MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES. (Hansard, 28 April 1932)

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir John Glimour)
It is usual for the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries to open this discussion with a general statement of the agricultural position, but I think the Committee will agree that we have had lately several opportunities of discussing the general policy of agriculture. Therefore, I may be forgiven if I confine my remarks more closely to the general administration of the office. British agriculture employs approximately 7 per cent. of the employed population of the country. This, it is true, is the lowest proportion of any country for which we have statistics, and on this account there is sometimes a disposition to underrate the importance and the value of the agricultural industry and of its importance to our people. When we think of the vast stretches of agricultural land, whether in Canada or Australia, we must remember, however, that, nevertheless, the number of people in Great Britain engaged in agriculture is greater than in any of the Dominions, 588 that it is substantially greater than in Canada and very much greater than in any of the others.
It is true that the value of the products in agriculture in this country has in recent years been somewhat less than that of Canada, but on the other hand, it is greater than that of Australia and considerably greater than that of any of the other Dominions. Therefore, India apart, Great Britain is one of the greatest producers of food in the Empire, and it is clear that the industry for which my Ministry is responsible is of great importance to the country. The Committee may be interested to be reminded that on the basis of the 1925 census of production, livestock and livestock products account for 71 per cent. of the total production; farm crops 20 per cent.; and fruit and vegetables 9 per cent. I hope that the policy which we are pursuing may stimulate and increase farm crops and fruit and vegetables, particularly the latter.
I need not enlarge upon the economic position of the industry, but it is right to remind the Committee that there has been a great fall in the prices of all products in 1930 and 1931. The agricultural index figures stood at 36 in April, 1930, just before the Estimates were last before the Committee. That figure of 36 was then the lowest figure since 1915. A year later, in April, 1931, the figure had fallen to 23, and the figure for last month was 13.
The general situation in agriculture, and the steps which can be taken to improve it, are matters which, I think the Committee will agree, fall more for discussion when we consider the agricultural policy of the Government, but it is well in reviewing the administrative side of the problem to keep these main features before us. The Estimate before the Committee for both agriculture and fisheries is £2,005,918. I cannot, I think, properly present it to the Committee at the present time without bringing to their notice that we have had to enforce considerable and drastic economies arising out of the crisis of last Autumn. For the purpose of comparison, I think it is better to ignore for the moment the appropriations-in-aid and to consider only the gross total. This stands at £2,501,913. To give a complete picture 589 of the economies effected I must take the Committee back to April, 1931, when the provisional Estimates for 1932 were first prepared. At that time it was contemplated that the services with which the Department had been charged arising out of various legislative enactments would involve an expenditure of £3,132,525 in the financial year 1932. That estimate, however, took no account of expenditure under the Agricultural Land (Utilisation) Act, which subsequently became law. The expenditure under that Act would, I estimate, have been certainly not less than £1,000,000 if it had operated at all in 1932, and there would have been a progressive expenditure in subsequent years. The Committee will realise that by not operating that Act a very large economy has been achieved.
This figure of £3,132,525 was the estimate considered by the May Committee when they considered national expenditure. They recommended a cut of £500,000. In the light of the Committee's recommendations the whole field was reviewed by the National Government in September, 1931, and the amount was reduced to £2,543,700, in other words, a cut of £588,825. That was in excess of the cut recommended by the May Committee, but still further economies were subsequently made, bringing the figure down to that now before the Committee, namely, £2,501,913, a reduction of £630,612 on the original provisional Estimate and a reduction of £468,920 on the 1931 figure, again leaving out of account the very considerable expenditure which would have been involved if the Agricultural Land (Utilisation) Act had been operated.
I would remind the Committee that the Estimates of the Ministry include one particular item, amounting to more than £800,000, a very substantial figure, upon which economy is not possible. This item represents the contractual payments which have to be made to county councils under the final and binding settlement which was made by this House in 1926 in respect of small holdings created after the War. I think the Committee will agree that that large sum must be placed in a very special category. If I deduct that sum of £800,000 from the figures I have given it will be seen that the saving of £630,000 has been made 590 upon a provisional Estimate of £2,332,000, in other words, a reduction of over 27 per cent. I need not tell the Committee that cuts of this magnitude cannot be achieved or enforced without interfering very materially with a great many services of great value to many of the industries concerned, and to the wellbeing and the progress of the country as a whole. They are not cuts which in more prosperous times any Minister of Agriculture would desire to make. On the contrary, were we in the position to do so we should rather desire to extend many of those services.
The provision for agricultural education has been reduced from £424,500 to £280,350, and that for agricultural research from £408,100 to £301,020. The grants for the improvement of live stock have been scaled down, and the provision for small holdings was reduced from £43,000 to £28,000. Drainage authorities were informed that State assistance could only be provided for works of an emergency nature, and the amount provided was reduced from £340,000 to £72,500. The expenditure on the improvement of marketing, which at the present juncture is of material importance to this country, has had, of course, to be reduced. That includes the development of the National Mark schemes, in which Members in all parts of the House are rightly and properly greatly interested. That expenditure was cut down from £85,000 to £61,300. The Fisheries Vote was cut from £101,310 to £71,062. I am quite aware that these cuts will raise criticism but I have endeavoured to spread the economies fairly and reasonably over the whole field of the Department's activity. In very few cases, indeed, have any services been completely closed down. Grants have been scaled down, but the structure of the machinery has, as far as possible, been left unimpaired, and one hopes that in happier times we may be able to develop and extend those activities.
I should like to say at this point that these reductions involve drastic economies and a curtailment of the powers of many local authorities, and I am very grateful indeed for the helpful spirit which county councils drainage authorities, institutions and colleges and other bodies have cooperated with the Government in bringing about these very necessary reductions. I think the Committee will agree that on 591 these figures the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries have contributed a reasonable, and, indeed, a good example of economy in our present difficulties. I have been pressed to modify in this direction or that some of these economies, but all I can say is that I am satisfied I may have to contemplate further retrenchment as far as it is possible in the light of experience. I do not say that in regard to some of these cuts, re-adjustments might not be possible either upwards or downwards, but I am quite certain that there is as much need to-day as there was last August for a very rigorous examination of every penny of public expenditure. I confess that I cannot contemplate any loosening of the strings.
On an occasion like this, it is manifestly impossible to do more than select a few items for special comment in a Department whose activities extend to both sea and land, capital and labour, credits and charges, precept and practice, and cultivation and commerce, and range from bloodstock to beetles, mushrooms to milling, microbes to marketing, production to protection, tilling to trawling, and quotas to Kew Gardens. The House will realise the varied interests which are concerned. In the field of agricultural education and research, as in other branches of activity, the main event of the year has, unfortunately, been the financial crisis. As I have already indicated, the estimated expenditure on those two services has been reduced roughly by 20 per cent. This has involved a scaling down of grants in aid of county agricultural education from 66⅔ per cent. to 60 per cent., a reduction approximately of 7 per cent. on the research and advisory services. This has involved some reduction and recasting of the salaries of research and advisory workers. Those people are already too lowly paid for the valuable services which they have rendered to the country, but these cuts have in general been very loyally accepted by the personnel of the research stations. During the year the Agricultural Research Council has been established to co-ordinate and advise on agricultural research work, and I think I am right in saying that although we are urged to enforce further economy, this is a suitable time to take stock of the whole position of research, and I think it will be a valuable thing that we have now available a body consisting of the lead- 592 ing figures in the sciences underlying agriculture and of persons distinguished for their interest in and experience of practical agriculture who can review the whole position and give us their expert advice.
The Ministry continue to wage war against diseases of animals and plants. During the past two or three years we have continued our investigations into one of the most baffling problems, namely, that of foot-and-mouth disease. I do not desire to claim that we have solved the main problem of this very baffling disease. All I would claim for it is that I think we have been able to make progress in certain directions which has enabled us, in a variety of ways, to control and deal adequately with outbreaks when they occur. The policy of slaughter, as I said in answer to a question to-day, is still the only safe and satisfactory way of dealing with these outbreaks. During the year 1931 there were 97 outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease in this country. It may be interesting to compare those figures with those applying to outbreaks on the Continent. Last year Belgium had 612 outbreaks, Denmark 10,773, France 10,878, the Netherlands 11,958, and Germany no fewer than 26,416. This is incidentally one of the many advantages we derive from our insular position and is a set-off to the discomfort of a channel crossing.
In the first quarter of this year there was only one outbreak, which took place in Durham, but I regret I am not able to say that we are free from this scourge at the present time. On 18th April an outbreak—the first for four months—occurred among a herd of pedigree stock on a farm at Cheriton, in Kent, and this was followed by a further outbreak on another farm a few miles away in the occupation of the same breeder. I hope we may be able to stop this outbreak. At the moment there is every hope that the outbreaks will be confined to a small radius, and I need not assure the Committee that we are exercising the utmost vigilance. It is unfortunate that these outbreaks have occurred at the time when the whole industry is looking forward to holding agricultural shows throughout the country. In this, as in other suitable cases where animals have not been directly exposed 593 to infection by this disease, we have tried inoculation with serum. Here, again, it would be unwise to express any opinion as to the effect of this inoculation treatment, but during 1931 there were 5,525 animals inoculated with serum in connection with 23 outbreaks, and cases of the disease followed in only two of the lots treated. But it is not possible to be certain as to the effect of this treatment. It is, however, I think, a desirable one which we ought to pursue.
4.0 p.m.
If I turn from that to plant diseases and pests, the most important event of the year was the risk which this country ran from the entry of the Colorado Beetle. It is a problem which the Ministry has considered from time to time, and it was brought to our notice that it had spread from Bordeaux northwards, and we had to decide what steps we were going to take. The Committee is very well aware of the steps which we have taken. I think that the Committee will agree that, although it raises great difficulties, and the Regulations interfere, as they are bound to do, with the industry of the people in France, it is a wise and an inevitable step, and the Committee will agree with me when I say that the Government intend to maintain it.
The passing by Parliament of the Horticultural Products Act has imposed on the Ministry duties, of course, of a very novel kind. The Committee is aware that four Orders have been made under this Act which have imposed duties on a variety of fruits, vegetables and other horticultural products. The revenue collected under these Orders up to 31st March, 1932, amounted to £164,000, but Members will remember that one of the chief objects of this Measure was not so much revenue as to keep out of this country, at a critical time in the beginning of our own season, those products which, in fact, took the cream off the market. Those Orders came into force too late in the season in some cases to admit of comprehensive steps being taken for the extension of the acreage under crops, and it is somewhat early in the season for any reliable estimate to be attempted as to what actually has taken place, but I am encouraged by the reports which I have received which indicate that there is a considerable expansion both in the cultivation of fruit and salads. The 594 glasshouse industry has shown a very keen interest in salad growing, and it is probable that very many houses which normally stand empty during the winter will now be occupied growing lettuces and endives.
Those Members who paid a visit to the Royal Horticultural Society's show the day before yesterday will agree, I think, that that exhibition at their Hall in Vincent Square reflects great credit upon our growers. One of the outstanding features was not only the excellence of the product itself, but what is, I think, very material, the method of packing and presentation of the product. Therefore, it is clearly essential that if our people are to reap full advantage from the encouragement which the Government are giving them, they must turn their attention more and more towards the improvement of marketing. The National Mark scheme was, of course, in force in 1931 for apples and pears, tomatoes and cucumbers, strawberries, cherries, canned fruits and vegetables, cider, eggs, poultry, home-killed beef, flour and malt products, and I hope that during 1932 these schemes may be extended to bottled fruits and vegetables, honey and fresh plums.
Of the schemes already in existence that relating to canned fruits and vegetables shows perhaps the most remarkable development. The industry itself has increased more than 12-fold since 1928. The output of National Mark canned goods in 1931 showed an increase of at least 50 per cent. over the output of the year before. When we consider the enterprise and energy which are necessary to bring that about, I think we may feel that, apart from whatever this House may do, or what the officials of the Ministry may do, there are men and women in these industries who appreciate the importance and the desirability of their extension, and, if I may say so, it is only by the recognition of that fact and the wholehearted co-operation of these people that we may hope to see these industries expand.
The outstanding development on the organisation side of the Ministry's marketing activities has been the submission by producers of a reorganisation scheme for hope, on which a public inquiry is about to be held, and the appointment by the Government of reorganisation 595 commissions to formulate schemes for the milk and bacon industries. Rapid and substantial progress in the direction of more efficient organisation is, of course, essential as a complement, and, indeed, in some cases, as a preliminary to any action the Government may take with regard to imports, and I hope that producers, retailers and wholesalers will actively co-operate with the Commissioners in their difficult tasks.
I would like to say one word at this point about the administration of the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) Act. I think that everyone of us is agreed that it is essential to try to secure adequate remuneration for the workers on the land. I have been told that by the economies which I have effected by reducing the staff of inspectors I have done grave injury to this problem. I do not think that that is so, and I would venture to assert that we have to-day a staff adequate for dealing with the complaints which may come in from any district, nay more, that they can not only investigate such complaints as are made, but that they can make surveys of the districts. Do not let it be supposed that the National Government are blind to the interests of any one section of the industry, but may I say to the Committee quite frankly that I believe the greatest assurance for adequate remuneration for services rendered by those who are skilled in this industry—one of the basic industries of our country—can only come if we can assure to the industry as a whole a reasonable hope of expansion and a solid return for the work which they do.
I am, as the Committee knows, responsible not only for the great agricultural industry of the country, but for the fishery development round our coasts. The gross Estimate for the Fisheries Department for the current year is £71,062, which compares with £139,928 for the year 1931, and £160,746 for 1930. The decrease of £68,866 as compared with 1931 is mainly accounted for by the fact that capital charges to the amount of £56,500 in respect of His Majesty's Ship "Challenger" disappear from this year's Vote, this vessel having now been completed. Of the rest of the saving, amounting to £12,366, the greater part is necessarily 596 made at the expense of Fishery Research. Here, again, the greater saving is attributable to the fact that, owing to the need for economy, the "Challenger," which has been completed, is not to be sent to sea for the purpose for which she was originally designed. That purpose, of course, was the exploration and the charting of new fishing grounds. In the meantime she has been handed over to the Admiralty for use as one of the surveying ships, substituted for one of the older ships in the Surveying Department. This arrangement, besides saving the Ministry of Agriculture Vote an expenditure of some £25,000, also brings about a saving on the Admiralty Vote, since this ship, which is kept in commission by the Admiralty, can be so kept at very much less cost than the older ship which she has displaced. By comparison with the last Estimates, the removal of the cost of His Majesty's Ship "Challenger" from the Vote represents a saving of £65,000 out of the total saving of £68,866.
The items in the section of the Ministry's Estimates devoted to fisheries relate primarily to the research work conducted by the Department itself, in conjunction with the various independent institutions which carry out marine research work with the assistance of grants from the Exchequer. The independent institutions and the Ministry work upon rather different lines. The former devote their attention to a general study of the sea and of life in the sea; the latter investigate scientifically problems which have a more or less direct bearing upon the economy of the fisheries. Steady progress continues to be made in our knowledge of some of the inmates of the sea— the herring, plaice, cod, hake and sprat, which are the fishes to which particular attention has recently been turned, and I think it may be said that it is now possible to forecast some three months in advance what are the prospects, for instance, of the great East Anglian herring fishery. For the third year a prophecy of this nature was published in the "Fishing News," and I am glad to say proved to be accurate. Whether that is a long enough test remains to be seen, but, at any rate, it is an advance upon right lines. The value of these prophecies is, I think, generally acknowledged by the industry. It is hoped soon 597 to make general ones as to the prospects, for instance, of the cod fishery in the North Sea, and a report on that subject has been prepared.
There are, of course, a number of investigations, biological and others, carried out in collaboration with the corresponding departments of other nations in Europe through the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, and Great Britain, I think, has always played a fairly prominent part in that work. In order to meet the demands for national economy, we have been compelled to lay up the research vessel "George Bligh" for a considerable period, instead of keeping her in commission, as usual, throughout the year. Nevertheless, I think it is true to say that, by the work which is being conducted by the officers of the "George Bligh" and of the motor drifter "Onaway," which was acquired by the Ministry a little over a year ago, we hope to be able to preserve the continuity of the most important of our investigations in the sea. I might mention, in connection with shellfish investigation, the system of purifying mussels and oysters from bacterial pollution. These experiments have been continuing with successful results. I am happy to think that they have been placed upon a commercial footing, and I hope to see this work considerably developed. The subject of freshwater fish has also received considerable attention, and much information has been obtained on such problems as the pollution of rivers by the effluent from sugar beet factories and other factories of that kind, and as to the most feasible method of grappling with the purification of the rivers.
The Committee will, I know, realise that I have only touched upon a section of the wide field which this Ministry covers, but I shall, of course, be glad to endeavour at a later stage to answer any inquiries that may be made. I think it is true to say that there are more than 100 Acts of Parliament which this Ministry has the responsibility of administering, and it is, therefore, no simple task that lies before either the Minister or the officials who work under him. I should like to take this opportunity of expressing my thanks to the officials of the Ministry, both at head- 598 quarters and in the country, for the manner in which they have carried out their ordinary duties, and particularly for the loyalty with which they have accepted what to many of them must have been a severe personal blow in the necessary economies which I have outlined to the Committee to-day.

§ Mr. T. WILLIAMS
I have always thought that it is a rather extraordinary proceeding when one is obliged to express hearty appreciation and to extend congratulations to a Minister for an extremely lucid review of his Departmental work, and in the same sentence to move that his salary be reduced by £100. I am not at all sure that that side of our procedure might not well be changed. Nevertheless, I do commend the right hon. Gentleman for the very lucid exposition that he has just given to us of the work of his very comprehensive Department. The right hon. Gentleman correctly pointed to the three main general considerations affecting our agricultural industry, namely, the benefit of our working population who are employed on the land, the proportion of our output as reflected in livestock, farm crops, fruit and vegetables, and the tremendous fall in the price level during the past two or three years. These questions call for the very earnest consideration, not only of every Member of the House of Commons, but of economists and thinkers in all parts of the country.
I hardly appreciated the right hon. Gentleman's references to economy in this of all industries, if ever we are to absorb our army of unemployed; nor did I follow clearly his suggestion that, as a result of not having applied the Agricultural Land (Utilisation) Act, he had saved approximately £1,000,000. It rather appeared to me that the right hon. Gentleman was claiming credit for not having done anything in regard to that piece of legislation. His references to economies on education, research, and, perhaps, drainage, one can understand, but I should like to say to him—and I am sure that in saying it I am expressing the feelings of all Members of the House—that we shall await with great interest the report which is likely to be forthcoming with regard to cod, though I do not think that either the right hon. Gentleman or the Government need any research into the art of "cod," for they 599 appear to be past masters at it already. Nevertheless, we shall be very interested to see what the right hon. Gentleman's report has to say. In reviewing the work of the Department, it seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman, while, quite rightly, he held tightly to his brief, failed to indicate, notwithstanding the tragedy of agriculture at this moment—

§ Mr. SPEAKER
resumed the Chair.