AGRICULTURE.

HC Deb 19 November 1941 vol 376 cc369-424

Mr. Owen Evans (Cardigan)

I wish to apologise to the House for opening a discussion on agriculture. I can only say that I have the honour to represent an agricultural constituency, that I am also a farmer myself, and have always had a natural pride in a very long connection with agriculture and with those who follow that calling. Besides that, I have for a long period taken an active interest in a university institution in my constituency where agricultural education and research of a very high standard of usefulness have been carried on. May I take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister on his wisdom, if I may say so, in calling freely on the staff of that great college to assist him in his very important work? The House should bear in mind that in the Minister of Agriculture we have a Minister of production, who is responsible for organising the production of a variety of foods for the population to the value of over £250,000,000 per year. These are sinews of war as much as the products of any munitions works. My right hon. Friend has been long enough in his office to familiarise himself with the difficult problems arising, and he has gained a considerable measure of confidence and understanding on the part of those engaged in the industry. We have heard a great deal about production recently, and we have had changes among those who direct production in this country. I confess that I am rather suspicious of these rapid and sudden changes at the head of Departments. They do not always conduce to efficiency. Changes are not always for the better. Last July the Minister made a comprehensive and illuminating survey of the agricultural position. He drew a cheering picture, although he was rightly cautious in his estimate of the future. Generally, his statement drew well-deserved praise from all parts of the House. A fortnight later, on the Adjournment for the Summer Recess, there was a general Debate on agricultural wages, the matter having been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith). Honeyed words were not showered on the Minister on that occasion. No doubt, in view of what has happened in regard to wages, attention will be given to the subject in this Debate. I think that the decision arrived at by the Wages Board will be welcomed in all parts of the House. It will be a red letter day when the agricultural worker first receives his wage of £3 a week. I propose to say more about that later.

I hope that this Debate will provide an opportunity for the Minister to give the latest and fullest information about present conditions and about prospects for food production in the coining year, the third year of the war. He will now have more knowledge than he had when he spoke in July, before the harvest. He then prophesied a bumper harvest, given good weather and so on. He expected that the farmers would show that they were producing more food than in any year in this century. I would like to ask whether the expectation has been realised, whether the yields of the various crops have been satisfactory. Have they been below or above the average? Particularly, I would like the Minister to say something about the results from the acreage recently ploughed up. I ask him to do that in order to remove the doubts of many practical and experienced people. Is he satisfied that the policy of ploughing up now is the right policy, bearing in mind the necessity for producing a variety of kinds of food and of maintaining soil fertility? Without maintaining soil fertility, production cannot be continued at a high level for a number of years. I have heard stories, although I have not been able to verify them myself, to the effect that ploughing up certain kinds of land has been wasteful. I have heard that from my county and from the adjoining county. On the other hand, my own experience of ploughing up land which had not been ploughed up or cultivated for a very long period is that such land has shown a very high yield of oats this year, something like 64 bushels per acre.

But the question arises whether it would not be more profitable to intensify cultivation on land already ploughed than to increase the acreage of ploughed land still further. The question has been put by very competent and experienced people. The other day the President of the National Farmers' Union asked, would it not be better to consolidate what had been already accomplished in the way of increased arable cultivation? Many factors which the Minister has in mind, no doubt, justify him in increasing the arable area. But the matter is of very great importance in view of the Government's decision to ask for 2,000,000 acres more next year. We must accept this statement, made by the Minister more than once, that he is not asking for more ploughing merely for the sake of doing so, or of being able to say that there is a record acreage ploughed. But the opinion remains in the minds of many competent people that it is a mistaken policy to add now to the number of acres cultivated. In two years the area under crops has been increased by 45 per cent. Can the Minister give any information as to what this represents in actual yield, whether the increase in acreage bears any relation to the total crop? I would like to congratulate the Minister and the other people concerned on the very remarkable propaganda in favour of silage. That propaganda, as one man has said, has made many farmers silage-minded. In remote areas, silages have been constructed, and no doubt they will add materially to the quality of the feeding stuffs which the farmer will have grown on his own farm. I should like the Minister to say what is his experience as to the results of straw pulping in various farms. On my own farm I put down a crop of straw early last season, and the result has been eminently satisfactory. My bailiff has assured me that it has had a very marked influence on the milk yield.

I would like the Minister, if he can, to give the House some information on that subject. Turning to the question of milk production, we have been given re- markable figures, showing an increased consumption of 120,000,000 gallons of liquid milk over the last pre-war year. This increase is bound to continue provided the milk is available. The people of this country are getting more and more milk-minded, and the advantages of milk have been brought home by assiduous propaganda to everybody, including mothers and expectant mothers. That clearly indicates the importance and necessity of maintaining and increasing the dairy herds in this country. There is some evidence of farmers going back from the production of milk to the production of cereals, because better prices are obtained for cereals and the work is not as hard. The farmers and workmen are not tied to their jobs so much in farming arable land as they are in milk production. There, again, observers are apprehensive that, owing to the large slaughter of heifer calves, a reduction in dairy herds is bound to take place in future. I have received a warning from the executive committee of the local branch of the Farmers' Union in my constituency. The members there are familiar with what is taking place in the county and have issued a warning to that effect. I would like to ask the Minister whether he has under consideration, or whether it is possible to consider, any scheme or any means by which farmers could be deterred from selling heifer calves to the extent they are doing now. The scarcity of dairy cows is apparent; it is indicated by the enormous prices they fetch in the market, and indeed, they are frequently unobtainable at all in the market. Our task is clear. The Minister, I know, realises that every step should be taken to maintain the strength of dairy herds and to secure the maximum production of milk therefrom under war conditions.

I turn for a moment or two to the question of labour. I read with great interest the debate which took place in this House before the Recess. My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith) spoke on that occasion, and it was clear that he had devoted a great deal of attention to this particular subject. He had done this by means of being friends with the farm workers. He knew them. He had hobnobbed with them, drunk with them, played darts with them and so on. I do not think that there is a farm labourer in the area in which I live whom I do not know personally, but I do not get the opportunity of taking a drink with them or playing darts with them. I meet them at concerts, eisteddfods, lectures and functions of that kind. The House will welcome the decision arrived at by the Wages Board. No one begrudges the farm labourer what he has gained and least of all the farmer if he is provided with the wherewithal to pay. I am sure that the Minister—in fact, it goes without question—is prepared on behalf of the Government to implement the undertaking which has been given to adjust price levels to meet increased costs of production, to meet the element of costs not only in wages but in many other things which the farmer has now to meet. I believe that I am right in saying that the present rate of prices is based on the minimum rate of 48s. a week. I deprecate one thing in connection with the establishing of a satisfactory living wage for farm workers, and that is when it is said that one of the main objects in establishing a minimum decent wage for the farm worker is to reduce the gap between wages in ordinary industry and wages in agriculture. That is a mistaken policy. It would be a very undesirable thing to have wages in one industry chasing wages in another. You will never succeed in reducing, much less closing, that gap. We want to establish prosperity for the agricultural industry, which will enable those who farm to pay a decent living wage to the agricultural labourer.

I wish to mention some further points in regard to the labour side. I would draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that there is considerable dissatisfaction among farm workers in regard to rationing. The promise was made by the Prime Minister that there would be a special provision of food for heavy workers in essential industries, including agriculture, and that promise should be implemented as soon as possible. There was, I think, some misunderstanding—I have had some complaints—about this question. There was an extra ration of cheese provided during the harvest, but it was taken off again. At the same time, these workers saw in the Press that the restaurants in the country were permitted to add cheese to the menu in addition to another dish. That may have been caused through a misunderstanding, but perhaps the Minister will say something about it. Then to-day there has been the statement on the question of supplementary coupons for clothes. I did not hear any reference made in that statement to agricultural workers, and I ask the Minister whether he has had that matter under consideration. Overalls and special clothing must be obtained by workers in dairies and those who look after the dairy herds. Everybody knows that the agricultural worker has to be out in all kinds of weather throughout the winter. They must have mackintoshes, breeches and leggings and heavy boots. This is eminently a calling in which consideration should be given to the provision of extra coupons for clothing.

I would refer to one other matter in connection with labour, namely, the question of the security of labour. In December 10,000 more skilled men are liable to be called up, and there may be a great tussle now going on between the Minister of Labour, who is the chairman of the Production Executive, and the Minister of Agriculture, who is also responsible for food production in the country. My advice to both would be to take heed, to listen to the voice of the industry and to bear in mind that these farm workers cannot be taken away without seriously affecting production. To cultivate 16,000,000 acres of arable land requires a large army of skilled men, irrespective of the admirable assistance given by unskilled men and by the Women's Land Army. The industry should not only retain all the skilled men, but efforts should be made to make supplies of labour in every way practicable.

There is the question of potatoes. A very great increase in the potato crop has taken place during the year. There is a £10 grant per acre for growing them, but that grant has not yet been paid, and I understand that even in some parts of the country the forms have not yet been received to be filled up. I urge the Minister to expedite the operation of the grant of £10 an acre. It would be a great boon to farmers to-day if the forms which have to be filled up were reduced in number and made more simple. We want farms, not forms.

All I have said up to now deals with the immediate problem, which might be regarded as coming within the ambit of a short-term policy. I submit that the time has now arrived when the Government might indicate broadly what is their long-term policy. One thing is certain. Whatever it might be, it is essential in agriculture that we should have some continuity of policy to avoid the tremendous breakdown that took place after the last war, when there was disaster for everybody concerned in the industry. There is already considerable misgiving and tumult created by the large number of unauthorised programmes which have appeared in books and pamphlets of all kinds. I suppose more books have been published on agriculture in the last year or two than have been published in the history of this country. Everybody tries his hand at writing a book and proposing what should be done for agricultural reconstruction. Most of them are in marked contrast to one another, and it is essential, I think, that the voice of the Government should be heard as soon as possible. Indeed, the Minister himself held out some hope—I think I am right—that a statement might be possible before the end of this year, which is now fast approaching. Time and again statements have been made on behalf of the Government by the Minister, recognising the importance of maintaining after the war a healthy and well-balanced agriculture as an essential permanent feature of national policy. Here I would like to refer particularly to the four partners in industry, because he has added the war agricultural committees as a partner. That, I think, clearly indicates there is something in his mind that the war agricultural committees will function in some way after the war or at any rate for some years after the war. I agree with that; I think these committees in many counties have done remarkable work, and I believe it would be impossible for the Government to dismiss or dispose of them until a considerable time after the war.

I congratulate the Government that certain steps have already been taken to indicate that they view the future of agriculture in its proper perspective. For example, the Government are to be congratulated on setting up two very important committees, one of which is to examine the present system of agricultural education and make recommendations for its development after the war. I am glad that the Minister has drawn upon the services of a university man who knows a great deal about education and who has taken up agriculture particularly as a study. The other committee is a very important committee if it does its work properly—the Agricultural Improvements Council—which is to devise an effective means of adapting the results of research to practical problems of industry. That is the fundamental basis of agriculture, and without that form of research, and without the application of problems to industry, any industry is bound to fail in the long run. I think Sir George Stapledon at his office at Aberystwyth is carrying on work which shows what can be done with imagination and courage. I feel sure that the House will be interested to hear, if it is possible to-day, what the Minister has to say on the Government's long-term policy for an industry which has played, and is playing, such an important part in our war effort and which will undoubtedly be called upon to make a greater contribution to the nation both in war and in peace.

Captain Sir Ian Fraser (Lonsdale)

I would like to follow the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. O. Evans), who has just sat down, by asking the Minister to-day to see that agricultural workers have such special clothing as they need placed at their disposal without coupons and that they have their fair share of any extra-food that may be given to certain workers in the country. Food not only keeps up your strength but it keeps you warm, and it is an important consideration that the agricultural worker, being out of doors in winter, should, if he is to do a hard day's work, be well clothed and well fed. I would like to comment on one other point raised by the hon. Member. It is with regard to forms, and if repetition of this matter can help the Minister to reduce the number of forms, let me repeat that there should be fewer forms and that they should be simplified. The big farmer has to employ clerks to fill them in, and the little farmer has no time and very little inclination to do this job after a hard day's work. I know the difficulties, but if the Minister could put a really able Civil servant on to nothing else but simplifying forms, it would simplify his work as well as the farmer's work.

A special point of interest to my constituents; and no doubt to others, arises where the farm is on a hillside or fell and owing to the nature of the ground it is not possible to plough up very fruitfully. For the same reason the farmer in this situation cannot sell very much milk. It follows that he does not get very many coupons to provide himself with feeding-stuffs for his beasts, and I question whether it is economic and fair to leave the situation as it is. I know the difficulty of extending coupons for feeding-stuffs to any class, but it seems to me that this is a particular class where justice and economy both point to giving them increased feeding-stuffs, because they cannot grow it themselves, and they, after all, are the people who provide the cows which, in turn, provide the milk for the lower ground. The Minister has told me that this matter is under consideration. I want to urge him to give it his sympathetic consideration and to deal with it as quickly as he can.

May I say a word or two about the call-up? I suppose every industry must make sacrifices to the Armed Forces, and I do not think any of us who are interested in the land would wish that this industry should make less than its full contribution, but I would like to emphasise that from the point of view of feeding this nation it may well be said that a man who can grow a ton of food is doing as vital work as a seaman who can bring a ton of food into the country. There are the alternatives. If you do not grow a ton of food you have to ship an extra ton, and it seems to me that the power of the Minister's argument in dealing with the Minister of Labour should be fortified by this House to enable him to point out the absolute necessity of leaving sufficient skilled men beside the unskilled soldiers and women who come in to make up the numbers required to help.

I suppose that everybody welcomes the decision to raise the minimum wage for agricultural workers to £3 a week. I wish to congratulate the Board upon their recommendation and the Government on implementing it. Later in my remarks I shall have something to say indirectly about wages, but at the moment I want to observe that it is supremely important that the Minister should soon, and if possible to-day, assure farmers that this increase in wages will be taken into account in assessing prices for next year, for the farmers cannot be expected to meet this increased charge unless it is so taken into account. While on the subject of prices, I want to make a plea to the Minister and the House to alter to some extent their attitude towards the farmers. It does not do any harm to the country to let the farmer make a bit of money. For long years the farmer has been struggling against a country that did not recognise him and his value, and it is for that reason, among others, that he has been unable to pay better wages. The farmer has been looked upon at less than his value to the nation, and the agricultural labourer has been looked upon as a humble person who ought not to have, and who could not have, more than a very low standard of living. Those conceptions should pass out of our minds. Human nature being what it is, the most economical way to secure increased production is to let those engaged in the industry make some money. If they make too much money, the Chancellor will take it away in taxation, and rightly so; but to feel hesitation about letting them make money is to take the heart out of their work and not to save the taxpayer anything in the long run.

I turn now to post-war considerations, and what I have to say links up to some extent with what I have been saying about the farmer making money. I know that there is a fundamental conflict of political principle between those hon. Members who would like to be assured that the land will remain private property in every sense, with as few restrictions upon the rights of ownership as may be, and other hon. Members who feel that the land situation will never be satisfactory until the land passes into State ownership. It seems to me that a decision of such magnitude as this could be taken only after a period of peace in which its implications and consequences could be fully understood by our people. We are fighting this war to win the freedom to decide such issues for ourselves. We are trying to preserve a system in which a free Parliament, freely elected, may determine such issues. I submit that it is not the kind of issue which it is fruitful to debate now or to decide in a rush election immediately after the war. I do not know whether it would be asking too much of my hon. Friends opposite to suggest to them that that fundamental issue, although it may be placed before the electors by them as one of their goals, is not the kind of issue that should be or could be decided at such a time. If anything approaching that view can be taken by my hon. Friends opposite, could we not, therefore, look forward to a period during which the fundamental issues that will divide the House and the country can be set on one side so that we may arrive at a policy which will have some chance of enduring for a few years. If, after the marvellous unity which we now have in the agricultural industry, we were to break up into controversy on fundamental matters which really are more electioneering than practical issues, it would be a tragedy for the whole of agriculture and for the country.

I submit to the Minister that the time has come for him to recognise in the most formal way that he can that a solution of the post-war problem and a settlement of it on broad lines for five years, perhaps, is one of his most important tasks. I ask him to recognise that, and to show that he recognises it by setting up machinery for giving to this matter wider consideration than is now being given to it. I have no doubt that each of the political parties is considering its post-war policies in all spheres of the country's activities. I have no doubt that the Minister of Agriculture is considering what he may propose to the House at some particular time. I have no doubt that the Minister without Portfolio has on his agenda the future of the land and the future of agriculture. Without knowing any Cabinet secrets, which we ought not to know, we can all guess that these matters are receiving consideration in a variety of places. But there is no focal point at which consideration has been given to this matter. I suggest to the Minister that he should set up the most formal kind of inquiry he can in the shape of a Royal Commission. He may say that this is not the time when one can get the ablest men to sit down and consider these matters. I think they ought to be found, and I think the Minister's influence, and that of the Prime Minister, should be used to find them and charge them with this most important duty.

May I have the indulgence of the House for a few more minutes in order to argue why I think this should be done now? We are bringing into our agricultural system all kinds of new ideas. There are new kinds of controls, new kinds of interferences. We have had to cajole and persuade the farmers, a most independent group of men and, on the whole, a group of men not accustomed to co-operation, to co-operate with one another and with the Government. We have had to overcome all those difficulties that arise the moment you take away natural economic controls and replace them by human controls. If you appoint local people to judge this or control that, they may be suspected of having local friends; if you appoint people from the Ministry to exercise these controls, it is said that you cannot farm from Whitehall—which is profoundly true. Whatever you do, you are in difficulty. The new system has got to work and has become known and understood. The Minister no doubt understands a great deal of what is happening in agriculture now throughout the country. The farmers and farm labourers understand it as it affects them. The general public is beginning to understand a little. Even those who speak for organised labour are showing great political courage.

Only a few days ago, there was in the "Daily Herald" a leading article in which an appeal was made, not to the farmers or farm workers to do this or that, but to town-dwellers to realise the important place which agriculture ought to hold in this country. A statesmanlike appeal was made in the "Daily Herald" calling upon town-dwellers to recognise the obligation that rests upon them to sustain and support British agriculture. I welcome that appeal. If now there is that feeling among town-dwellers, be it born of fear or of a new sense of duty to their fellow men living on the land—never mind what is the motive—and if there is among the representatives of town-dwellers a feeling that a sound agriculture is a sound national asset, surely now is the time, to use a vulgar phrase, to cash in on that sentiment for agriculture. There is a tide in the affairs of men, Which taken at the flood, leads on to fortune, and now is the time when those directly or indirectly interested in the land—landowners, surveyors, shopkeepers in the market towns, farmers and farm workers —should come together to take advantage of the unity of spirit which now exists. In a democracy groups of people with varying interests can only be brought together by stereotyped and regular methods—by publicising what is in your mind. One of the notable methods of calling attention to what is happening—and this would be desirable in this case—is to set up a Royal Commission where public evidence can be taken and where public discussion can be provoked. I ask the Minister to consider whether this procedure should not be adopted.

Science, transport, cinemas, mulitple shops and the wireless have all come to our aid in the last 25 years to make life on the land more agreeable, and now we have added a wage which is reasonable and which in some measure bridges the gap between the low wages of agriculture and the higher wages of industry. If on top of that we can give stability, we shall have ensured that agriculture, instead of fading away, shall remain perhaps our greatest industry. I recently made a close inquiry to discover how the B.B.C. is serving the farming community, and I found that very great attention has been paid to helping the farmer and the farm worker in every possible way. They are being given a greater share of the available time because of the supremely important service they are rendering to the community. Five or six regular programmes are made available to a very large audience, and I feel that a tremendous contribution towards the nation's agricultural problems is being rendered by this movement.

In conclusion, I wish to say a word about the Government generally. The Prime Minister, in opening the Debate, said that he hoped there would be no Amendments to the Address, and that he was not proposing to seek any scalps or submit any resignations in response to popular clamour or outside arguments. I feel that he does well to ask the House to give him a clear, unamended and absolute Vote of Confidence. I am sure most of us feel that we might be able to do a particular job better than a particular Minister—it is only natural that we should. But I cannot help feeling also that there is a great deal to be said for a team which has worked together; they have a corporate spirit and a loyalty engendered among them which it would be a mistake to break up from outside. I feel we should leave it to our Prime Minister to judge who should be his colleagues. The Prime Minister is a man who has his ear to the ground, and we should give him a clean and wholehearted Vote of Confidence.

Mr. T. Smith (Normanton)

We have had two very interesting speeches from the hon. Members who preceded me, and I am very glad that the subject of agriculture has been raised to-day. During the past 19 years a number of Members in all parts of this House, not excluding myself, have endeavoured to understand agriculture, have taken a very keen interest in it, and have from time to time made very critical speeches. Looking back to 1929, I do not remember any time when I have been more pleased than I am to-day, in view of the fact that the Central Wages Board have established a £3 minimum wage for farm workers. In agricultural history, especially on the trade union side, there are several important dates. One of the greatest landmarks in agricultural history dates back to the Tolpuddle martyrs, and, when I had the privilege to look across Botany Bay, I realised that even in that great Commonwealth the Tolpuddle martyrs have not been forgotten. Another date which will go down in agricultural history is 28th December, 1941—the date when the £3 minimum comes into operation. It is the highest minimum wage which has ever been in operation in the kingdom.

It is rather interesting to note that the first county agricultural wages committee to recommend this £3 a week minimum happened to be Dorset, where they have a very fine body of men who are respected by all who know them. Without any patronage, I say quite frankly that all deserve our congratulations. The Central Wages Board have exhibited hesitancy and a good deal of timidity; but, after all, it is not an easy job for the Central Wages Board with 47 districts and with all the variations and anomalies to reach a decision. It is also notable that there has been a revolt in the countryside. This revolt has, in the main, been brought about by the county agricultural wages committees which recommended the minimum of £3. This is attributable, no doubt, to the statement made by my right hon. Friend that cost of production, including alterations in wages, will be taken into account. So far so good. The agricultural workers, the Press, the public and the farmers are entitled to a word of praise. I have addressed delegate meetings and public meetings in a good many counties in the last three or four months, and I have not heard a single farm worker or farm workers' representative endeavour in any way to hold up national production while asking for this minimum. There has been no threat to strike. They are a patriotic set of men. They have conducted the campaign with extreme shrewdness and they have succeeded. Our thanks are due to them.

With regard to the farmers generally, after the Debate on 7th August on the refusal of the Central Wages Board to come to a decision, I was astonished at the hundreds of letters that reached me from all parts of the country from farm workers, farmers, farmers' wives, clergymen and others interested in the countryside, and not one of them said the farm worker was not entitled to it. What the average farmer said was, "We are willing to pay; we recognise that the agricultural worker deserves it, if only prices enable us to pay it." No matter what industry you are in, you cannot pay more that 20s. out of a pound. I am hoping that this £3 minimum is not to be merely a war-time minimum but is to be a new standard in agriculture which will put behind us for all time the poverty of the men who produce our first needs.

I recognise that, if we are to establish something like a prosperous agriculture after the war, it is not going to be easy, and we may have to shed some of our pre-conceived notions. Some of them have gone already. While we are at war we need maximum production, and everyone realises the importance of agriculture in the nation's economy. When the world becomes normal again and trade begins to flow more freely than it is doing now and the wide open spaces begin to want to get rid of their primary products, the question will arise as to the balance between home production and what is imported. That is bound to arise in more countries than one. I met farmers in Sydney; Melbourne, Adelaide and New Zealand. The question they had in mind was whether they should develop their secondary industries, and the argument ran something like this: If we develop our secondary industries and take less manufactured articles from the Home Country, the Home Country in return will take less of our primary products. That was the argument between business men and farmers in different parts of the Empire, In war-time you are compelled to develop your secondary industries, and I can foresee problems which will need a good deal of thinking out. I have always held that the farmer must have enough for his produce to enable him to live decently and pay reasonable wages and give decent working conditions.

This £3 a week minimum has given general satisfaction and will make for some measure of tranquillity on the countryside, but do not forget that you have not removed all the problems of the countryside from the workers' point of view. You have a lot more to deal with. The hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. O. Evans) congratulated the Minister on the setting-up of a committee to consider rural education. Up to now there is no representative of the farm workers on that committee. A tremendous amount of money is spent on education in mining districts through the Miners' Welfare Fund. You could not conceive of any of the committees handling that education not including representatives of those who work in the industry. It is worth consideration whether a representative of the farm workers could not be added in this case with profit to the work of the committee. This is the suspicion. I have found it in more counties than one. There is a fear that rural education may be defined as meaning once a farm worker always a farm worker, and that they must not be expected to aspire to any other position except on the land. There is as good a brain capacity on the countryside as anywhere else, and there are men in all walks of life occupying very high positions who come from farming stock. If my hon. Friend would consider putting a farm workers' representative on this committee, he would remove a source of irritation.

In your consideration of post-war agricultural policy you have to give the countryside better amenities than we have had in the past. A good deal was done after the last war, and after this war started, with regard to housing, but in some agricultural districts there are cottages that ought to be demolished and replaced by a better type of house. I am hoping to see the time when the farm worker and his wife and family will be able to live in houses with some of the labour-saving devices that we have in the towns, with proper bathrooms, hot and cold, and so on. But these things will have to wait until after the war. If one peruses agricultural journals, as I do, one is bound to admit that there is a wide difference of opinion as to what should be done with agriculture, particularly after the war. Some advocate small farms, others a system of small holdings, mixed farms and big farms. That is one thing that you have to keep in mind. There is one thing we have to keep in mind; this House must not betray its trust to agriculture as it did after the last war. It must carry out its promises.

When we come to examine it the point that has to be faced is this. If we are to have a prosperous countryside, with decent wages and conditions, it must be reflected more or less in the price of the produce when the consumer receives it. People in the towns have to be prepared to pay, in peace time in particular. The prices now are artificial and have been pegged down, but in ordinary times they will have to pay a price that will cover the cost of production. My experience among townsmen is that they want agriculture to have a reasonably prosperous time and the farm worker to have a reasonable wage. Indeed, last night in thousands of homes, when the news was given in the 9 o'clock bulletin, there were murmers of approval from the townspeople that the agricultural worker was to have £3 a week. They felt it was a good job and too long overdue. The townsmen will have to be prepared to pay, and I think they will be, but there are certain suspicions in their minds that will have to be removed. They want to know what is the real position in agriculture and whether the average farmer makes any money or whether he loses a lot. I was brought up among farming stock. My father's side were farmers but they never made any money. I used to stay in Leicestershire with one who bred shire horses, and if one asked him how he was doing, he would reply, "Not too bad; I could do better."

There is a general feeling among townsmen that they can never get the truth about the position in agriculture. My opinion is that the big fanner, the man who has capital, the man who can see ahead a bit and buy ahead, does better than the man who has limited capital. The latter is at a disadvantage in every way. Here comes a point in regard to fixing prices, and my right hon. Friend has my sympathy in this matter. I heard a lecturer of his Department say that one of the difficulties in fixing the prices of agricultural products on a uniform basis is that if you take the average farm and get a mean as a datum for fixing a price it naturally follows that those farming in a big way will gain and those who farm below the average will lose money. It is difficult to know how to balance these things. While the townsman will give a fair price to the farmer, he will not agree to the Government giving public money to an industry that does not need it.

Another thing about which the townsman is suspicious is that there is so much difference between the price of vegetables and other produce at the point of consumption and the price paid to the farmer. In my early days in Parliament I represented a constituency with a large agricultural population. Much as we disagreed, we are still friends, and they will do anything for me except vote for me. I used to be appalled at the invoices which farmers brought to me in those days showing the little money that was left once they had let go of the produce and it was auctioned off. What the ordinary purchaser cannot understand is why he has to pay so much more than what the farmer gets.

It is the same with coal. If you can convince any London housewife when she pays £3 and £3 5s. for a ton of coal that there is any relationship between those prices and the price paid at the pit head, I will give in. I have been looking through some figures of a certain London firm who bought coal in the North for 25s. 6d. By the time it had landed here it became 54s. 6d. While the townsman will be prepared to pay he will want to know whether all is being done by more direct selling, whether there are some middlemen who can be cut out, whether, indeed, we can more or less systematise the sale of agricultural produce so as to obviate unnecessary waste. If these things are done I do not think townsmen as a whole will complain. They have no right to cheap food at the expense of the poverty of the men who work on the land, whether farmers or workers. Miners have been brought up to the belief that coal has been sold too cheaply at the pit head and that it ought to be sold only at a price that would give a fair return to the companies and decent and safe conditions for the men who work in the pits. I would never ask for myself or the men I represent what I would refuse to any other body of equally important workers.

Are we doing as much as we can to get maximum production? The "Dairy Farmer" for November gives the result of a Gallup poll among farmers, and it says: Here are two important facts that emerge from this investigation. One is that more than 95 per cent. of the farmers consulted agreed that agriculture was not doing its utmost to win this war. Under this figure 19 out of 20 farmers are not satisfied with the war effort of their own industry. The second is that over 67 per cent. stated from their own personal knowledge that there was still derelict or badly farmed land in their own neighbourhood—and this in the third year of the war. Whatever may be the merits of that statement, my right hon. Friend ought to pay some attention to it. The "Dairy Farmer" says in another part of the paper that there is still too much bad farming. One of my farmer friends told me in Leeds three weeks ago that what we have to aim at is to take away from the land those people who take out of the land all they can get without putting anything back and who get out at the first possible opportunity with no good to themselves or to the country.

I hope that the new departure in agricultural wages has come to stay. There is no doubt that it, will be appreciated in the countryside. It will give the agricultural worker and his dependants a feeling of independence. If there is one thing I have tried in the last 20 years to instil into the agricultural worker, it is that "You are as good as anybody else but no better. Get your shoulders square, recognise and show your independence, and do what is right." I have always regretted it when I have heard the agricultural worker made the butt of the comedians' jokes on the stage. He is always looked upon as something inferior to the average man. He is not; he is as good as the best. If we are prepared to think out a policy this £3 a week minimum will be a landmark in the history of the country and we may eventually see a prosperous agriculture—before long, I hope.

Mr. Ross Taylor (Woodbridge)

I wish to touch upon one aspect of the matter which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith) and also by the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. 0. Evans), and that is the relation of the new minimum wage to prices. If the new minimum wage had been the figure of 56s., which was first suggested by the Board, I think possibly, although I may be wrong, that there would have been need for an urgent appeal to my right hon. Friend to increase prices. With an increase to 60s. it is obvious that the prices of agricultural produce must be changed. If the existing prices were right with a national minimum of 48s. the present prices will not be right when the 60s. minimum becomes operative. I wish to make an appeal to the Minister that the revision of prices shall be generous and speedy. I make that appeal having in mind particularly those farmers, and there are a good many of them, who find the present prices insufficient to meet their production costs, still less to give them any profit. It is not going too far to say that many farmers who have been struggling on during the lean years have only just been able to keep their heads above water, and if they do not get reasonable prices now they will certainly go out.

My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton has referred to the difficulty which faces the Government in fixing these prices. If all farm land had the same productivity, if all was equally easily worked, if all farmers were equally skilled and if all could get the most modern machinery, it would be a comparatively easy matter to determine production costs with reasonable accuracy and to fix prices accordingly. But, as we all know, that is not the case. There are wide variations in the character of land. It varies as between county and county, between parish and parish and even between field and field. The man who is getting 30 per cent. or 50 per cent. less yield than his neighbour, owing to the character of his land and through no fault of his own, and who may have to employ extra labour because his land is difficult to work, has exactly the same production costs as his more fortunately placed neighbour. It is important that the position of such a man should not be overlooked. Then there are the strange and capricious climatic conditions in this country, which often turn what looks like being a profit into a loss. During the recent corn harvest farmers in some parts of the country were able to get in their crops in good condition and with very little diffi- culty. Elsewhere the harvest was long drawn out and crops were ruined. That is what makes it so difficult for those charged with the fixing of prices to arrive at just prices for all concerned. Therefore, I hope that when he considers the prices, in conjunction with his advisers, the Minister will be generous and will fix them at a level which will give help to the small man, the man who is cultivating difficult land, the man who has not got the facilities which the big farmer enjoys.

No one will deny that there are people engaged in agriculture to-day who are finding it a very profitable occupation indeed. Some of them will go so far as to admit it, and it is an interesting fact that some of the county committees when considering the suggestion of the Board that the minimum wage should be raised to 56s., proposed on their own initiative that it should be 60s., in some cases, I think, without any reservation as to prices. They may have had some ulterior motive in their minds in doing so, I do not know, but it is a fact that they made the suggestion. Any increase in prices will obviously provide men who are in a position under present conditions to pay wages on the basis of the 60s. minimum with extra money, but it must be remembered that those people are the exceptions. The great bulk of farmers are not making fortunes. Probably they are doing a great deal better than they were, but we have to remember that they had been doing very badly. I hope that my right hon. Friend will take into account that the money which the farmers who are doing really well will obtain will eventually come back to the Treasury in the form of Excess Profits Tax and that the improvement in agriculture generally will be reflected in the Income Tax returns, and I hope that he will be able to some extent to draw upon the money coming in from agriculture generally in order to meet the needs of the smaller men.

I feel that everyone is pleased that the minimum wage of the agricultural worker is to go up to 6os. In the past he has been penalised by the fact that in very many cases his employers have not been able to pay a better wage. The agricultural worker has done and is doing magnificent work. From the national point of view his work is just as important as that of the munition maker or the coal miner. I hope that we shall see an end of the idea that the wage of the agricultural worker is a sort of datum line and that wages in all other industries must be above it. That idea has prevailed for too long and it is high time it disappeared. We have to remember, also, that while his work is important he will not, even now, be getting paid at the same rate as the workers in other industries. In addition, he suffers other disadvantages. A recent disadvantage which has been added to all the others is that he now comes under the Essential Work Order and cannot leave agriculture to take up other employment, although he could easily obtain it on more lucrative terms. Again, he has no canteens or British Restaurants to which he can go to supplement his ration. He lives, also, far away from shops, and shares with all other residents in rural areas the unpleasant consequences which have followed the skimming of the countryside to meet the demands of the towns for eggs, milk, rabbits and other things which at one time were so plentiful. Therefore I hope that my right hon. Friend will see to it that all farmers, and in particular the small farmers, are put in a position to pay wages on the new minimum rate when it comes into operation, a rate of wages which I think all will agree is at least satisfactory.

If I am in Order, I should like to say a word about the wage-fixing machinery. I happen to be chairman of my county committee, and have watched the machinery in operation at close quarters. In effect, we now have two wage-fixing authorities, the Board and the county committees. This affords an excellent opportunity to those interested of playing off one authority against the other. I do not think they are to be blamed for doing that; I think they are to be congratulated on their skill, but it is not a satisfactory arrangement. I would like to illustrate my point by describing what has happened during the last few months. I think it was in June that the workers' representatives on the Board tabled a motion that the national minimum wage should be raised to 60s. The Board held a large number of meetings in July and August but was able to come to no decision. Finally, in September, a notice was issued on behalf of the Board stating that the appointed members thought that some increase in the national minimum was justified but that, before making any suggestion as to what the increase should be, they were awaiting further information which they expected would be available by the first week in November. The statement went on to say that the county committees were perfectly free to raise the county minima if they wished to do so, a fact of which the county committees were well aware.

While this was going on, the workers' representatives in the counties were tabling exactly the same motion for the consideration of the county committees. In the case of my county, Suffolk, that motion came to us in September. It was turned down in the first instance on the ground that, in the absence of fuller information, it was desirable to wait until a pronouncement had been made by the Board, in November, when they hoped to be in a position to decide. That decision met with the strongest disapproval in the county because several adjacent counties had raised their minima to 54s. or over. Then, Essex raised its minimum to 54s., and the position of Suffolk, completely surrounded by counties with higher minimums, became intolerable. When the application was renewed by the workers' side, the minimum was raised to 54s.

That illustrates what I mean when I say that there are two wage-fixing authorities and that it is unsatisfactory that the system should go on. I do not need to trouble the House with the details of the machinery for fixing the new national minimum wage. The machinery is complicated, and, on this occasion, as on the last, it is being very much rushed because, by Order in Council, the procedure is being shortened. I ask the Minister whether this complicated machinery cannot be simplified and whether he will put that object in the forefront of his post-war plans. Not only is it complicated, but it tends to overlapping and is, above all, liable to abuse. I am sure that a simpler system could be devised which would work very much better and, incidentally, would take away the responsibility which weighs upon the chairmen and the impartial members of the county committees. In the end, they have to take the decision on all major issues, because agreement between the two sides is almost impossible to obtain.

Lieut.-Colonel Acland Troyte (Tiverton)

I agree almost entirely with what has just been said, and with what was said by the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith), and congratulate him and those associated with him in the success of their efforts to get an increase in wages for agricultural workers. Every decent farmer wishes to pay as good a wage as possible, but he cannot do so if he does not get a fair price for his products. I hope that the Minister will give attention to the prices of farming products in order to enable the farmer to pay a fair wage to agricultural workers. If some announcement of that sort can be made at once, it will have an encouraging effect among the agricultural community. People seem to think that agricultural workers should have a lower wage than anybody else, quite overlooking the fact that agricultural workers are skilled, and are entitled to as good a wage as the workers in any other industry.

The thanks of this country are due to the farmers and to the agricultural workers for the splendid way in which they have responded to the appeal which has been made to them for increased production. The thanks of the country are due also to the people who get a good deal more kicks than ha pence, members of war agricultural committees. I am a member of a committee, and I am surprised at the tremendous amount of work done in attending meetings and inspecting farms. Most of these members are farmers, and are all busy men, in spite of which they find time to do a tremendous amount of important work. The work is not always very pleasant, although farmers almost invariably meet us with very good humour. They most willingly do all they can to help us. It is not pleasant when you visit a man who is struggling along and not doing very well, and you have to persuade him to break up a field. You know perfectly well that, after all that work, he will get less profit, although perhaps more production, than if the field were left as it is.

It is not pleasant to go to a farmer and decide that he must be turned out of his farm because his farming is so bad. It is most distressing to have to tell this to a man who may have lived on the farm all his life. He may have been a good farmer, and now, owing to infirmity or age, is unable to keep the farm in proper condition, and he has to be moved out, because of the national emergency. Questions have been put in this House on the subject, and remarks have been made which make it appear that some people think agricultural committees are a bit hard on farmers who are farming badly and that they turn farmers out a bit too quickly, without giving them a proper chance. I can assure hon. Members that that impression is not correct. I regret that I do not agree with a right of appeal being granted, because it would mean delay. When you decide that a farm is in bad condition and ought to be improved, and the man responsible ought to be moved out, you do not want to have much delay for fear you lose the next year's crop. Hon. Members must bear in mind that we are now approaching the third harvest of the war. If farms are not kept in good condition by the present occupiers it is urgent that they should be got into proper condition before the next harvest. We cannot afford that any of our land should produce less than the maximum possible amount of food.

The sympathy of agricultural committees is, I think, practically always on the side of the farmer, perhaps too much so in some cases. I can speak only for my own county, but under the measures adopted there you may be perfectly sure that no man is turned out of his farm unless there is good reason. First of all a farm is inspected by one or two members of the area committee. They report to the area committee, and then two other members from different parts of the district visit it again. They again report, and if it is still thought that the farmer ought to go, two members of the cultivation committee go and inspect the farm again. After all this inspection, the farmer still has the right to appeal to the cultivation committee and to appear before them to state his case. If there is the least hope that he may make good, he is given three or perhaps four months to do so, and is not turned out until that time is past.

There is one way in which the Minister can help agricultural committees a great deal, and that is by letting us have our next year's assessments a good deal earlier than he did this year. This year it was left a great deal too late, which makes matters very difficult. There are some farms which have not been inspected even now. If a man knows that his farm is in bad condition, he will try to get it looking in good order before the committee come round by ploughing up his dirty aristas, and it is then impossible to judge what action should be taken.

The hon. Member who opened the Debate asked whether the ploughing-up policy had been successful. I think there is not the least doubt that up to now it has been successful, but I think we have just about reached the limit of the amount of land that can be turned over, without grave risk to the maintenance of the fertility of the soil. There is very little old pasture left, which, after being turned up, will produce more food than it is producing at the present time. It is not the least use forcing farmers to break up pasture simply in order to say that so many hundred thousand more acres have been ploughed if the result is to be a reduction in food production. The majority of corn crops in my district will be second-year or in some cases third-year crops. Proper cropping must be maintained, or else we are going to have a great many crop failures. I hope and believe the Minister realises this, but I suggest that when he is allotting the amount of arable land required from each county he should allow for temporary pasture. At the present time he allots a certain number of acres of arable land to each county. That only includes corn, roots, beet and potatoes, but temporary pasture, one or even two grass ley should be counted in this area. Although we cannot expect to keep to the proper rotation in war-time, we must have good farming if we are not going to see a reduction in the amount produced. You cannot go on producing corn time after time without a deterioration of the yield.

Another thing to which attention should be paid is the price of grass seed. I think it is likely to go up very high, and I hope the Minister will put some control on it, because there is a lot of land which will have to be put down to grass. Another thing which is required for the maintenance of soil fertility is sheep. I think we all know that you cannot maintain arable fertility unless you have good flocks of sheep. There are two other difficulties that farmers have to face. One is the shortage of manures. I think the Minister realises this and is doing all he can. The other, of course, is the shortage of labour. I most sincerely hope that the threat to call up a large number of agricultural workers for the Army will not be put into effect. It is most important that we should be able to maintain our skilled workers on the land. It is impossible to increase arable land without labour to work it, and substitute labour cannot be obtained. I know we shall be told to use the Women's Land Army. The Women's Land Army have done most excellent work, but there is a prejudice against them among many farmers and even more so among farmers' wives. In any case there are certain jobs they cannot do.

The Army also gives us a great deal of help, but there are limits to that. Sometimes men are sent for three or four days and then taken away to some other job. The Army have been most helpful in my part of the world, but they also have their difficulties. They want to be told two or three days beforehand when men are wanted, but, of course, that depends on the weather, and a farmer may say he wants men on a certain day only to find that it is too wet, so that when the men arrive they have nothing to do. Schoolboys too have given a good deal of help. As a rule the local authorities have arranged school holidays so as to make the boys available at the times when they have been most required, but I think it is time that education authorities realised that it is a great deal more important, for instance, that potatoes should be put in at the proper time than that schoolmasters should have full classes. Boys should now be allowed to assist even during term time when important work of this kind has to be done.

Then there is the question of pests. The rat pest is one which ought to be dealt with, and I think it would have been better if the Minister had done more about that than he did about the rabbit pest. At the present time I understand that he is trying to force agricultural committees to take on a large number of officials to deal with this pest. It would be a great deal better, and more rats would be killed, if instead of appointing more officials he had offered 2d. or even 3d. per rat tail. There is an Order under which both the farmer and the thresher are responsible for putting netting round ricks that have been threshed. It is important that this should be done, but it should not be a divided responsibility. I think the responsibility ought to be put definitely on one or the other, and in my view it ought to be the threshing contractor.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. R. S. Hudson)

Not to buy the netting.

Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte

Yes, both to buy it, and to fix it. I think the responsibility should definitely be on one and not on both. Many people wish to speak, and I will not detain the House any longer, except that I should like to mention one other way in which the Minister can help. We are told that there is a shortage of paper. There is no shortage of returns that have to be made. If the Minister can only manage to reduce the number of these which the farmer has to make when he wants to look after his farm, he will receive the thanks of every farmer in the country.

Mr. Quibell (Brigg)

I have listened to the previous speaker with very great interest and attention, and I must, say, so far as the countryside is concerned, I agree with his conclusion that we have taken nearly as many men from the farms as we can afford to take if we are going to maintain our present cropping system, and produce next year an increased amount of food. School children may be all right to help to take the potatoes up; the women land workers have done good work, but they are not a substitute for many of the highly skilled men yet essential if we are to produce the harvest required in the coming season. I wish to say one or two things about the extent of ploughing up. I think that on all sides of the House the opinion has been expressed that we have almost reached the limit of our policy in ploughing up. I know there are Members in this House who will recollect what happened during the last war. We compelled farmers to plough up land that never ought to have been ploughed up—cold, wet, badly drained—which never actually produced a crop that paid for the ploughing up, the tilling and the sowing of seed. Indeed, I have seen, and other Members must have seen, crops sown on land ploughed up this year that, so far as harvesting is concerned, would not pay for the cutting of it.

I think the Minister should take into consideration this factor, that with the limited amount of manures—I have no information with regard to artificial manures, of which there may be plenty, but artificial manure is not all that is required, but only part of it—with the limited amount of skilled labour available, he should leave it to the judgment of the war agricultural committees as to whether it would be wise, considering those aspects, and the machine position, that further ploughing up should be done on some of this land. Some of us are doubtful if it will produce anything so far as this present war is concerned, and I think that the decision should be left largely to the committees. In my own district we have a very fine agricultural committee, comprised of men who know their job and have done it thoroughly, and whose efforts have brought thousands of acres into active cultivation that in the past have not been brought into cultivation. Some of the results have been very fine. I have had a personal experience. The Minister has dined within a stone's throw of some land I ploughed up on which nothing had been grown for 60 years. No man has ever known it grow anything. It was ploughed up last back-end. In spring it nearly broke one's heart to look at it. However, we persevered and planted it, and that piece of land of about seven acres of the worst land, which was considered hopeless land, grew 50 tons of potatoes, over seven tons to the acre. I think that, so far as growing on this land for the first few years is concerned, the results are likely to be due to the fact that for 60 years the grass every winter has rotted, and as a result there is the humus in the soil. When that is taken out of it something else is required, or that land will go back. In my own view the Minister has gone really to the limit of ploughing up.

Mention has been made of the 60s. minimum wage for agricultural workers. I remember taking part in a Debate in March, 1938, in which I said, much to the displeasure of friends on this and the other side of the House, that save and until the agricultural labourer's wage was brought up to something nearer the level of that of the rest of the labouring people of this country, we should never solve the problem of the countryside, because if there was any character in a man he would leave the countryside and go where better money was to be made. He did so, and the result is that the countryside has been starved of some of the best brains. I said something else, and I am happy to see that I am now in good company. At that time I was an outsider. It was that, save and until you put a price level on to the primary commodities grown by the farmer, you can never hope to make the agricultural labourer's wage equal to those of the rest of the community. For the life of me I can never understand why anybody should object to a proper price level for farm commodities. Take every other commodity made and sold in this country. You never hear a voice on the other side of the House object to a proper manufacturer's price being put on to the commodity, and to a retail price being put on to it to the consumer. Why that cannot be done with regard to the main products of agriculture I fail to understand. All it requires is the will, and it will have to be done if we are to bring that confidence to agriculture which is so necessary in order that the farmer may plan ahead.

Some representative farmers, substantial men in different parts of the country, are in London this week. They say that it is all very well putting a price level now on to these various commodities, but that what they would like is to look a little into the future. You can easily give a political answer and say that we would all like to do that, but the farmer, so far as the planning of his particular industry and economy are concerned, does like some assurance, in view of his past experience, that, say, for a period of five or seven years, he will be able to look ahead to plan his policy. He could buy machinery and stock his farm and go on with confidence if he thought that for something like the next five or seven years a price level was to be put on to the various commodities he grows.

I wish to say one thing which I think has not been said yet. I had experience some years ago of a big estate on which there was a number of farms. I went on to these farms and found no water supply of any sort, not even for the cattle. Milk from this estate went into one of the biggest cities in this country. There were out-of-date shippens, with bad roofs and no ventilation. Everybody will tell you now that there should be some windows in the shippens. There was not a stable floor which could really be called a floor. There was no door under which a man could not creep. Everything was in a state of dilapidation. I am not one of those who think that the rents of farms have been unduly high. As a matter of fact, some of the farmers would be less energetic if you gave them the farms; if you make them pay rent they have to try to get the rent out of it somehow. But pressure should be brought to bear on the landlords to put the farm buildings into a proper state of repair and to conform to whatever standard is considered by the war agricultural committees to be a reasonable one. The farm buildings in which cows are tied up during the winter time and the other buildings on the farms are just as much agricultural implements as are the ploughs.

The Minister should take steps to see that some of the prosperity which is being brought back to agriculture is spent on putting these buildings into a proper state of repair. In one case an estate agent asked a farmer—I will not mention names; if I did the man would be known to some Members of this House—how long it was since the place was painted. The farmer said, "I have been here 40 years, and it has not been painted in my time." The dilapidation on that farm was terrible. One of the Acts that we have placed on the Statute Book made it difficult for a good landlord to get rid of a bad tenant. Things are now different if the war agricultural committees are doing their duty. Some comments have been made about the diligence which the war agricultural committees show in putting men out of their farms. I have known of one or two cases in my division which I think have been amply justified, but some farmers have fallen on evil days. Some small farmers may have lost a cow or a horse or two. In fact, in some cases I have been instrumental in getting a man put on his feet again when a lot of bad luck seems to have come to him in the space of a year or two. Where a war agricultural committee knows that a man has had bad luck, I think it would be justified in helping him to get on his feet again.

I, like the hon. member opposite, think that the present is not an appropriate time for a decision on the question of the ownership of land, but it is important that we should make the utmost use of the land which is available and produce the greatest possible amount of food, including meat. I see the Minister of Agriculture and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food sitting together. I do not want to play one off against the other, but I understand that much of the feeding stuff in the country is deteriorating—cotton cake in particular. Some of this has been stored for months, sometimes in large quantities. A week ago last Thursday I was approached on the subject by a deputation at Brigg. I think that a small amount, at any rate, of this feeding stuff should be released to augment that which the farmers have in their possession and the roots which are used in the feeding of cattle. This has been an interesting Debate, and I congratulate the Minister on having come so well out of it, but I urge him to make some pronouncement as to either a five-year or a seven-year plan for agriculture, in order to give it confidence and enable it to make its fullest possible contribution.

Captain York (Ripon)

I would like to follow the hon. Member for Brigg (Mr. Quibell) in what he said about wage rates. One hon. Member on this side said that he was satisfied with the wage rates. I am by no means satisfied with those in force at present. I do not consider that they are fair, in view of what the agricultural worker is doing for the country. Much has been said about the value of this rapidly-dwindling body of men. We must be thankful that this minimum wage is being brought into operation as soon as it is. The fact that it has not been made higher is not the fault of the farmers or of the Wages Board. Nowadays, the Government are directly responsible for the price paid for agricultural labour. Surely, more direction should be given by the Minister to ensure that wages are raised to the correct level. If the Government are determined to see an equalisation of all wages in the country, the Minister can direct the Central Wages Board that he will increase the price to any level that the Wages Board think necessary. We are asking for an unparalleled effort from munition workers, and we are paying them an unparalleled price. No doubt, we all feel that people would do the same amount of work without those wages, but why should we not try the experiment in the agricultural industry and see whether a higher wage has the same effect on pro- duction as it has had in the munitions industries?

Which man is doing the more valuable work for the country at the present time —the navvy who is working on an aerodrome—and one sees him all too frequently sitting upon his barrow—and yet earning £5 a week or more, or the skilled agricultural worker who is doing his job of ploughing heavy clay or topping or tailing roots in foul weather and is only earning from £3 to 65s. a week? It is not a question of keeping down the price of food, nor is it a question of preventing a spiral rise in prices. Equal pay for equal work is a maxim that we hear frequently in the country to-day, and nobody can say that this maxim has ever been applied to agricultural workers. It has been stated already to-day that the basis of the wage rates of the country is the maximum wage which is paid to the agricultural worker, and that has always been the basis and the minimum of all wage rates, and yet, as the hon. Member for Brigg said, it is the most important commodity of the whole lot that this type of worker is producing. The Government have no real fair wage policy. The man who is fighting the enemy, the man who is braving the elements at sea, the man who is hewing coal to keep us warm, and the man who is wresting from nature our food is kept on a bare minimum. I consider that the Government ought to reconsider the whole question of wage rates throughout all industries and throughout all Services.

There are one or two other points that I would like to mention on the question of prices, and the first is that we have no knowledge of the price which farmers are to get for their wheat crop next year. Always the country as a whole is upbraiding the farmers for being unbusinesslike, and yet when they ask to be given a chance to be businesslike and ask for prices for their produce they are not given them until after they have committed themselves as far as they possibly can. No farmer has ever said that he would not grow wheat, and yet he goes into this type of fanning completely blind. If the Minister is thinking that because wages were likely to rise a few days ago he would hold his hand, I see no objection to his saying that the price of wheat next year will be so much a quarter, and then, if before the harvest circumstances should arise which altered that price, he could make "the alterations as they arose.

The second point is in regard to milk. Milk production has fallen, is falling and will go on falling mostly, I believe, for the simple reason that, although it might be fairly profitable to produce milk seven days a week, the constant worries of the milk producer do not make it worth while for a man to earn so low a wage when, if he goes into arable farming, he can make a very fair wage and a decent profit. I believe that a weighted average of 2s. a gallon is the minimum that should be put upon the industry. At the present time, working on the weighted average, the price of a gallon of milk wholesale is something like 19¾ pence. If you take into consideration the fact that the milk farmer is working all day, every day, including Sundays, and is out in all weathers, and moreover has constant troubles which always occur when you have breeding stock, I do not consider that he is being adequately recompensed for the great effort he is making.

Another small point that I would like to bring to the attention of my right hon. Friend is that in many cases—I believe more so in England than in other parts of the British Isles—there is a great deal of land which is very badly distributed, which makes it extremely difficult for an efficient farmer to keep down his costs. You get a farm with the buildings in the middle of the village, a few fields half a mile in one direction and other few fields in another direction and possibly other two or three somewhere else. I know of a farm with fields in three different parishes. I suggest to my right hon. Friend that he should issue instructions to his war agricultural committees to take this matter into consideration, and that, if any schemes are suggested to them, they should be given the power and encouragement to push those schemes through in the interests of the efficiency of food production.

I would say that, in regard to the preparation of plans for the agricultural industry in the future, we still have no master plan, and I, along with many other speakers to-day, ask the Minister whether he cannot give us some sign or encouragement that these plans are nearing, at any rate, a point where they can be broadcast to the farmers of the country. The reason why I bring this forward is that I know personally there is a strong feeling of insecurity in the minds of our farmers. They feel, rightly, that nothing has been said except a few general statements that can lead them to believe that their efforts in the last war will not be rewarded in the same way after this war. I would put this proposition to the House. At the present moment which would hon. Members regard as the better investment if they had as farmers £500 in the bank? Would they put them into 2½ per cent. Defence Bonds, or would they put them back into their land? I believe that the answer in the majority of cases would be to put them into Defence Bonds, because that is a "certainty," whereas to put them into the land they might find in a few years that all their capital had gone. I realise that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has a very unfair advantage there, but if he and his right hon. colleagues would get together on that matter, they would realise that the farmer should put his money into the land. The Minister is concentrating entirely upon food production and is making a very fine job of it, too. I do not know about other parts of the country except my own but I know there that the respect which the Minister has been shown in his work is growing largely and we ought to congratulate him very much indeed upon the efforts he has made. But even so I believe that every Member representing an agricultural constituency should start every speech that he makes with these words, "We have not as yet a long-term agricultural policy."

Mr. Donald Scott (Wansbeck)

The hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Captain York) has discussed in a very able speech the question of wages, and while I agree with everything he says I do not think that I can affirm it. Rather, I have been paying attention to the very grave inequality which exists at present in our agricultural policy. As one who is partly Scottish and has many friends north of the Border, I am second to none in my admiration of that country and for its agriculture and the efficiency of its livestock management. But I am quite unable to understand the discrepancy shown between England and Scotland on the one hand and England and Wales on the other on the question of a subsidy for hill breeding cattle. That subsidy has been granted for Scotland, very rightly, but it has been withheld from England and Wales. Here you have the extraordinary picture of one who is a half-Scot begging for England in the presence of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I think I am speaking for the majority of farmers when I say that we do not like subsidies as such. We would far sooner have decent economic prices, and one of the things we are looking forward to in the post-war world is a prosperous agriculture which will not necessitate these subsidies. At the moment a subsidy may be a question of expediency. Only last week the Prime Minister referred to the necessity for granting increased rations to those engaged in heavy industries. Nobody, least of all those who have experienced the need of miners, will have anything to say against such a statement. How these rations are to be given—directly or through canteens or British Restaurants— is a matter for argument, but what is much more important is the source and continuance of supplies. Beef, I think, is the most important thing heavy workers need; it depends upon fat cattle, which depend upon stores, which, in turn, depend upon breeding. At the moment there are two sources of store cattle, one of which is by importation from Ireland. I do not want to say anything about this to-day, because I know that others in the House can speak with much greater knowledge, except perhaps to warn those who place too much reliance on that supply. There is also the home supply, which is almost bound to decrease as we plough up more land.

Therefore, we have to look to some alternative source, and I suggest that it already exists in the hills and uplands of this country. It only needs some concrete help from the Government in order to increase the supply very largely—a supply of fit and healthy store cattle which are extraordinarily free from the scourge of bovine tuberculosis from their very nature and environment. I most earnestly beg the Minister to consider this point again, to consider it in the wider national interest, in the interest of. the fertility of hill pastures and the consequent increase in output of much wanted mutton and wool and, finally, to consider it purely as a question of equity. After all, a hill farm, taking it by and large, has the same problems as other farms, whether it is situated in the mountains of Wales, the fells of the Lake District, the hills of the Border or, indeed, the bens of Scotland. The scope and incidence of the subsidy is a matter for arrangement and consultation, but I would suggest that there be no breed qualification. The obvious breeds are the Highland, the Galloway, the Welsh and the Angus, but there are many crosses of those breeds and even strains of shorthorn cattle which can fit usefully into the scheme.

It has been suggested by many Members during the Debate that we may have reached the limit of our capacity to plough up. I do not think we have, but I think that in many districts that point has been reached. I have received a letter from a farmer, a man of integrity and skill in the North, who is well known as a cattle and sheep breeder. I find his remarks somewhat illuminating, and I would like to read one or two of them to the House. He says: As long as the county agricultural committee confined their operations to good land fit for the plough we were all with them. But now we are to be ordered to plough impossible land at heavy expense without prospective return. There are hundreds of acres of oats still lying out that can never be harvested and no wheat can be sown this year owing to the continual rain. My own case is typical of many. I have 170 acres ploughed out on my home farm, mostly wheat, and a fine crop, and having a reserve of labour it was got in just in time. Now I am ordered to plough 250 acres of grass parks of which 200 are not fit to be ploughed. Among these fields are some of which I am to plough half, the other half being obviously unploughable. These unploughaple parts will be wasted. I shall be left with 400 acres of oats of which at least half will never be harvested, good grass ruined, add to which most of these fields cannot be -approached by a thresher, there are no buildings, no houses, nowhere to lodge or feed the harvesters (if any should be wanted). The expense to me of this new programme will be about £4,000, and I expect no return, only a dead loss to the country and myself. There are many others in the same position. Can anything be done? The only comment I am making on that letter is this: I do not blame the county agricultural committees; still less do I blame the district committees, because they are the servants of the Minister, but, if I may be critical, I do blame a policy which seeks to plough out in places which are quite unsuitable for tillage crops. This is a policy which will certainly result in many more acres and more money being paid out in subsidy, but which will not increase the food of this country.

Finally, may I turn to one more subject —petrol and agriculture? The countryside, and particularly the remoter parts of it, is suffering a great handicap through lack of petrol at the present time and other handicaps which will increase as time goes on. These handicaps come under two main headings: first, the barely sufficient ration which is given for farm tractors and, second, the difficulty of getting road transport for livestock. I know they can go to the store market or grading centre on the hoof, but in the case of fat stock long journeys may mean an appreciable loss of weight. As some of us know, even in the remoter districts driving cattle is extremely dangerous because of the number of military vehicles that one finds everywhere. I know perfectly well that the answer to all this is, "There is a war on." We know that perfectly well, but we also know other things. During the past summer we have seen an extraordinary number of private motorists, and although some of us may not have seen it ourselves, we have read in the Press and have seen pictures of the vast concourses of motor cars at race meetings, at greyhound tracks and other non-productive enterprises. I am beginning to wonder whether it is not time the Government considered this matter very seriously and whether they ought not to issue the basic ration in a more selective method. As mechanisation increases, so petrol becomes the life-line of farm production. One realises that the Armed Forces must have the first priority, but surely, agriculture comes very nearly second. Let it be remembered, too, that petrol is a very precious fluid, bought not only with cash, but bought with risk to, and very often the loss of, the lives of brave men. Those who waste it by misdirecting its energy are committing a crime against the State and are insulting those brave men who bring it to our shores.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. R. S. Hudson)

I apologise to hon. Members for coming between them and the eye of the Chair, but I have been asked a good number of questions, and I will try to deal with them. I have often heard it said by Ministers standing at this Box that a Debate has been interesting, but I should like to assure hon. Members in all parts of the House that I say that of this Debate with complete sincerity. I am very grateful indeed to hon. Members on all sides for the extremely constructive speeches they have made. It has been one of the most interesting and constructive Debates it has ever been my lot to hear.

The hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. O. Evans) asked me whether I would say a word about the prospects for the yield of this year's harvest. For obvious reasons, I cannot give complete details, but I think it will do no harm to say that the output of cereals and straw this year will be at least half as much again as it was in peace time, whereas the total area under crops, as a result of the new ploughing up, was 45 per cent. above the peace-time figure. This will give some idea of the proportion between the yield and the area ploughed up, for which the hon. Member asked, and he will see that the yield from the ploughed-up land has been extremely satisfactory. As regards fodder crops and potatoes, the situation has materially improved since information was last given. Our latest estimates of the production of root crops indicate a very good harvest indeed, and they should be above the average for the last 10 years. The only exception is sugar beet, the yield of which is higher than was originally expected, but will probably be below the average both in bulk and sugar content. As against this, the actual production of potatoes in England and Wales will be nearly double what it was in peace time. When one considers the total tonnage involved, it will afford some indication of the physical work involved for farmers, farm workers, casual labourers and soldiers in gathering in this harvest.

The hon. Member also spoke about milk, and expressed some apprehension concerning the reduction in the number of heifers and the excessive slaughter of heifer calves. There has been lately a great deal in the Press about milk and especially about the reduction in the distribution of milk. There has been an impression that the reduction in the distribution has been due to a failure on the part of the farmers of this country to produce milk in the normal quantities. I think it will interest the House if I give one or two figures about this, because these figures can do nothing but dishearten our enemies. If one takes the last pre-war year of 1938, in September, 1938, the production of milk in England and Wales was 89,500,000 gallons, and in September of this year, it was 89,000,000 gallons. In October, 1938, it was 87,500,000 gallons; in October of this year, 86,500,000 gallons. In November, 1938, it was 79,500,000 gallons; in November of this year it is estimated at 78,000,000 gallons. In December, 1938, it was 78,000,000 gallons, and this December we expect it will be, say, 75,000,000 gallons. It will be seen that, despite all the difficulties caused by the war, difficulties of labour, difficulties arising from the very considerably reduced amount of imported feeding stuffs and the poorer quality of the feeding stuffs, the farmers have actually managed to maintain, to all intents and purposes, the 1938 levels of production.

The House may ask why it is that we have been unable to supply members of the public with what they require. The answer is to be found in the following figures: In September, 1938, the amount of milk drunk in England and Wales was 62,500,000 gallons; this year the figure was 80,500,000. In October, 1938, it was 64,500,000, and this year it was 84,000,000 gallons. In November, 1938, it was 63,500,000, and this year it will probably be 78,000,000 gallons; it will be only 78,000,000 gallons because that will be the amount of milk produced. I am told by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Food that if the milk had been there the figure might have been over 90,000,000 gallons. Taking the year as a whole, it will be found that in 1938 we produced in England and Wales 1,076,000,000 gallons, compared with an expected 1,053,000,000 gallons for this year—very nearly the same. But, whereas in 1938 we consumed only 754,000,000 gallons, this year we shall have consumed 945,000,000. On the last occasion when I had an opportunity to give the figures for liquid milk consumption, I stated that there had been an increase of 120,000,000 gallons, but the figure has now increased to 200,000,000. That is a very remarkable and striking contribution towards keeping the people of this country healthy, well fed and better able to stand up to the rigours of blitzes and the winter. It is not only helpful to the country as a whole, but is especially helpful because it has allowed the Minister of Food to give first priority to people who most need milk, namely, nursing mothers and children. About 200,000,000 gallons more milk has been drunk this year compared with the last full year of peace.

I now wish to refer to heifers. There has been a noticeable increase this year in the number of heifers and calves. It is quite true that earlier this year an excessive slaughter of calves took place, but that has now ceased, and because of the increased number of cows more calves are available. I personally should like to see more heifer calves being reared. The Ministry of Food issued instructions to collecting depots some little time ago that they should offer first for rearing any suitable calf consigned to them for sale for slaughter. We have the matter under careful consideration, as the House will see. I was also asked about the acreage payments for potatoes. I am informed that the forms are now out and that the first payments will start very soon. The Ministry of Food expect to complete payments before Christmas. The question of coupons for clothing was also raised. Negotiations between my Department and the Board of Trade are proceeding, and I am hoping it may be possible to make a statement soon.

The question of rations for agricultural workers was also mentioned. I have been in consultation with the Minister of Food for some time on this matter, and, needless to say, I have found him most sympathetic. There are, of course, very obvious difficulties in providing food off the ration for agricultural workers compared, for example, with factory workers, who have canteens or British Restaurants. However, my right hon. Friend has made some arrangements, and he authorises me to say that from 15th December agricultural workers will receive 12 ounces of cheese a week instead of eight, so that with the recent increase in the ordinary cheese ration to three ounces an agricultural labourer with a wife and two children will be receiving 1 pound 5 ounces a week, which is probably as much as he bought in peace-time. In addition to that, he has made special arrangements to distribute through retailers in country districts cooked ham and bacon, which the labourers can take with them for their midday meal. He is also very anxious that further experiments should be made in rural areas in setting up mobile canteens and British Restaurants, and he tells me he would be very grateful if the agricultural community generally would co-operate and put forward practical suggestions. Then, next month people living in the country will be sure of increased supplies of tinned food and so forth at whatever time of the day they are able to shop, which will mean that, instead of these going to those who have the time to queue up and go from shop to shop, the farm labourer's wife will be assured of her supplies. That, too, ought to be of material advantage.

Many hon. Members have spoken of the desirability of some announcement with regard to continuity of policy. No one desires that more than I do, but the House will realise the difficulty of getting agreement on such a complicated question. All I can do is to repeat that we are working hard at the job, but from a practical point of view the necessity for an early announcement has, I think, been somewhat modified by the course of the war. The Prime Minister has more than once said that there is no end to the war in sight at present. I welcome the statement of several Members that they hope that war agricultural committees, or something like them, will continue for some years after the war. I believe that is essential. I have told my committees that in my opinion they would be quite safe in laying their plans till at least the harvest of 1945. That means that we have four years to run under approximately stable conditions, and therefore the farmer now sees sufficiently far ahead to enable him to settle down and work out proper arrangements for his farm. That slightly diminishes the need for an immediate announcement about post-war policy. We can say that, as far as any human being can judge, there will be continuity of policy for at least four years.

The hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith), in a helpful speech, asked me a number of questions and made several important suggestions. I will deal with those in some remarks I propose to make about the points raised by the hon. Member for Cardigan when he spoke about agricultural education, organisation and wages. Before I pass to that, may I reply to the hon. Member for Brigg (Mr. Quibell) and the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Mr. D. Scott), who asked whether I thought we had now reached the maximum in our ploughing-up campaign. My answer is, "Yes." After this year I do not think that we can contemplate any substantial increase of our arable land, having regard to the existing supplies of labour, machinery and fertilisers. That does not mean that in particular counties or on particular farms we shall not find more land to plough up—obviously we shall. In many counties and farms we shall find considerable areas of sick arable land that wants seeding down. We shall from now onwards have to try and consolidate the gains we have already made. The hon. Member for Normanton asked whether I agreed with a quotation that he made from the "Dairy Farmer" that 67 per cent. of farmers know of land that is still badly farmed. Having regard to the position in which agriculture had got before the war and the comparatively short time we have had to get it round, there is still a great deal of land that is badly farmed. There is still a great deal of land from which we could get more production, without more labour, fertilisers or machinery, but merely by better cultivation and management. That is a long job, and it depends on the county committees. We do depend on the committees, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Brigg for the well-merited tribute he paid to the members of those committees.

With regard to the question put by the hon. Member for Wansbeck as to why a subsidy should be given to hill cattle in Scotland and not in England, there are two answers. The first is that it was the Scots who asked for it, and the second is that it is easier to identify the types of cattle which qualify for it in Scotland than it is in England. We are, however, endeavouring, in conjunction with the National Fanners' Union, to see whether we can work out a scheme for England. The hon. and gallant Member for Tiver-ton (Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte) asked whether a temporary ley could be counted as arable. The answer is that it is. He also asked whether it would not be much better to pay 2d. per tail for rats instead of following other methods. I have always been under the impression, and I am still convinced by personal experience and the experience of my committees, that trapping is not the most efficient way of getting rid of rats. On the contrary, poisoning is a far more efficient method when it can be supplemented by trapping, but if too big a bonus is given on each tail, the difficulty arises of people breeding rats for the purpose of getting the tails. That is a very real danger. Several hon. Members asked me about forms. No one dislikes filling up forms more than I do, but probably it is easier to get a man to fill up a form than to write a number of letters, and as we have to get the information, we think the simplest way is to get them to fill up the forms. I can assure hon. Members that we devote a great deal of attention to making these forms as simple as possible.

The hon. Member for Cardigan asked me about agricultural education and agricultural organisation, and I think it may be of some interest to hon. Members if I try to give a brief outline, at the end of more than a year's work, of the organisation we are trying to build up. The food production campaign depends primarily upon the county war agricultural executive committees and on their district committees. They include more than 4,000 voluntary workers — farmers, farm workers, landowners, land agents, representatives of the Women's Land Army, etc.—and I am sure that they furnish a higher proportion of voluntary workers than any other industry. The county committees and their district committees are now assisted by staffs of technical men drawn from all sources—the educational and advisory services, university teachers, research workers, land agents, farmers and employees of commercial firms with technical qualifications.

There is a great difference between the methods employed in this war and the last war. In the last war, I believe, the object was only to bring more land under the plough. In this war we are not only issuing directions as to ploughing up, but individual members of the committees have now a personal responsibility for the general supervision of the standards of farming in their particular districts, and they have power, and are exercising it, not merely to give directions about ploughing up but to assist farmers with advice and through the Goods and Services Scheme. Further, they have the task of seeing that the best use is made of machinery and fertilisers, and two committees, in Norfolk and East Sussex, have decided to try the experiment of rationing the whole of the fertilisers in their counties. This experiment is being watched, and if it works it will probably be extended to other counties. The committees have also undertaken the complex task of administering the rationing of feeding stuffs, and they are responsible for the destruction of pests, including rabbits and rats, and are getting on very well. One committee has made contracts with farmers covering no less than 500,000 acres for the destruction of rats. In addition to this, the committees deal with the problem of labour, the reservation of men, the organisation of casual labour and the organisation of gang labour. Last, but not least, they are occupied with the question of the farm survey which is required both for war-time purposes and for post-war policy.

It will be readily understood that these men have their fingers on the pulse of agriculture in their particular areas, not only day by day but almost hour by hour. Their function is to organise food production in the light of the general principles and orders issued from Whitehall; and as a counterpart it is their duty to inform me through various channels of the difficulties which they encounter in carrying Out their tasks We have as far as possible decentralised administration, but we maintain close touch between Whitehall and the counties in a number of ways. In the first place, there are land commissioners in every county; secondly, there are labour advisory officers, veterinary officers, livestock officers and so forth.

Finally, and most important of all, we have, in the last 12 months, started and developed a system of personal liaison officers—people who are all leading agriculturists in different spheres, some practical and some scientific. Their job is to keep the county committees informed of the general policies which they should pursue in the light of the national requirements and, at the same time, to keep me in touch with the developments of the food production campaign in the counties for which they are responsible. They are available to discuss, and they do in fact discuss and advise me on the general problems affecting agriculture as a whole. They attend meetings of Executive and District Committees and they see in detail what is going on in the counties. In London, we have regular meetings with them at short intervals.

Our primary object in the food production campaign has been to secure the maximum increase of food of all kinds from our soil, within the general priorities laid down by the Government. In order to achieve that, it is not sufficient for us to promulgate general orders or to make general surveys. Agriculture is a highly skilled and highly diversified industry, and success in it depends upon many factors, and chiefly upon the good knowledge and management of individual farmers and farm workers. The position varies enormously between different parts of the country. On the whole, mixed farming is characteristic of this country, livestock and livestock products, cash crops and fodder crops in various combinations. Each farm has its own particular needs, and you have to study those needs if you want to get the best out of each farm so that it will produce its maximum contribution towards our national effort. Our general policy must, at the same time, be kept sufficiently flexible to be adapted to the needs of all the different farms.

I sometimes see it suggested that we are completely out of touch in Whitehall with farming realities and arc incapable of formulating a sound agricultural policy. Perhaps the very summary description I have given will show that, on the contrary, we are definitely in a better position to-day than at any time previously in our history to know what is being done and what is required in the farming world. We have had to overcome enormous difficulties, and no one wishes to minimise them, but I am sure that we are now in a better position to devise means of overcoming them successfully than we were some months ago.

I referred just now to the problems of practical farming. It was in this connection that I instituted a survey last year which provided a great deal of useful information for our food production campaign last year. We feel now that we require a more extensive and uniform survey on which to base our long-range policy as well as our policy for immediate problems. In addition to ensuring that each farm produces the maximum volume of food during the war, we must collect the information necessary for the formation of a sound, post-war agricultural policy. The survey now being carried out will include the preparation of a map of every farm. It is interesting to note that about half the leases of the farms in this country have no maps attached to them. The information about each farm will in- clude its natural potentialities, the characteristics of the soil, its present state of cultivation, acreage of the various crops, the animal population, and the condition of the farm buildings. It is quite clear that when this war is over what we have to do is to have sufficient labour and building materials earmarked to provide the cottages required to rehouse the rural population and also to put the farm buildings in order. I am quite sure myself that one of the most important steps that can be taken to raise the standards of the agricultural worker will be to see that he is in a position to pay an economic rent for his cottage. Therefore this survey which we are now making is an important foundation.

The hon. Member for Cardigan mentioned agricultural education. As the House knows, I have appointed a Committee under Lord Justice Luxmoore to advise on this matter, but the major problem before agriculture to-day is not more knowledge, but more personal education. In pre-war days we had a system of agricultural education that was quite good in its way, but far too limited. It suffered from one grave difficulty and drawback. It was that it was not applied to the people who needed it most but to those who needed it least. Before the war there were county agricultural organisers in each county and the counties were grouped into provinces each with an advisory centre, staffed by soil chemists, farm economists, entomologists, mycologists and other technical experts, but the services of the advisory centre were only available if they were asked for. Even if the men who staffed these centres knew perfectly well of areas within their province which needed their help, they could only give it when asked. In the same way the county organiser could go on to a farm only if the farmer asked him. The result was that only the more progressive farmers, who knew of the existence of the facilities, made use of them, while the great majority of farmers, people who really needed help, never called in the county organisers or advisory centres at all.

Last summer I altered all that. I closed down agricultural education classes and distributed the staffs that had been engaged on agricultural education among the counties, with the result that in most areas we have been able to appoint and attach a technical officer to each district committee. For the first time, therefore, in the history of this country men with technical qualifications are entitled to go with members of the district committee to a farm and examine the farmer's system of running it. Instead of waiting until they are asked they can now give advice or, in extreme cases, can issue directions with the committee's consent. I believe there has been a certain amount of criticism of my action; I have been accused of taking a retrograde step in agricultural education by closing down the classes. I venture to think that the contrary has been true, and that the action I took has resulted in an enormous spread of agricultural education. For the first time farmers who never asked for any technical assistance, and who affected to believe that the technical man could not teach them anything at all, are now finding as a result of conversations with the technical advisers that they are deriving real assistance and getting better crops and livestock. They are beginning to believe that the technical man can after all teach them something, while the latter on his side is beginning to learn something about the practical difficulties of farming. I think that is the answer to the questions raised. Of course, it is a slow job; it is in a way creating a revolution in agriculture and is bringing about a great revival of agricultural enterprise and efficiency. It is, however, still in its infancy; the numbers of people available are far too small. I look forward, however, to great results from Lord Luxmoore's Committee, and I do not want at this stage to say anything that might be taken as prejudging its conclusions.

On the side of fundamental research we have extended the functions of the Agricultural Research Council and placed further funds at their disposal. But I am so impressed with the fact that our major problem is not getting more knowledge, but getting it more widely distributed that I have appointed an Agricultural Improvement Council to secure more rapid incorporation of modern scientific knowledge into ordinary farming practice. Again, I look forward to great results. We are obtaining from day to day much new knowledge of our fundamental problems and difficulties. Our major problem is to adapt each of the different varieties of farming systems to national war needs in the light of modern scientific knowledge and the use of modern agricultural implements. There is a Council for England and Wales and a similar one in Scotland set up by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, and they are both hard at work. I am sure the result of their work will be to increase the knowledge of the farming community and to harness science more closely to the service of the practical farmer.

On the question of wages, many hon. Members have referred, in the course of the Debate, to the decision of the Wages Board to increase the minimum wage of farm workers to £3 a week. As one who is most anxious that the farming community and everything connected with agriculture should be raised in public estimation, I heartily welcome that step. I have never been able to understand why the agricultural labourer should be regarded as properly the recipient of the lowest wages. We shall now have the problem of adjusting agricultural returns to cover the increased cost of production. It is not going to be an easy job, but I have no doubt that we shall be successful. There is, however, one general observation I would like to make and I would impress it earnestly on Members on all sides of the House. It has already been said by the hon. Member for Normanton and the hon. Member for Brigg. I should like to compliment them on what they said, because I am quite sure that we have to drive home to the townspeople of this country that the agricultural worker cannot be paid a reasonable living wage unless you are willing to pay a reasonable price for the food he helps to produce, and unless you are willing to put his employer in a position not merely to cultivate his land but to maintain it in a proper state of fertility. That is the essence of the whole matter.

There has been widespread approval, not only in the House, but outside, of the decision of the Wages Board to increase the minimum wage. The cost of this may well amount to something of the order of £15,000,000 to £20,000,000 a year. This money has to come from the consumer or the Exchequer, which means that it has to be paid, directly or indirectly, by every individual in the country.

This is the immediate issue, but what I am particularly concerned with is the post-war agricultural position. It is no use leading the agricultural labourer up the garden path by letting him think he can have £3 a week during the war and then revert perhaps to 35s. or unemployment. I welcome most heartily what was said by the two Members to whom I have referred because hon. Members opposite are representatives of great trade unions and of industrial workers, workers who hitherto, for generations, have believed in the cry of cheap food. It was the cry of cheap food which depressed agricultural wages and kept them depressed. Cheap food, on the importation of which that cry was based, meant sweated labour and, above all, sweated land in the primary producing countries overseas, and it was, incidentally, also responsible, as I found when I was Secretary for the Department of Overseas Trade, for much of the curtailment of our export trade and much of the consequent unemployment. If, after the war, we look forward to a revival of international exchange and are to depend for the employment of large numbers of people on the revival of the export trade, our greatest interest must be to see that the great consuming countries who buy our goods are prosperous, and they are primarily agricultural countries. They can be prosperous only if we are willing to pay them a decent price for the food they send us, to enable them not only to cultivate their land but also to maintain it in a proper state of fertility. I have just been reading a book, recently published in the United States, called "American Farmers and the World Crisis." I would advise anybody who is interested in the subject to read it. It shows in the most vivid way what cheap food meant to the land and to the population living on it. I will read, if I may, three short extracts: The land in American farms totals about a billion acres, and somewhat over one-third of it is used for harvest crops. A century ago most of this land was virgin, and it included some of the most productive soils in the world. Yet to-day, after only a few generations of farming, roughly 50,000,000 acres of once fertile land have been practically ruined for cultivation. The condition of another 50,000,000 acres is said to be almost as serious. Loss of top-soil has impoverished and reduced the value of about 100,000,000 acres now being cultivated, and a like area is being depleted of its riches at an appallingly rapid rate. Thus, about one-third of our farm land has been completely or partly robbed of its ability to provide for the needs of the American people.…. The costs of soil erosion and im- poverishment have fallen both on farmers and on the nation as a whole… But it is the nation that suffers the full loss. Secretary Wallace"— the Vice-President of the United States, and up till then Secretary for Agriculture— has declared that 'the wholesale sapping of our land resources' is a 'serious threat to national security,' and that 'historically land decline has been an early symptom of national decadence—there is evidence, in fact, to indicate that great civilisations of the past have died of the malady of land decay'. There is the warning, plain for all of us to see. Let us heed this for ourselves, for we have not been blameless in this matter of looking after our own soil. Contrary to what many people assume, the natural covering of this country is not grass but scrub and forest. Land can maintain its fertility for thousands of years if it is properly looked after. China is a case in point. But if it is neglected or robbed then it reverts quickly to desert or to forest. Due to neglect, we started this war with 2,000,000 acres of cultivation less than in the last war—2,000,000 acres which had degenerated into rough grazings or had become thorn-infested and was in the process of turning back into scrub. Please do not let us forget that, as the hon. Member for Normanton so rightly said, if we are to prevent that recurring we have to employ labour at a decent wage, and we have got to enable a decent wage to be paid by efficient farmers who will keep their land in good heart. What we have to impress upon the people of this country is that the land is one of our most priceless heritages. We owe it to our children, and to their children, to hand it on, not only cultivated but in good heart, its fertility unimpaired, so that it may grow food for the generations yet unborn.

Mr. Snadden (Perth and Kinross, Western)

I have been long enough in this House, Sir, to realise that if one does not catch your eye before the Minister gets up, it is as well to keep on trying. I am encouraged also by what the right hon. Gentleman has said about land fertility. I think we all remember that when the Prime Minister addressed us last week he drew aside the veil to some extent at any rate on this vital question as to whether or not the people of these Islands would have enough food to fill their stomachs. In any event the German people seem to rely more on the weapon of starvation than upon any other. It is a melancholy reflection that if we had appreciated, in the years before the war, the wisdom of building up a strong, healthy British agriculture, if we had realised the folly of relying entirely upon imported food-stuffs instead of listening to the cry of cheap food, we would have had the loss of fewer gallant sailors being mourned to-day, more munitions in this country, more rations and more food to eat. From the agricultural point of view, we would have found our acres mobilised ready for war. They are nothing like mobilised to-day. On the one hand, we have masses of acres of derelict land and, on the other, we have a great deal of the kindlier lands working overtime. I want to deal chiefly with that point.

The reservoir of our supplies is at home. I do not think that anyone can deny that the right hon. Gentleman has succeeded in a very difficult task. I do not wish to criticise his policy in any fractious spirit of complaint but rather with a desire to help, and I would like to take this opportunity of paying a tribute, which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate, to his predecessor who laid the foundation of his tillage programme. To-day we are making a prodigious effort to produce the maximum amount of food from the soil of Britain, and with some success, but we may have to go on doing it for many a long day yet, and it is with our sustained war-time effort that I am concerned. I, personally, as a farmer do not believe that we can stand the pace unless we pay more attention to two things—first, to the needs of the soil itself and, secondly, to the need for a comprehensive cropping plan, a plan which will give us more collaboration between Government Departments and the industry. I do not see to-day any real evidence that there is such co-operation; at any rate, I do not find this particular matter in the forefront of our food production policy. We are called upon to increase our efforts and the response of the agricultural community to the appeal of the Prime Minister will instantly and whole-heartedly be given, but whether he likes it or not, the British farmer to-day has ploughed up a very considerable portion of his total arable acreage.

Who is this farmer who is doing this job of work for the nation? He is the livestock farmer, the backbone of our whole agriculture, whose cattle and sheep have gone before the plough. As the years go on he will find, more and more, two and even three crops of stubble on his hands for which there is no adequate supply of farmyard manure, nor does he feel that behind the Government programme there is any real cropping plan to which he can turn for guidance. He sees an enormous area of stubble on the one hand, fewer livestock and plenty of straw, but the manure will not go round. From my own experience—because I am one of these farmers—we are desperately in need at the moment of a real cropping plan behind our coming programme. Many agriculturists are seriously concerned because of the very heavy drain on our soil fertility. It is all very well for pundits and scientists to talk about artificials, but you cannot go on using artificials ad lib. I have farmed long enough to realise that the forces of nature cannot be altered. Nature very often supplies her own medicine, and one of them is farmyard manure. Despite what the scientists say, nine farmers out of ten to-day will tell you that soil fertility cannot be maintained without farmyard manure. If you do not believe that, why are farmers paying fantastic prices at markets to get any livestock? The answer is that they must maintain the fertility of their land.

May I give an example to the Minister? Suppose I was asked to purchase at the end of this war either of two farms "A" or "B". Farm "A" has carried a heavy head of stock and has been properly manured with farmyard manure. Farm "B" has been artificially manured, and, all things being equal, I would be a fool if I bought Farm "B". This year we must maintain as well as increase our tillage acreage, and that will mean in many cases that not only will you have two corn crops running on many farms, but a succession of three corn crops on many farms. Owing to the shortage of farmyard manure, it makes the business of lime supply still more important. I believe this question of soil fertility is the most important single item in the realm of our food production to-day. What are the Government doing to meet the position? The remedy seems to me to be to adopt a balanced system of ley fanning, but you cannot do this without a cropping plan. The present policy seems to be to call upon the farmer to plough a specific acreage, but there is no real guidance or direction to that farmer except in very special cases where agricultural committees are not particularly pleased with what he is doing.

The general cropping programme requires more direction in relation to our national needs; without such directional guidance our food supply is bound to be haphazard. The Minister found himself with a sufficiency of seed potatoes last year to meet the greatly increased potato acreage, but no one can say that that was other than a fluke. I do not think anyone will deny that to plough up millions of acres of grass is one thing, but to plan what we are to do with these acres years ahead is quite another. So far as I am aware, there is no plan. If there is, I imagine we would know all about it in the country. Finally, if the Minister is about to encourage a system of sowing down, we will have to sow down plough-sick arable land, we will have to sow down marginal land that has had one crop, and we will have to sow down 1939 ploughed-up grass. If that policy is approved by the Government, a considerable demand for grass seeds will arise. If the grass seed are there, why do not the Government control its price? At the present time, there is no control whatever over the price of grass seed.

I agree with what has been said about our having reached the peak of our cereal production in 1941. I want to make another appeal to my right hon. Friend to consider the question of putting forward a more comprehensive cropping plan, a plan divorced entirely from acres and built up on our essential needs on the one hand and soil fertility on the other, and worked on a regional basis. Such a plan would, of course, involve rotational farming, and I cannot see how rotational farming could be brought in unless we had a cropping plan behind it. The county committees have done wonderful work, and I would like to pay a tribute to them, but anyone who has been in touch with them realises that quite a few of them have been bitten by the acre bug. They have been forcing fanners to plough up large tracts of land simply to get the acreage. In many cases, they have forced them to plough up what we call in Scotland marginal land. The yield of this land is in many cases completely uneconomic. Perhaps the Secretary of State for Scotland will agree with me, but in any case I will give one example of the difficulty, which has a direct bearing on the new increase of wages to £3 a week. On marginal land a farmer can produce four quarters of oats per acre, which is a reasonable yield for such land, and at £2 a quarter, the gross return per acre is £8. On good land a farmer can grow eight quarters per acre, giving a yield of £16 per acre, a difference of £8 gross per acre. In the case of marginal land, the rent is probably 10s. an acre, whereas the rent for the better land is probably 30s., so that there is a difference of only £1 per acre in rent, making a difference of £7 in the gross return per acre between the two sorts of land. The fanner having this marginal land cannot plough it up economically unless the Government raise the price of the produce he is going to sell; nor can such a farmer stand up to the increase in wages to £3 a week unless something is done about prices. Everybody wants to see higher wages, but the small marginal farmer cannot meet the wage of £3 a week out of present prices owing to the low yield per acre.

I want now to say a word or two about sheep. I feel that I am entitled to say something about sheep, because there are 640,000 of them in my constituency. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Argyll. (Major McCallum) has 670,000 of them in his constituency. If these sheep were arranged in single file they would stretch from John o' Groats to the spot where the Secretary of State is now sitting and 50 miles back on the road to Scotland. Therefore, I am entitled to speak about hill sheep. These sheep come from the hills. They consume no imports. They utilise enormous areas of land which are quite incapable of contributing in any other way to the war effort. Since the war began, we have been told again and again that shipping space must be conserved, and therefore, it is right that we should produce from the heather valuable food for the nation if it can be done.

Sir Reginald Dorman-Smith, for whom I have the greatest admiration, stated in this House at the beginning of the war that the only source for increasing the supply of meat in this country lay in our hill sheep; he said that because they need no imports whatsoever. Have we made any real attempt to carry into practice what he directed? No one in touch with the position could say that we have done anything of the kind. The Secretary of State for Scotland will probably announce shortly the amount of subsidy to be given to the hill-sheep farmers. That is a policy of restriction and a return to the old policy of "faith, hope and charity." Why does this industry have to ask for charity? That is the question everyone is asking. Everybody knows that we have had storms, but the hill-sheep industry does not ask for a guarantee against acts of God. This subsidy is nothing less than an admission that the Government have failed in the past to give the hill-sheep producer an economic price for his product. It is a form of sick payment, and, unless we can get away from this idea of public assistance and get down to solving the problem in its economic aspects, the Government will be guilty of neglecting the only source from which an increase in the production of meat can come during this war. I suggest that the Government will never get the best from the industry with a policy of subsidising. Everyone knows that a subsidy will be here to-day and gone tomorrow. The question is, How can the hill-sheep industry be kept alive, nourished and expanded? I quite realise that hon. Members wish to get away, and I have no intention, of delaying them, but I ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, when considering the economic aspect of the hill-sheep industry, to bear in mind that we do not feel that a solution can be found by granting subsidies. I hope the Government will look into this question at the earliest possible moment.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned," put, and agreed to. —[Major Dugdale.]

Debate to be resumed upon the next Sitting Day.