office showing the im- patience of the men in regard to this question of the advancement of their wages. Thirty shillings is an entirely inadequate sum for an agricultural labourer at the present time. It is not an adjustment that even corresponds to the increase in the cost of living. Although that is a phase of things which is not entirely absent from our claim, yet we want to point it out to the House and the country generally in order that the seriousness and importance of this question may be properly understood. The labourer is looking at his position not so much from the point of view of adjustment to the cost of living as he is from the establishment of a standard of comfort in his home that harmonises with his human needs. We have to face this fact, that whilst most other classes of labour previous to the War had their trade unions that secured adjustment approximating to a reasonable state of things, that did not appertain to the agricultural labourer.

Mention has been made that the wages previous to the War were in some districts 15s. It will be interesting to note how far what I am about to say bears out the suggestion that the farmers have the interests of their labourers at heart and desire to give them better conditions, if they can. It is well-known that agriculture was more flourishing just previous to the War than it had been for some years. In the county of Norfolk some of the agricultural labourers asked for an increase of wages from 13s. to 14s. They wererefused. When they went on strike they were kept out for months, because the farmers would not concede the shilling a week, making the total 14s. Therefore I cannot accept the suggestion that this great interest has always been displayed in the welfare ofthe agricultural labourer. Although the statement may be challenged, as it has been, that we have a special claim to speak on behalf of labour—and it might, I think, be quite true that hon. Members do represent in their constituencies large elements of the working classes—yet so far as any organised expression of labour goes, the trade unions are the natural channel through which, labour can express itself, and we are the special representatives.

HON. MEMBERS

No, no!

Mr. SMITH

We feel that such a claim as I put forward is a legitimate one. The labourers are just as anxious as are the farmers for something in the nature of a national policy in connection with agriculture. They recognise full well that unless the industry is flourishing that their position must necessarily be a precarious one, and they are, therefore, concerned with the prosperity of the industry itself. I hope, however, that the House will not view the question from the standpoint that the payment of good wages to the labourer is prejudicial to the industry as a whole. Every time the workers have asked for better wages they have always been told that if their claims are conceded the particular industry would be ruined. Concessions have been made from time to time, and it is interesting to note that the industries which are the most flourishing in this country are those which pay the highest wages, whilst those that are languishing are those where the lowest wages are paid. We look forward to the time when the labourer willbe placed upon a footing more or less equal with his fellow-workers, and we do not think that is possible unless and until his present claim has been conceded.

I would like to impress upon the hon. and gallant Gentleman who is representing the Government or the Board of Agriculture in this Debate the importance of considering this question from the standpoint of the unrest that exists in the villages of this country. Those of us who are associated with the labourers'own organisation have no desire that anything should take place which will prejudice the industry at this juncture when the atmospheric conditions have already made things very difficult indeed. But if we do get a change of weather, as I suppose we must have shortly, which will permit the land to be worked, and the spring crops to be sown, we have no desire that that work shall be in any way disturbed because of any dissatisfaction or unrest that exists amongst the labourers. At the same time I would like to impress the point upon all that thereis a real danger that this unrest will develop into an activity which is exceedingly undesirable unless the labourer is met in his claim for better wages. I very much regret that a deadlock has been reached so far as the Central Wages Board is concerned. Whether to-morrow's meeting will find a way out of the difficulty time alone will show. But I will say that we have a right to appeal to the Government on this question, for they are the custo dians at the moment of the nation's interest, and it is the interest of the nation that agriculture should flourish, and that nothing should be put in its way at this or any moment which will prevent its development. We do hope on this question of wages that they will be able to view it from the standpoint of thedesirability of the labourer having better conditions than he has enjoyed up till now. We do not think the claim we put forward represents anything more than necessary to give to him something which is comparable to his fellow workers in the other industries of the country.

Lieutenant-Colonel WHELER

The Huuse must, I think, rather regret the tone, at any rate, of the beginning of the speech of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. The situation of agriculture is far too serious at the present time, and We had—speaking myself as an agriculturist—hoped from the hon. Gentleman that we should get some suggestion and advice, and possibly some policy; but so far as I can see, while he quite rightly, from the point of view of the agricultural, labourer, put forward his claims, he has never touched at all on the great economic question which has got to be faced. There is no doubt about it that we cannot make any man produce a thing which it does not pay him to produce. Therefore, you cannot compela man to employ labour to produce an article which he knows, when produced, is going to cause him serious loss. Though I believe every man in this House wishes, and is most anxious—and has been—to see the whole standard of agriculture, and especially the standard of the agricultural labourer, improved in every possible way, we have to come to the bedrock of the whole question before we can deal with this matter. It is no good anyone putting forward one aspect only, without considering the broad aspect of the industry as a whole. Therefore there must be a feeling of regret that the hon. Gentleman who spoke last has not contributed anything to the Debate in the way of solving the difficulties of the situation in which we are placed. The weatheris now causing thousands of acres to remain under water, and this is undoubtedly increasing the seriousness of the situation, and if we are to get the spring corn in, all these circumstances are making the position more difficult and oven disastrous to agriculturists at the present time. On behalf of the agricultural association I represent in the City Chamber of Agriculture I wish to emphasise the urgent need on the part of the Government of a definite policy. No agricultural association or agriculturist knows how he is going to fare or what his prospects will be in a year's time. We are secure as regards prices for the next winter, but every agriculturist, whether he be owner, farmer, or labourer, must look further ahead than one year. While it is true that on the good land money is made and will be made this year, I venture to say as one who has been endeavouring to farm scientifically and to the best advantage poor land, that land cannot stand the increased wages, and, therefore, although we want to pay the labourer well we have not got it to pay with, and the result may be that the land must go out of cultivation again. The laying down of land to grass is not a cheap matter—in fact, it is very expensive. It means very great care, not for one but for several years, to see that the grass seeds are properly treated, so as to give it a chance of getting thoroughly established. The laying down to grass is not an undertaking which can be lightly taken up by any agriculturist at the present time. I am asked by the Central Chamber of Agriculture to urge very strongly upon the hon. Gentleman representing the Board of Agriculture that it is time we had a very definite policy put forward, so that agriculturists know how they stand, and in order that theymay make their plans for a year to come.

Allusion has been made to the speech of the Noble Lord who represents the Board of Agriculture in another place. In a speech last Tuesday the Noble Lord gave us some facts, and also a rather depressing summary of the situation, which he said was very difficult, but it was not entirely hopeless. He also said that something like 1,500,000 acres had been added to agriculture, and that there was a deficit of at least 150,000 men who were wanted for agriculture. Out of that 1,500,000 acres a very large proportion is not the very best land, because the very best land has been retained under cultivation, and, therefore, a very large percentage of that land will not, probably, pay in the ensuing year. Employment on the land is a very difficult question, and it is a question whether the farmer can afford to employ labour at the present crisis. Everybody wishes to see the condition of agriculture improved, but I am convinced—and it must be the opinion of every practical, thinking man in this House—that unless there is a definite policy it cannot be improved, because the security is not there. Agriculture suffers from the weather in a way no other industry does, and that fact has to be taken into consideration.All I wish to say is, I hope that before this Debate ends we shall have a definite statement from the hon. Gentleman representing agriculture in this House which will go forward as an encouragement to agriculturists, and I trust we shall then be able to continue our work during the coming year and maintain the standard which we have tried to maintain and bring agriculture up to during the War.

Lieutenant-Colonel WEIGALL

I wish at the outset to strenuously resent and refute the statement of the hon. Gentleman who spoke last, and who said that the interest taken in labour by those who represented agricultural constituencies in this House was an entirely newly-found one, and was merely a political hat-peg which they were using for their own interests. I havebeen in this House long enough to assure my hon. Friend that he is absolutely and entirely mistaken. I was enormously interested in my hon. Friend's speech, but if he will allow me, speaking for the National Agricultural Council, which represents all interests in this industry, I say that you cannot give any useful consideration to this question unless you recognise that the industry is a triumvirate, consisting of the landowner, the farmer, and the labourer, and all the three parts of the industry are absolutely interdependent one upon the other.

I wish to see the labourer have the highest standard of wages that the economic condition of the industry will stand, but, equally, I cannot put out of my mind that the same industry has also at the same time to find a fair rate of interest for the moving capital and for the skill and energies of the farmers, and a fair return for the landlord. My hon. Friend makes a fundamental mistake if he imagines that he is going to get 50s., 60s., or 70s. a week for the labourer, because all that depends whether the occupier and the owner are making sufficient from an economic point of view to carry on and provide a living for all those engaged in the industry. I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend on the Front Bench, and I feel that I owe him an apology, which I tender most fully now. For the last four weeks regularly for two days a week so much so that you, Mr. Speaker, have had to call me to order, I have deluged the hon. Member with questions on the agricultural situation, and he has always answered courteously, and no one recognises more than I do the difficulty of the position in which he is placed.

I want to add another to the appeals which have been made to the hon. Gentleman this afternoon, and I place it on a different ground. Every single hon. Member here who was returned to support the Prime Minister is fully pledged to see that the agricultural industry flourishes. We have that responsibility to our constituents. The Prime Minister, with all the Celtic fervour and the emotional eloquence he has at his command, told the country on three different occasions that it was the definite policy of his Government, if returned to power, to see that the agricultural industry never fell back to the state it was in in the 'seventies and the eighties. We carry that responsibility on our shoulders, and I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture to recognise that, as the mouthpiece of the Prime Minister, we are entitled to ask how these promises are going to be put into operation.

Then there, is another serious point. There is nothing so bad for the agricultural industry as a feeling of lack of confidence either in the words of the Prime Minister or in the Government Department which is responsible for agriculture. The agricultural industry is beginning to feel that they are going to be thrown over. I only want to say a word from the point of view of the labour position, which has considerably altered since the pre-war days. Then the agricultural labourer had not the advantage of the great organisation to which the hon. Member for Norfolk belongs or the Rural Workers'Union. He is now fully organised, and has the power of collective bargaining, which I am only too thankful to think he has got, and in my humbleway I have done everything I can to help and improve those organisations in the part of the world in which I am interested. I have obtained for them representation on the National Council, and they now have an equal right and can speak with unity and authority on the National Council. That is all to the good so long as collective bargaining is used only to improve the standard of life and the wages of the labourer, but if it is going to be used, as I am afraid it is being used, to engineer disturbance in the industrial world as well as the agricultural world, then I cannot be a party to advancing the interests of any one section of the agricultural community at the expense of the other. I say that because only this morning I received a letter from the secretary of the Agricultural Labourers'Union in the particular part of the world in which I find myself. The writer is a personal friend of mine who started life as an agricultural labourer, and he has worked himself up to the position of foreman on oneof the farms. He writes to me this morning as follows: The aim of my youth is political power to be used for constitutional purposes. If you prefer to resort to Bolshevism, well you must take the consequences. We would like to remind you that behind the labourers'union stands the railway union, and behind the railway union stands the miners, and behind all three stand the soldiers and sailors of the country. Our members run from hundreds into millions, and our aim is political power. It rests with you, gentlemen, in Parliament, how we obtain it. I must say that if that is the sort of thing that is being instilled into the agricultural labourer by those who are responsible for the organisation of his union, I want here and now, at the earliest moment, to denounce it with all the language at my command. Do let us make these men understand that their future depends entirely on the economic prosperity of this industry and that they cannot possibly swim by sinking either the farmer or the landlord. I have toldthe men over and over again that their one, salvation is to ensure that they join hands with the other two interests and that by that means and that means only can they ensure a prosperous future. There is nothing so pointless as to endeavour to use thesemen for political purposes. A lot of them have joined this union wholly unconscious that they are being made the tools of a political movement. All I want to point out to them is that if they will stick to those whose interests are theirs, who belong to the same industry as themselves, and who have lived all our lives among them, I think we can carry them much further than if they link themselves up with a movement which, if its aims and objects are attained and the final goal reached, means the end of the agricultural prosperity of the country.

In conclusion, I would point out to the House that it is no good our joining in a great campaign with organised labour on the one hand and farmers' unions and landowners' unions on the other. We shall never get any "forrader"by recriminations of that sort. Assuming that the wages fight goes on and there is no solution and you fight to the death, what happens? If the farmers win, the labourers go back to the time of 13s., 14s., and 15s. a week. None of us want to see that. If the labourers win, the farmer goes out of business. Again, where is the future of the industry? Do not let us recriminate in that way. Let us see if by joining hands we cannot impress ourselves so much on the country and on the Government that the whole industry will be placed on a sound economic basis. It is not for me, it is not for private Members here to say how this is to be done. I rely on the promises of the Prime Minister and on the performance of those promises. I most seriously urge the Parliamentary Secretary to realise that there is an extremely ugly feeling, not only among the farmers, but also among the labourers. Let my last word be this, that I hope by this discussion to-day we can bring all these three interests a little closer together and link them up in their own interest and go forward in this House and in the country to make the country feel that now the danger of war is over, at the same time it is up to the Government, in the interests of the nation as a whole and of this industry in particular, to see that neither the labourer on the one hand nor the farmer on the other is crushed out simply because the country has forgotten the history of the last four years.

Mr. HARRY HOPE

The agricultural industry has never been a spoon-fed industry, and no one at this time would advocate that it should become so. We know that in the past our industry has gone through many hard times. Perhaps the hardest times of all were the years 1893–4, when wheat fell to something like 22s. a quarter. No doubt some of the results of those bad prices were what the hon. Member opposite has told us this afternoon, namely, that the agricultural labourers were badly paid, badly housed, and brought to work under conditions under which they should not have been asked to work. But, on the other hand, we can fairly say that the farmers of this country, by their energy and enterprise, have successfully managed their business. We see that the production per acre of our crops and the quality of our stock has been higher and better than that of any other country in the world. Therefore, in the face of all these adverse circumstances, we can credit the farmers of this country with having done their part of the work fairly well. The War came, and we know what was done then. We saw that something like 3,000,000 acres were added to the cultivated area of the country. May not we say that the farmers responded loyally and properly to the obligations which rested upon them? All that ought to win for the farmers at this time the sympathetic consideration of this House. We see now that a new state of affairs is opened up. Personally, I welcome very much what was said by the hon. Member who spoke from the Labour Benches, namely, that the labourers now were determined to get better terms and higher wages. They are entitled to get those higher wages and better terms, and it is quite possible for all sections of the industry to combine together and secure that great result. We know that economic laws cannot be disregarded, and that unless the price of the produce is sufficiently high, the land cannot be kept under cultivation to that produce if adequate wages are to be paid.

Therefore, we are brought as practical men face to face with this question: How are you going in the future to enable these proper and adequate wages to be paid? We are bound to recognise that it is only possible if the prices obtained for the produce are compatible with those wages. It is not enough merely to consider what should be the fixed prices in the future for cereals. Cereals, after all, are not the pivotal crops in this country. I consider that our green crops are the pivotal crops, because any practical agriculturalist knows that if he goes on, year after year, growing cereal crops hisland will deteriorate and in a few years will grow nothing at all. If we are to consider how we are going to bring the best improvement to our agricultural position, we have to take into consideration the green crops. As I said at first, I am no believer in this industry being a spoon-fed industry. We who work in it have to exercise energy and enterprise in carrying it on and to make use of science in every direction where we can bring it in to help us. The green crop is the pivotal crop for our agricultural system, because without it the land cannot be kept in proper condition. As regards these green crops the Government can do a great deal to help us. For instance, they might do a great deal in connection with the potato crop. I am not asking them tofix prices for the 1919 crop of potatoes, although I should like to see them do it. But by establishing mills, if you found a large quantity of potatoes in excess of the natural requirements for which potatoes are grown, they could be utilised, and thereby farmers would be encouraged to grow more of that valuable crop. They might also establish sugar-beet factories. They would thereby bring into being an outlet for another green crop which would be of immense benefit to our agricultural system. Not only would it bring into existence an outlet for a green crop, but it would encourage the growing of leguminous crops, which would do an enormous amount of good in the way of improving the soil. In all these directions the Department of Agriculture might do a great deal to help us without in any way giving a dole.

There is a responsibility resting upon every cultivator of the soil at the present time. We want the proper and the best use to be made of it. No bad farmer should be allowed to occupy land in the country, and if we had, as the hon. Member for the Wellingborough Division (Mr. W. R. Smith) said, procedure brought into being whereby farming would have to be carried up to a certain standard of excellence, we should do a great deal to remove the feeling of unrest and suspicion to which he referred. On the other hand, I consider that farmers would benefit very much at the present time if they had more of what I might call security of tenure. We know that an enormous amount of land is changing hands, and has been changing hands in recent years. We all know how well the old owners who used to possess that land treated their tenants. But that land now is passing into the hands of others who look upon land more from a commercial point of view than did the old families previously. Therefore I think you would probably find at the present time that the farmers of this country would be in a position to lay out more capital on improvements, and would be better able to develop their land to its highest possible pitch of productivity, if they had more security of tenure. A few years ago I introduced a Bill into this House providing that by a system of Arbitration to be established security of tenure might be obtained. Now, when we see so much land passing into changed ownership, I think there is almost more need than then for a system of arbitration to be brought into being, so that the farmers of the country would know that if they farmed their land according to the best rules of husbandry, and if they showed themselves experts at their business, they would be secure in their occupancy. Besides that, I think it might be of great assistance of a practical kind to the country if our Board of Agriculture would do a little more in the way of experiment. We see how, in othercountries—in the Colonies and in America, for instance—the various Departments of Agriculture carry on experimental work, and give instruction in all branches of farming, which brings in a more skilled and highly-trained class of worker to carry on the work. Therefore it would be well if our Department of Agriculture would only copy some of the good work which is being done in other countries, and is being done, also, in Ireland. We do not need to go to Ireland very often to get an example, but I think that on this occasion we can profitably look to what is going on in Ireland. If we could only follow the good work which the Board of Agriculture there has been doing for some years, we might, by bringing technical instruction, experimental work, and research work more into this business, which is of national importance, do a great deal to improve the productivity of our work. In all those ways, I think, we can, directly and indirectly, bring benefits to bear on this great national industry of agriculture. On the other hand, do not let us forget the great economic law, which has been referred to by every speaker, that the price of the produce must be such as would enable a fair wage to be paid and proper conditions to exist in the industry.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen)

I cannot complain of the fact that my hon. Friends have brought forward this question again, I think, for the third time in a Session which is yet young, because I know they are dealing with a very serious matter, and that they feel very strongly about it. Their demand that there should be a definite agricultural policy is, in my opinion, a perfectly proper demand to make. I regret that, owing to the difficult position in which I havebeen placed, I have not been able fully to answer their demands up to the present moment, but I can assure them that the promises which were made by the Prime Minister, and which were supplemented by the Leader of the House and the Prime Minister again on the eve of the election, that agriculture is not to be allowed to slip back into the condition of neglect in which it had existed for so long before the War, are going to be carried out. It has been only on account of the tremendous preoccupation ofthe present day—you have only got to take all the circumstances of to-day, the Peace Conference in Paris at its most critical stage, the terrible industrial unrest which is pressing, I hope, to a satisfactory solution—that it has been impossible for the Government to deal adequately with the subject up to the present time. My hon. Friend who spoke first in this Debate referred to a speech by my Noble Friend the President of the Board of Agriculture, which he seemed to think was couched in terms of pessimism. He spoke about my Noble Friend having suggested that the outlook for agriculture was black, and that the whole question was whether the farmers were going down with the flag flying or not. I do not think my Noble Friend intended anything ofthe kind, and, for my part, I am not prepared to believe that agriculture is doomed in any way. I certainly do not believe that it is going down, either with the flag flying or in any other way. If I did, I certainly would not occupy for a moment the position which I hold at the present time. I believe that the agricultural interest which weathered the storm of the great depression of twenty or thirty years ago and which, when it was called upon, rose so splendidly to the emergency in regard to food production during the War, will rise to this present position, and I am perfectly certain that the Government does not intend to leave it in the lurch.

May I say one or two words about specific questions which have been asked me, some of them by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Horncastle (Lieutenant-Colonel Weigall). I do not object to his reiterated question at all. The question of this year's cereal prices has been debated more than once, and a statement was made by the President of the Board of Agriculture, last November, to the effect that the cereal prices for the 1919 crop would not be less than those then current. I had hoped to be able to say this evening precisely how that was going to be carried out. I have been present at several conferences on the subject, and I do not mind saying that the matter was considered by the Home Affairs Committee this morning. I had hoped that the Cabinet would have been able to give me a specific statement this-afternoon. That was not the case, owing to theirpre-occupation. But I can say in the first place that it is proposed, so far as possible, to carry out the pledge on the principle of the Corn Production Act, that is to say, to pay the difference on an acreage basis between the average market price and the guaranteed price. That is the proposal, and it has this advantage, that it is the plan to which the House assented in relation to the Corn Production Act. I would enter one caveat, however. In the case of wheat, the matter is comparatively simple, as practically all the wheat is sold off the farm for human consumption, and so on. But when you come to oats and barley the position is not quite the same. Take oats, for example. The greater part of the oats grown on the farm are consumed on that farm, and are not sold off. I do not suppose it is really intended that the farmer should be paid the full amount of the difference between the market price and the guaranteed price on that part of the oats that are not sold off but are merely fed on his own farm.

An HON MEMBER

Why not?

Mr. LESLIE SCOTT

Might I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman whether that was not understood in the House at the time the Corn Production Act was passed?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN

Yes, as regards the Corn Production Act, but I am now dealing with the question of the cereals grown in the year 1919, and we are giving a very much higher figure than the figure in the Corn Production Ast.

Major WOOD

I only want to ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman, in order to make the point quite clear, why it costs less to grow oats to be eaten on the farm than it does to grow oats to be sold?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN

It does not cost less, but if my hon. and gallant Friend will take the actual words used in the pledge given, he will see. I will read them. The question was asked by the hon. Member for South Molton (Mr. G. Lambert) whether the prices paid for cereals in 1919 will be not less than those then current? "Price paid" obviously means a, sale, and we hold that the pledge is quite properly and fully fulfilledif we deal only with what is sold, and not with what is consumed on the farm. I have merely said that this is a proposal. It was put forward by the President of the Board of Agriculture and, as he announced in his speech at Taunton, no definite conclusion has been reached on it. In any case we shall have to fix the figure which would represent a fair proportion of what on the average is sold off, and what on the average is consumed on the farm.

Lieutenant-Colonel SPENDER CLAY

Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman mean that if one farmer sold to a neighbouring farmer, then there would be a Government guarantee in regard to what was sold?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN

No; if the hon. and gallant Gentleman had followed me he would have seen that it is proposed to pay on an acreage basis, and if, for example, we said that half the oats were sold on the average and half were consumed on the farm, the plain fact would be this, that we should not pay on the whole of the acreage—we should pay on a half of it. Therefore youwill strike an average in respect of farms alike. I will not pursue this further, but I hope a full statement will be made shortly, and I should like to assure the House that the Government are aware of the pledge they have made, and that they are prepared to carry it out in a manner which they believe will be absolutely fair. Equally, with regard to barley, the proposal is that we should not pay on the entire acreage but only on a proportion, because, as everybody knows, though the greater part of the barley is sold for malting purposes, a certain amount of English barley is used, as a rule, for feeding on the farms.

Lieutenant-Colonel WEIGALL

May I ask what is to happen to the farmer who grows no malting barley?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN

Again, my answer is that it is going to be done on the acreage system, and the proposal is that we should pay on four-fifths and not on the whole of the acreage. May I come to the much bigger point of the policy of the future? I have been pressed very much here to indicate some extension and some amendment of the Corn Production Act. I realise, as fully as any man, that if we are to carry on the extension of farming; which has occurred during the War, the Corn Production Act will have to be extended and amended. Later on I hope an announcement will be made on that subject. The matter is one of supreme importance on account of the Labour question, which was mentioned by my hon. and gallant Friend who spoke first, and also by other speakers.

7.0 p.m.

I should like to say a word on the question of the labour we have available. It is perfectly true that for the last few years we have been working our farms with a great shortage of labour. Before the War there were 718,000 male labourers employed on the farms. The number regularly employed at the time of the Armistice had fallen to 412,000—that is to say there was a deficiency of 306,000. Since then 161,000 agriculturists have been demobilised, and they are being demobilised as rapidly as possible. At present something like 2,500 are being demobilised a day. Deducting 161,000 from the number I have given, it reduces the deficiency to 145,000. That, I grant, is serious, and I cannot see how very largely to improve on it. A very large number of the agriculturists were enlisted after the big German push a year ago. They, therefore, enlisted long after 1st January, 1916, and they are not eligible for demobilisation. Still, the Board of Agriculture is using, every possible effort to induce the War Office to demobilise agriculturistswherever possible, and I think the fact that 2,500 a day are being demobilised is some proof that our efforts have not been altogether unavailing. The figure is rather better than I have given, because at present we still have 30,000 soldiers of the agricultural wages company working, we have 30,000 German prisoners, and we have 10,000 women of the Land Army who are doing splendid work in place of the men. Of course, the prisoners will go, and a certain number more of the Agricultural Companies will be demobilised. Still, that reduces the deficiency by 70,000.

But there is a far more serious problem than the question of the actual number employed, and that is the rate of wages. You may demobilise the agricultural labourers in the Army, but you cannot be surethat they will go back to agriculture. You can take a horse to the water but you cannot make him drink Here we are up against a great difficulty. Notwithstanding all that is being done by agricultural wages boards, and so on, to improve the positionof the agricultural labourer, he remains, I am sorry to say, a good deal worse paid than men in other industries, and if he sees a chance of getting into another industry we cannot prevent him, and into another industry he will go. This labour question seems to me to lie at the root of the whole agricultural question. What has happened in regard to agricultural labour? There has been a large increase in money wages. They have gone up, roughly, I suppose, since the War began, something like 80 to 100 per cent. In 1907 the average wage for agricultural labour in England was 18s. 4d. There is no absolutely certain figure I can give later than 1907. Now it is 33s., taking all classes, but it is only fair to say while there has been this increase in money wages,having regard to the extra cost of living, there has been no real increase at all in real wages, and the agricultural labourer to-day, having regard to what he has to buy and consume, is no better off relatively than he was tome time ago. But that is notall. He is asking for better conditions, and, whatever our political views may be, it is very difficult for any of us to refuse to have sympathy with his ideals. I am sure, if the agricultural labourer could be not a mere drudge, if he could have somethingbetter for himself and his family, greater opportunities for living a broader and a bigger life, and better chances of education for his children, we should all desire it, and with the ideal of a better life we are all in sympathy. The whole question is Can the industry afford it? That is where the absolute duty of the Government comes in to make the conditions of agriculture such that we can support not only a prosperous race of tenant farmers, but also agricultural labourers enjoying not merely a livingwage but one which will enable them to better themselves and go ahead in this world. How is that to be done? It seems to me to be an absolutely certain argument first of all for the extension, amendment, and adaptation to present conditions of the Corn Production Act, and I should be only too glad if I could announce that such a thing had been settled to-day. But, for the reasons I gave on a previous occasion, at a time when the world prices of commodities are so doubtful, this is hardly the moment in which to make a definite fixture. You might fix it either too high or too low and suffer in consequence. But still it seems to me, if the Corn Production Act was rendered necessary in order that we might have that increase in money wages that we have already, if it is to be maintained, certainly if it is to be improved upon, you must have an extension and amendment of the Act. It is a temporary Act. The Agricultural Wages Board is a temporary measure. The minimum wage depends upon a temporary Act. I do notbelieve this House, I do not believe public opinion in the country, and I do not believe the Labour Party is ever going to allow this Agricultural Wages Board and the minimum wage to disappear. That in itself means an extension of the Corn Production Actand when it is extended in one direction it must be extended in all—the guaranteed price, the minimum wage and the control over farming to see that it is properly conducted, all of which are contained in the Corn Production Act.

But I will appeal tomy hon. Friends who are so interested in this subject and in this great industry that we must not depend for the future of agriculture simply and solely on Government subsidies or doles. There are other ways. I am not rejecting this way—I think itis necessary—but there are other ways whereby we can assist agriculture and by which I think agriculture will have a great chance. The guaranteed price is for cereals, but cereals are not the only thing. There may be a considerable fall in the priceof cereals, I cannot tell. But apart from that there is going to be a very big development in other directions. I think there is going to be a big development in live stock, in milk and in meat. There has been vast devastation in Europe, and we are beingcalled upon to try to supply people with cattle in the devastated areas of France and Belgium. I think there will be a big demand for export, which will be profitable to our farmers, in the restocking of the devastated areas of the world. I believe a greatdeal more can be done in the production of milk. I am told by those who study these things that a great deal more milk ought to be consumed in this country. I have some rather interesting figures. For the country generally the consumption of milk is about a quarter of a pint a head a day. Consumption is at its highest at Bournemouth, where it is about half a pint a head a day, but in some places it is very low. In Hull it is only a seventh. In London it is about a quarter, which is about the average for the whole country. In New York it is about a half, but I cannot give any definite figure as to what it may be in America generally. I am convinced that more milk should be consumed in this country, and that there is a great opportunity for additional and better dairy farming than we have at present. That does not necessarily imply that our land which has been ploughed up is to go back to grass. Certainly the last thing we desire to see is land which was ploughed up during the War tumbling back to grass.It is an old theory in this country that in order to produce meat and milk on a large scale it is quite necessary to have a great deal of grass land. I think that theory has been questioned, and to some extent exploded by recent investigations. I will quote the Report of the Agricultural Policy Subcommittee on Reconstruction— The impression exists in certain quarters that more milk and meat can be produced on grass than on arable land. This impression is quite unfounded. The reverse is nearer the truth of the case. As a general proposition, it is correct to assert that more milk and meat can be produced on a given acreage of arable than from the same acreage of grass, although it in probable that from the economic standpoint a considerable area willalways be under grass. The agriculture of Denmark is an interesting illustration. In Denmark there is hardly any permanent grass. Almost the whole of the farmed land is under rotation of crops, and yet Denmark carries a specially heavy proportion of livestock to the acre. I submit that it is not necessary that all this land which has been put under the plough should go back to grass if we develop our production of milk and meat. I believe a great deal can be done most profitably by farmers at the present time in that direction.

I said just now that our agricultural policy must not consist merely in a crutch, in a guarantee, in a Government subsidy on the price of cereals. What else can we do? I can tell the House what else can be done and what is being done. The Board of Agriculture is taking every conceivable step to increase agricultural education and research, because we believe in that way lies the hope of the future. It is quite true that for a long time very little was done in this country. In the year before the War the total amount expended out of public funds in agricultural education and research was £120,790. That does not compare very well with £840,000 spent in Canada, £1,000,000 spent in France, and £4,000,000 spentin the United States of America. In our Estimates of this year we are providing for these objects £227,000, and, in addition to that, we have £35,000 which will come from the local rates—a total of £262,000. My belief is that that money will be very well expended in research and in providing an agricultural education, which means progress and improved and greater production all over the country. Research comes before all things. Our total of knowledge is increased by research, and therefore we propose to spend much more in research in the present year. One hon. Member spoke about the absence of any plan of ascertaining the cost of the production of any particular kind of agricultural products. In connection with what we arespending on research we have an institute at Oxford which is engaged in determining farming costs, and I hope that will be of the greatest value to farmers, if they will only take advantage of it and co-operate in what we are doing.

Secondly, there is collegiate education. We have our colleges for those who are going to be large farmers, or the sons of large farmers, or who are going to become land agents or managers of land. We have our farm institutes for the sons of smaller farmers, where they can go fora short course and at the same time retain practical touch with the land, and we are trying to establish, and have got Treasury sanction to establish, ten demonstration farms, where new processes, or at all events processes which are new to particular neighbourhoods, will be carried out on strict commercial lines so that the results can be seen and made known. For example, as regards the question of the production of milk on arable land, we hope to establish ten of these stations to show what can be done successfully on a commercial basis with a view to utilising some of the land that has been ploughed up. We all know with what immense and good results certain parts of the country can be used for market gardening—for vegetables and fruit. See what has been done at places like Evesham, or in Cambridgeshire, at Wisbech, by intensive cultivation, and what large profits have been made. In our opinion a demonstration farm, where the land is suitable, and which can show what can be done in a neighbourhood where it has not been attempted up to date will be very valuable. There, again, we hope to assist agriculture.

Take transportation. There can be no doubt that the farmer suffers terribly, especially in the remote country districts, through want of transport facilities. Under the new Bill for Ways and Communications that question is to be tackled. Already the Board of Agriculture have taken certain steps. We have acquired a great deal of information as to places where suitable motor services can be established or light railways can be laid down for the purpose of collecting the agricultural produce and taking it to the main transit line, and thereby getting it more rapidly to market than at the present time. That is not all. The Board have a plan, whereby before the Ministry of Ways and Communications actually gets to work, we may experiment in districts which we regard as particularly suitable. For instance, in the Biggleswade district of Bedfordshire, as soon as we get Treasury sanction, we propose to lay down a line of about twenty-five miles. There is to be a smaller scheme in the Fen district, and another small scheme in market gardening districts in Worcestershire. In certain parts of Cornwall we are proposing a big system of motor lorries to collectthe produce and take it either straight to market or to the transit lines. My belief is that we can greatly help agriculture by developing this transportation as soon as possible. Then there is organisation and co-operation. In every way we are trying topromote more co-operation among farmers, so that they may both buy and sell to the best advantage. To-day the farmer neither buys nor sells to the best advantage. I am glad to say that the principle of co-operation is growing, and much is being done by the Agricultural Organisation Society, which we are supporting as far as we can. We hope to help agriculture in that way.

The Government are absolutely determined that they will not abandon their pledges to agriculture, and I must ask hon. Members to make allowances for the present difficulty and not to complain unduly if I am not in a position to announce everything. I can assure my hon. Friends we are very sympathetic. We are well aware of their difficulties. We know that the farmer's position to-day is particularly difficult. We know that the position of the labourer is difficult and that the position at the moment is critical, and we are trying in every possible way to see that agriculture shall be supported by the State and not allowed to drift as inthe past. We realise that in this transitory period of peace and war there must be guaranteed prices at a high figure, as in this year, and we realise also that for several years to come—I cannot say for how long—a State guarantee is absolutely necessary if farming is to go on and the labourers are to be paid a sufficient wage; but we say that there are other ways in which agriculture can be helped. Speaking for the Board and speaking for a band of officials second to none in this country, men whose knowledge is of the best and who are some of the ablest administrators we possess, I can assure the House that we are doing everything possible to guide and direct agriculture into the best course. Whereas, in the past the Board was regarded rather as a negative department to carry out certain acts of Parliament and to act as a sort of policeman, more or less, we now realise that our duty is to do all we can for what I may call the constructive development of agriculture.

Mr. ACLAND

I realise that the House has not been filling up in order to listen to me. I know that the Leader of the House is going to make a statement, and I will not commit the solecism of continuing my speech a moment after he comes to tell us something about matters of far moreimportance. We realise that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture has done his best in difficult circumstances. The Government not having made up their minds what the agricultural policy is to be, he could only report progress and say, "Let us wait and see, and let us hope that they will give a decision at the earliest possible time."Let me utter one word of warning. It is a mistake to think that this House or the country will accept complacently a policy which merely guarantees a minimumprice for agricultural produce. That, of course, is not what the farmers are wanting. They want to get rid of all control and to get permanently as high prices as they can. That will not do. I hope it will not be proposed by the Government. If it were proposed by the Government, it might for a time be accepted by the House and the country, but in that sort of policy there is not stability or chance of stability. Elections come and elections go, and parties change, and a policy which merely guaranteed prices and a certain standard of wages could not in this country be permanent. There seems to me to be only two conditions in which there is any probability of anything like stability in the policy of guaranteeing minimum prices for agricultural produce. Those conditions are, in the first place, that the country should agree that agriculture is for the future to make a perfectly definite and agreed contribution towards national safety. There is no doubt that farmers in general and all agriculturists have welcomed the present removal of restrictions, a sign that in all probability those powers will never be resumed; that they were in for easy times for the rest of their lives and that they may go back to grass, which pays and is easier and less risky. Therewill be other opportunities of developing this matter, but let me assure the representative of the Board of Agriculture that unless the Government announce some perfectly definite plan of maintaining food production and arable cultivation, so that in a time of emergency this country shall be self-supporting in its food supply the great parties in this country will not think that there is sufficient quid pro quo in the arrangement to consent to pay a higher price for home-grown food, as has been proposed. The suggestion that because farmers have to pay wages, therefore they can draw indefinitely on the profits of the taxpayers for a guaranteed price will not permanently hold the field. The country must be convinced that it is getting a national food supply, a better food supply and a better organised food supply, if it is to be asked to pay the farmer an extra price for what he produces.