HC Deb 15 July 1937 vol 326 cc1655-8

Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

11.55 p.m.

Mr. Grenfell

I do not think that the House would be doing its duty if it allowed this Bill to pass as if it were a measure of no importance, but I do not intend to speak for any length of time. The Minister will welcome the opportunity to make some comments on the Bill, which has been before the House on repeated occasions.

We have no general grounds for condemning the intentions of this Bill, and I want to say a word with regard to the fertility part of it which we think is all to the good. It will be a great advantage if the fertility of our land can be improved by the measures designed here, and by further measures which are not in the Bill, such as land drainage and improvements in other ways. The one thing that we must not allow to be omitted fom any criticism of the Government's agricultural policy is their readiness to dole out subsidies here and there which will go mainly to the advantage of the landlords, and to lay the basis of their policy on a system which is almost akin to bribery. One notices in this simple, innocent Bill references to various State payments. They are first called "Exchequer contributions," which is another name for subsidy. Then we find the word "subsidy" used. In another case it is "Exchequer grant," and in the fourth case it is "special payment." They all mean money to various classes of producers with the intention, it is assumed, of benefiting directly the man who works on the land. Ultimately, however, it benefits the landlord and nobody else, and it does so at the expense of the consumer.

One is not entitled at this time of the night to challenge the whole agricultural policy of the Government, but as I represent an agricultural constituency I am entitled to say a few words. That division is occupied by small farmers who work very industriously tilling the land and tending their herds with great skill and making a fairly decent living. Anybody who knows that part of the country will admit the high standard of agriculture there. I do not think that the agriculturists whom I represent in that division are complaining of poverty. They are not nearly as poor—and this is where the Government's policy is wrong —as their neighbours in the industrial parts of the division. If all the millions which are to be poured out under this Bill to subsidise various things were brought together and used to subsidise the consumers of agricultural products, we would find a much more healthy demand for those products with the prospect of much higher prices, and the prosperity would be much more widely shared. If a landlord becomes prosperous as a result of these subsidies, it does not benefit his neighbours in the countryside; it certainly does not benefit the urban dwellers. If a higher purchasing power were given to the industrial population, it would work right through the markets and give direct benefit to the farmers. While this enhanced demand persisted they would have better prices for the commodities they produced. I do not feel like censuring this Bill altogether. The provisions for lime and basic slag are an essential part of the reconstruction of the industry, for they will be a healthy tonic to the land. Under this remedial process which is being applied to the land it is not the farmer who will be the first to benefit. The benefit will go, in the first place, to the producers of lime and basic slag, whose volume of business will be considerably increased.

It is not our intention to vote against this Bill, but we would warn those who represent agriculture in this House and the Minister of Agriculture on the course they are taking. We could understand their policy if we had a Government prepared to plan agriculture with the object of producing a large proportion of our food at home, but the measures which they have taken have in many cases imposed definite restrictions on production. Their subsidies have been ill-placed and will not benefit agriculture. The best way in which to assist agriculture is by building up the consuming power of the people. If they have the means they will purchase more of the food which is grown at home, which they would prefer to the food brought in from abroad. We take leave of this Bill with the final warning that we are not satisfied with the agricultural policy which is embodied in it.

12.3 a.m.

Sir Hugh Seely

I should like to take the opportunity of expressing a personal view. What I have to say may not meet with agreement, possibly, from those of my friends who sit with me on these benches. I feel very strongly that, as the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell) has said, this Bill is dealing with the problem of agriculturalists in entirely the wrong way. I do not believe in these subsidies. We are wasting money and are not getting the best out of agriculture. It is difficult for an agricultural Member to vote against these subsidies, but I have done so many times and still feel that I have done right, because the money is not going into the right pockets. The money is not going to the good farmers, but to those who are not doing their duty in husbandry. They are the people who will benefit from this expenditure on drainage. The Government are giving the money to the landlords. They cannot deny that. I am to a very large extent a landlord, both in the Isle of Wight and in Nottinghamshire, and I know full well that it is my part to get as much of this subsidy as I can.

Sir Joseph Lamb

You will be disappointed.

Sir H. Seely

That is where the money does go. It does not go to the agricultural labourer, it does not go to the industry. The Government are on the wrong tack in thinking they can build up an industry by merely doling out large sums of money which is not going to the industry but to a few particular friends of theirs—and perhaps to me. [Interruption.] I admit, as I say, that it comes to me. By increasing the demand for the produce of agriculture we should, as has been said, be doing something really to help those engaged in agriculture. I am not going to oppose this Bill, but I do not believe in these subsidies, and I do not vote for them. I think the Government are wrong, but, at any rate, the Bill will go forward, and I wish it success.

Question, "That the Bill be now read the Third time," put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.