HC Deb 03 November 1920 vol 134 cc417-26

(1) The minimum prices for the wheat and oats of the year nineteen hundred and twenty-one and any subsequent year shall be such prices for a statutory quarter as correspond to the following minimum prices for the wheat and oats respectively of the year nineteen hundred and nineteen (here inafter referred to as "the standard year"):—

Wheat 68s. per customary quarter of 504 pounds.
Oats 46s. per customary quarter of 336 pounds.

and the corresponding minimum prices shall be fixed in respect of each year in accordance with the following provisions:—

  1. (a) The Commissioners to be appointed under this Part of this Act shall as soon as possible after the completion of the harvest in the year nineteen hundred and twenty-one and each subsequent year ascertain the percentage by which the cost of production of the wheat and oats respectively of that year is greater or less than the cost of production of the wheat and oats respectively of the standard year.
  2. (b) In ascertaining the variation in the cost of production no account shall be taken of any variation of rent:
  3. (c) The corresponding minimum prices for the wheat and oats respectively of any year shall be such sums as are certified by the Commissioners to bear to the minimum prices for the wheat and oats respectively of the standard year the same proportion as the cost of production of the wheat and oats respectively of the year for which the prices are to be fixed bears to the cost of production of the wheat and oats respectively of the standard year.
  1. (2) Any fraction of a penny in the average price or minimum price per statutory quarter shall be disregarded.
  2. (3) The foregoing provisions of this Section shall have effect in substitution for the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section two of the Act of 1917.
  3. (4) The expression "statutory quarter" shall be substituted for the expression "quarter" wherever that expression occurs in the Act of 1917.

Amendment proposed [2nd November]: In Sub-section (1, a) after tho word "ascertain," to insert the words in consultation with the Minister, the Board of Agriculture for Scotland, and the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland."—[Sir A. Boscawen.]

Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

4.0 P.M.

Sir FREDERICK BANBURY

I should like to ask what is the real object of this Amendment? If the House will look at the Amendment it will see that it is proposed to insert after the word "ascertain" the words "in consultation with the Minister, the Board of Agriculture for Scotland, and the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland." Now, if the House will look at Clause 3 of the Bill it will see that these Commissioners are appointed as follows: one by the Minister, one by the Board of Agriculture for Scotland, one by the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland, one by the Treasury, and one by the Board of Trade. So that, as a matter of fact, all these Commissioners who are to make their findings in consultation with the Minister, the Board of Agriculture for Scotland, and the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland, have been appointed by these very bodies. I do not know why the Treasury and the Board of Trade are left out in the Amendment. Three Commissioners are appointed by the Departments I have just read out; one is appointed by the Treasury, and one is appointed by the Board of Trade. But the Amendment ignores the Treasury. I should have thought, if there is to be consultation with any Department, that that consultation should be with the Treasury, which is the Department which is supposed to safeguard the interests of the taxpayer, but that Department is carefully left out. Therefore the Treasury and the Board of Trade will not have the advantage of being consulted by these Commissioners.

I think myself that that is a very serious blot upon the Amendment. If the Amendment is carried, and if there is to be consultation between these five Commissioners and the different Departments of the Government, surely the whole of the Departments which appoint Com- missioners should be included in the Amendment.

But why is it necessary to have a consultation at all with these particular Departments? These Commissioners are gentlemen who, I suppose, would be chosen by the Departments and they are, I presume, gentlemen in whom the Departments have confidence. If that be so, and if these gentlemen in whom the different Departments have confidence are appointed to investigate into the circumstances, and they make those investigations and come to a conclusion, what on earth is the reason of their reporting again to these three different Departments? The only possible reason is—I can see no other, but perhaps the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill can see one—that the three Departments in question are afraid that possibly the Commissioners, being competent people, in coming to their conclusions on the evidence which will be submitted to them—I would point out to the House that the Commissioners are not given a roving Commission; they are given lines on which to proceed—will come to a more or less just conclusion. Is the Minister, if he finds that the conclusions are not satisfactory, to have the power to over-ride them? Is that a way likely to give confidence to the people affected by the decisions of the Commissioners? Everyone acquainted with agriculture will agree that on the lines laid down it would be very difficult to fix prices which would be not only satisfactory but which would allow, I will not say a profit, but prevent a loss being made to the farmer who grows wheat and oats. There is a further reason why I think this Amendment should not be accepted. It was not put in the Bill, and is evidently an after-thought. I am told it was withdrawn in Committee. Everybody who has served on Committees knows that when the Government withdraw an Amendment in order that they may consider it on Report, it means that if they did not do that they would have been defeated in Committee. They withdraw it, and they hope to re-introduce it in the House when only a small number are present, and when the solid phalanx of Members who are either now drinking tea or smoking cigars will come in, and, without the least knowledge of the discussion, support them. I see no earthly reason for the Amendment. I do not know that it is very important, for the reason that I feel quite certain no farmer will ever get anything out of this Clause. It will be the Corn Production Act over again. The whole thing is illusory, but if you are going to make a show of doing something for the agricultual interest, at any rate do it in a proper manner, and if you appoint, Commissioners let them come to a decision.

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

I think that the opposition to this Amendment is based upon a complete misunderstanding. I explained when I first moved it my sole object in doing so. When we get to Clause 3 which appoints the Commissioners, I propose to ask the House to leave out "Commismissioners appointed by the Board of Agriculture in Scotland and the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction in Ireland" and to revert to what was in the Bill originally, namely, three Commissioners, one appointed by the three Ministries of Agriculture conjointly, one by the Board of Trade and one by the Treasury. It was pointed out to me by Members from Ireland that it would be only fair that there should be an opportunity for the Irish Board to lay their facts before the Commissioners and the same applies of course to Scotland. It would have been much more convenient if I could have moved my Amendment on Clause 3 first, but that was not possible. In view of the subsequent Amendments I think it is only right that there should be this consultation with the respective boards in lieu of having special Commissioners of their own. I received an assurance that that would go a long way to meet the objection. The point has now been taken by some of my hon. Friends that if we say "in consultation with" these Boards or Ministries of Agriculture that will in some way subject the Commissioners to the advice or control of the Ministries of Agriculture. There was no such intention, nor do I think that would be the least likely to arise. All that will happen will be that it will be laid down that for the purposes of obtaining information the Commissioners should consult with the three Boards. It was far from our desire in any way whatsoever that there should be any kind of control of the Commissioners. I agree with my right hon. Friend (Sir F. Banbury) that the Commissioners ought to have, and as far as I am concerned they shall have, a perfectly free hand. That was our object, and I think that is the effect of our Amendment, but I do not wish for a single moment to ask the House to pass something which would give rise to suspicion among farmers. I wish in every possible way to limit this proposition to the precise point at issue, namely, that the Commissioners shall obtain information and shall consider the information supplied by the respective Boards. Therefore, I would venture to suggest in lieu of the words "in consultation with," we should say, "after consideration of any information furnished by," that is to say, instead of "consultation," which might, though I do not think it could properly be held, to imply some kind of control, that they should consider information provided by the Ministries. Very often there is, I will not say suspicion, but nervousness, about Government Departments, and perhaps it will shorten discussion if I suggest that alteration in the proposed Amendment.

Amendment made to proposed Amendment: Leave out the words "in consultation with" and insert instead thereof the words "after consideration of any information furnished by".—[Sir A. Boscawen.]

Question proposed, "That the proposed words, as amended, be there inserted in the Bill."

Mr. RONALD McNEILL

I think this alteration is a very great improvement and that the right hon. Gentleman has been very wise to make this concession. Rightly or wrongly, there was an impression that in his Amendment there would be something in the nature of control by Government Departments. I have not the slightest doubt that the right hon. Gentleman was perfectly sincere in saying that that was not the intention, and that as long as he was Minister be would not attempt to exercise such control. If the Clause had been passed as proposed there might have been some control in the future, whether it was intended or not. May I ask whether the purpose which he has in view is not already achieved by Sub-section (3) of Clause 3 which provides that the Commissioners may require any person who appears to them to have any information to give it. I should have thought that amply covered all that was necessary.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN

I think there is a very considerable difference between that Sub-section and this proposal. Under that Sub-section the Commissioners may ask for information and may take steps to obtain it, but under my Amendment there is a definite direction.

Sir F. BANBURY

I shall be very pleased to accept the Amendment, as amended, and I thank the right hon Gentleman.

Proposed words, as amended, there inserted in the Bill.

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY

I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out paragraph (b).

I do not propose to go over all the arguments adduced in Committee against the retention of this paragraph, but I will merely say that in arriving at the datum line the variation of rent will be taken into account, and I venture to submit that it should be taken into account also in regard to the cost of production. In Committee the only argument the right hon. Gentleman used against this Amendment was that there might be collusion between the landlord and the tenant, but I hope that we shall have, some stronger argument against it than that, because, as was pointed out by the Secretary for Scotland in Committee, any such collusion would be an offence against Section 3 of the Bill.

Mr. PRETYMAN

My name stands on the Paper as one of those supporting this Amendment, but the House will see that there is another Amendment in my name below it: [At the end of paragraph (b), to add the words "except any variation that is attributable to a variation in the cost of maintenance."] I should, by rights, have withdrawn my name from supporting this Amendment when I put down the other, because my object in putting down the Amendment was to obtain consideration of the additional cost of maintenance which is thrown on the industry.

Mr. SPEAKER

Does the right hon. Gentleman rise to second this Amendment?

Mr. PRETYMAN

No, Sir.

Mr. JAMES GARDINER

I beg to second the Amendment. There is considerable demand for land, and in many cases rent has increased 20s. or 30s. an acre and even more, and that means a difference of possibly 2s. to 5s. per quarter in the value of the grain, and I think it is only reasonable and fair therefore that rent should be taken into consideration.

Mr. PRETYMAN

I apologise for having risen before the Amendment was seconded. On the whole, I think it is undesirable that we should press for the Amendment, because I for one feel that it is very undesirable that the country should think that the cost of production is being raised merely because rents are raised, as rents, but it is no doubt now a very serious item and probably a large fraction of the rents which are now being received is necessitated by the increased cost of maintaining the estate, which is really a burden on the industry as a whole and is not, except so far as it is taken out of old rents, a burden on any individual. Of course, everybody will recognise that so far as rent covers that kind of expenditure it is very desirable that the responsible owner of any land should be in a position to carry out his obligations, because the whole industry suffers if the revenue which is received by an owner of land is so small that it is impossible for him to do his duty in maintaining the estate so that the occupier and the labourer may do their share also. It is from that point of view that the Amendment was originally put down, but I think on the whole it would be better that rent should not be included, and I would prefer to confine myself to the much more limited proposal that I have put lower down.

Mr. LANE-FOX

I hope this Amendment will not be pressed, because I think from a practical point of view it would impede the proper working of the Bill. All rents will be subject to arbitration in future, and, therefore, any risk there might be of excessive rents need not be met in this particular place. There is no chance of dealing with individual costings on individual farms. The cost of production has to be averaged over a wide area, and I think it would be far better to leave the Clause as it stands now and not complicate the question.

Sir F. BANBURY

My hon. Friend states that there is no need to be afraid of collusion between the tenant and the landlord to put the rent up, because in future it would have to be subject to arbitration. I understand my hon. and gallant Friend opposite (Lieut.-Colonel A. Murray) said that that was the only argument against this Amendment; that there might be collusion. My hon. Friend says that is impossible, and, therefore, under these circumstances I do not see any objection to the Amendment. There is no doubt that rent has a certain effect on the cost of production, but I think it is a small matter. I think myself that the idea that rent has a great deal to do with the cost of producing the crops on the land is a very exaggerated idea, and the amount which the rent bears in proportion to the cost is more or less infinitesimal. I think that is admitted by practically everybody who has had any experience. I do not see very much difference between this Amendment and that of the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman), except that this is more distinct and clear, and, personally, I prefer calling a spade a spade. Whatever Bill we pass I am certain there will be certain people in the country going about making statements about it which are untrue, in order, perhaps, to gain a few votes. I am endeavouring to look at this from a national point of view, and not from a personal point of view, and, if I may say so, it is looking at the matter from the personal point of view that we-suffer from.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE

I hope the Minister in charge will see his way to accept either this Amendment or that of the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman), because I think there is no doubt that a certain kind of rent does enter into the cost of production. It is not the case of an individual farmer, but it is spread over a considerable area. The political economists will tell you that rent does not enter into prices, and that may be true as regards the pure rent of the land, but it is not true of the cost of equipping the farm, that is to say, the cost of capitalising a farm, which is so great and liable to such fluctuations at the present time that it has got to be taken into account as a whole, spreading it over a considerable area, if you are to get at a just estimate of what the cost of production is in any one year. It seems to me that the great changes that have taken place in rents in the last two years are not changes so much in land values as in the cost of maintenance and repairs, of draining, and so forth, and it is essential, if a fair statement of the cost of production is to be laid down, that that should be taken into account.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN

I waited a few moments before rising to reply to this Amendment because I wished to gather, as far as I could, the views of hon. Members of the House, as I confess, on this point, I do not hold very strong views. It is quite true that as the Bill was introduced and as it stands we have laid down that in estimating variations in cost of production we should not take rent into account, and the theory underlying that was, as my hon. and gallant Friend (Lieut.-Colonel A. Murray) has mentioned, that it might be said, or it might actually happen, that there would be collusion between tenant farmers and landlords raising rents because it was understood that the rise in rents would, pro tanto, so far as rent is an element in the cost of production, increase the guaranteed price. I cannot say I attach very much importance to that argument, because we are not dealing with the individual farm or the individual cost of production. What we are dealing with is the general rise in cost of production, and unless there were a sort of universal collusion between farmers and landlords generally, it is difficult to see how such a conspiracy could possibly be effective. At the same time, I think there is a danger that if there is a rise in rents—and there probably will have to be a rise in rents in consequence of the greatly increased cost of maintenance—and guaranteed prices do go up, there would be a suspicion that such collusion had taken place.

I think that is most undesirable. At all events, I think we ought to place it on a proper basis, that costs of production taken into account in respect of rent for the purpose of ascertaining guaranteed prices should be what are the bonâ fide increased costs of production, namely, the increased costs of the maintenace of the farm. Therefore, although I do not think the point is really an important one practically, my advice to the House is this, that we should maintain this paragraph but add to it the Amendment which stands next on the Paper in the name of my right hon. Friend, the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman), namely, to add at the end of the paragraph the words, "except any variation that is attributable to a variation in the cost of maintenance." I confess that at the time I could not see my way to meet it in Committee, but the greatly increased costs of maintenance which we all realise are a considerable element in the cost of production to-day, and as years go by that element may be increased. That being so, I think we really arrive at the just solution by not accepting this Amendment, but by adding to the paragraph the words proposed by the right hon. Member for Chelmsford.

Amendment negatived.

Further Amendment made: At end of Sub-section (I, b) insert the words "except any variation that is attributable to a variation in the cost of maintenance."—[Mr. Pretyman.]

The following Amendment stood on the Order Paper in the name of Major O'Neill:

In Sub-section (I, c) to insert the words For the purpose of ascertaining the average price of wheat or oats, the weekly averages for any week shall be taken to be the average price per quarter of that week of wheat or oats, as the case may be, as ascertained in representative markets in England and Wales by the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, in Scotland by ths Board of Agriculture for Scotland, and in Ireland by the Board of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland.

Mr. R. McNEILL

On a point of Order. There is an Amendment on the Paper standing in the name of my hon. and gallant Friend (Major O'Neill). Is that not in Order?

Mr. SPEAKER

It is passed over. As a matter of fact, if it is any satisfaction to the hon. Member to know, it is out of Order.