51. Mr. De la Bèreasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, since no concession has been made by the banks to the agricultural borrowers in their charges, which remain at 5 per cent. on money borrowed, he will consider a scheme for subsidising credits to approved borrowers in cases which were supported by recommendations from the county war agricultural committees on the grounds of the high interest charges preventing the maximum output being obtained from the farms?
§ Sir K. WoodFor the reasons explained by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Financial Secretary in the course of the Adjournment Debate on 18th July, I do not think this course is necessary.
Mr. De la BèreIs my right hon. Friend aware that the lack of money and the high interest charge—5 per cent.—on borrowed money are impeding and holding back the national effort for food production more than anything else to-day? Why is it that he will not do anything?
56. Mr. De la Bèreasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, since agriculture is recognised to be an industry essential to the war effort, he will give some assurance that the banks would give preference in granting credits to such industries, as compared with non-essential industries; and also an assurance that no collateral security, such as stocks and shares would be required, but that the advances could be made on the standing crops and livestock alone?
§ Sir K. WoodThe banks are already giving special consideration to requests for credit by industries which are essential to the war effort, including agriculture. Further, I am satisfied that the banks are not insisting on the provision of collateral security for advances to farmers where a farmer's general position, which, of course, includes standing crops and livestock, reasonably justifies the credit required.
Mr. De la BèreWhat is the use of all this great pretence and these wordy evasions? Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that something must be done?
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Gentleman cannot be allowed to ask Supplementaries like that.
§ Mr. StokesWhy should the railways have preferential terms over the farmers?
§ Sir K. WoodPerhaps the hon. Gentleman will put that Question down.
Mr. De la BèreIs it that by these wordy evasions the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not know the answer? What does he qualify for if he does not know the answer? [Interruption.] In view of the thoroughly unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I will raise the whole matter on the Adjournment at the first possible opportunity.
§ Mr. SpeakerIf the hon. Member cannot behave, I shall have to ask him to leave the House.