SOFT FRUIT (MAXIMUM PRICES) ORDER. (Hansard, 25 June 1942)

§ Sir Waldron Smithers (Chislehurst)
I desire to raise the question of the disastrous position into which the small fruit growers of North-West Kent have been placed owing to a stroke of the pen last week by the Ministry of Food. I regret very much if I have placed the Parliamentary Secretary in any awkward position by precipitating this matter, but it is really urgent. The fruit is ripening and has got to be dealt with. I might have 2214 given him a chance to answer the first Supplementary Question to-day, but his original answer went such a little way to meet the case, and showed such a want of appreciation of the facts that were put before the officials of his Ministry for three hours last Saturday morning and two hours last Monday morning, that I had no alternative but to raise this matter as soon as possible. This question affects 300 or 400 devoted, small loyal growers, many of them small family businesses. They have holdings of from three to 20 acres. They just do not know where they are, and I have had this morning at least 12 or 14 telephone calls to the effect, "For heaven's sake, tell us what our position is. We do not know whether we are liable to legal proceedings if we sell either to the jam factories or to the public or in the open market." What is the position? The district which I and the hon. and gallant Member for Seven-oaks (Colonel Ponsonby) represent is roughly the North-West Kent area and is roughly along the North Downs. That area produces its crop about three weeks later than, shall we say, the Southampton area. We have always prided ourselves for years that we produce there the best dessert strawberries in the whole of England.
I want to make it quite clear with regard to any figures I give that this matter has been so rushed that though I have done my level best to go to the growers, any figures I give will be average figures. For the past three weeks the most favoured areas like Southampton have been enjoying prices of 2s. 9d., 2s. 3d., 1s. 9d., down to 1s. 2d. per lb. in the lowest county for their strawberries. In the middle of last week representatives of the jam processors came round, I understand with the permission of the authority of the Ministry of Food, and said to these growers, "We pre-empt"—which I believe means commandeering—"the whole of your crop at 7½. per lb." I believe it is a fact that I cannot go to my neighbours next door, and there are several hundred of them whom I have known all my life, who are not only my constituents but my friends, and buy two lbs. of strawberries from them without being subject to legal proceedings.

§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Mr. Mabane)
May I correct that at once? It is not so.

§ Sir W. Smithers
My hon. Friend says it is not so. I can only say that I only know what I have been told, and that is what I have been told. The representative of the Ministry came round and said, "We pre-empt the whole of your crop at 7½d. per lb." They understand that to mean that they cannot sell to the public. My argument is reinforced, because at the conference at the Ministry we were told, "If you can get permission, you may get retail prices." One of the best farmers in Kent, a brilliant farmer, applied a fortnight ago for a retail licence and has not yet received any reply.

§ Mr. Evelyn Walkden (Doncaster)
May I ask—

§ Sir W. Smithers
I really must continue. I have a statment to make. The Ministry has put up two lines, I will not say of defence, but of explanation. One is that the crop in Kent is a heavier crop than the crop in the Southampton area. Since this morning I have been in communication with the local representative of the National Farmers' Union, and I have received a message from him which I will read to the House: It is not true that Kent grows heavier tonnage strawberries, but we do grow better fruit.' In order to check that statement, which was given in a hurry, I rang up another well-known grower. He said that it might be true that in some cases we grow a heavier crop in West Kent than in Southampton, but that is due to the fact that we spend £30 or £40 an acre more on manures. Another defence by the Ministry is that the prices were agreed upon between the Ministry of Food and the growers' representatives. I am sure that that statement was made in all sincerity, but it is not quite in accord with the facts. I understand, again from a telephone message to-day, that the representatives of the Kent growers were called to the Ministry of Food at very short notice to discuss prices, and that time would not permit of their consulting the local branches. I was informed over the telephone to-day that a Kent representative did say, at the meeting at which the prices were fixed, that he did not agree, and that Kent would be dissatisfied.
After all the tremendous work of the last few days, we are told to-day that the 2216 result of our representations has been that if a man has only one acre he shall be given certain exemptions and be allowed to deal more freely. I say, in all kindness, that that is really a ridiculous suggestion. What is to happen to, let us say, Mr. Dewberry, who owns one acre, and to old Bill Blundell, next door, who owns an acre and a half? They are working under exactly similar conditions, in similar small family businesses, working from morning to night; and one man is to be given a preference, and the other is to come under the 7½d. scheme. The Parliamentary Secretary shakes his head.

§ Mr. E. Walkden
Rubbish.

§ Sir W. Smithers
Wait a minute; I have been studying these figures for about a week—in fact, I have been doing so all my life. Curiously enough, last night a representative of the Ministry of Food, who lives at Paddock Wood, rang me up, and said, "I have heard about this discussion, and I think the growers are having a hard deal." He added that—quite independently of us, and not knowing what we had done—he had sent up a representation to the Ministry that he thought that the cost of production, under present circumstances, was about 1s. a lb. These small growers have very little capital. They live for the best part of the year on borrowed money, relying on the strawberry crop to pay off the overdraft, to pay the rent, and to keep them.
Another difficult point has arisen. We understood at these two conferences at the Ministry that what they call preemption notices have been sent out. Some farmers and small growers received them; some did not. We were advised, although not legally—it was an expression of opinion—that if a grower had not received a pre-emption notice he was allowed to go ahead. It was most unfair on those who had received pre-emption notices and who wanted to be loyal that others, who had not received them, should be allowed to sell at the expense of their neighbours. This morning, from 7 o'clock to 9 o'clock, my telephone was busy, with people saying, "We do not know where we are; are we breaking the law?" Some have returned their preemption notices and have written to apply for retail licences, in the hope that that will protect them if they sell. When we are told that the only thing the Ministry can do for us is to exempt the man with 2217 one acre, that does not meet the case at all. The only way to keep these small people alive is to give them at least 1s. a lb. for their jam strawberries. That would settle the whole thing; and it would allow the little man to sell what he could at 1s. 2d. or 1s. 3d.
I can assure the Minister that there is very bitter feeling. When the growers are told that only the man with one acre will be entitled to this preferential treatment, those who have three acres say, "We will plough up two acres, and make the best we can of the other one." That sounds drastic, but one of the growers said at the conference, "I shall not pick my strawberries." The chairman said, "Is not that anti-national?" "Not a bit," the man replied; "I have not the money to pay the pickers." These people do not want to make a profit. All they ask is to get out square on the year. To offer them 7½d. a pound—4½d. below the cost of production—is a grave injustice. It means wiping out a lot of these people by a stroke of the pen. I reverently say, Thank God the House of Commons is still left, where the grievances and difficulties of small non-vocal people can still be ventilated. No advocate has ever gone into a court of law with a better case than I have on this question. I know the difficulties of the Ministry of Food, but when a mistake is pointed out to them let them do the big thing and give the 1s. a pound, which is only an economic price and the cost of production, and so save these little men from severe financial loss, and, in many cases, from ruin.

§ Colonel Ponsonby (Sevenoaks)
I would like to ask the Minister whether, in arriving at prices in a case like this, his Department take into account the different conditions of climate and the different costs of production in the various areas. As my hon. Friend has said, my constituency adjoins his, and I have a number of small growers who are exactly in the position that he has represented. I have had letters on the subject, and they represent exactly what my hon. Friend has said. I have nothing to add to the case which he has put except, to put it in a nutshell, to say—and I am speaking only from the question of price—that these growers are asked to accept 7½d. for an article which costs them 1s. Their living is being 2218 jeopardised. There are some 300 to 400 growers affected. The case is one of urgency, and I beg of the Minister to look into it at once and, if possible, to realise that it is a case for immediate action and serious consideration.

§ Mr. Palmer (Winchester)
I want to bring up this matter from a different area and one which rivals that of the previous speakers, namely, Hampshire. I do not want to confine what I am going to say to the question of strawberries but to widen the scope of the discussion a little. This discussion has come up at very short notice. Owing to representations that I have received from my constituency in the last week or so, I hoped to go there on Saturday and to obtain considerably more information on the whole subject before bringing this matter forward than I naturally have now. But I have had enough representations and queries to make 6ome points which I am very anxious to bring to the attention of the Minister. I assure the Minister that I feel sympathy with him in coming into the middle of this difficulty so shortly after he has come to this Ministry. I am sure that he has the sympathy of everybody in this matter, more particularly as this is a difficult and complicated question. But I would like him to look at it, if he will, from the point of view of whether or not he is not seriously jeopardising the future of a large proportion of the fruit growers of this country. I went the other day to see a constituent of mine who showed me her balance-sheet for last year. I am speaking from recollection as I have not been able to check up. The total turnover shown on the balance-sheet was something in the neighbourhood of £1,200 a year, and it showed a loss of some £300 on last year's prices. Alarm was expressed that this year's prices might in fact be down. I will read an extract from a letter from this particular grower, dated 15th June: We are ordered by the Ministry of Food to pick the gooseberries for jam manufacture or processing only at 2¾d. per lb. This is an even smaller price than last year. In view of the rise in the cost of labour (men from 48s. to 60s. per week, and women in proportion) this means they must be picked and sold at a definite loss. If the prices of other fruit this season are in line with these the position will indeed be deplorable and mean we cannot continue growing fruit. The average pre-war price of gooseberries, was about 5d. per lb. when labour was very much cheaper. Several 2219 growers feel they will be compelled to give up this year unless something is done. Surely, the real point is that the cost of production in the shape of wages and of materials has inevitably risen, and in arriving at maximum prices in the Maximum Price Order, if you reduce prices this year and discount the effect of the rise in costs, you are inevitably going to create an injustice to the grower. I want, therefore, to repeat the question which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Colonel Ponsonby) asked: What is the principle which is adopted in arriving at these maximum prices? Is it simply that you look at the crop and say that it is a large crop this year and, therefore, the price will be low, or is the principle adopted, that the fruit growers of this country have a contribution to make to the national interest and the war effort in exactly the same way as the general farmers, and that it is fully recognised by the nation that the fruit growers have an exactly comparable contribution to make in their own sphere and should be regarded and treated from that point of view? I know that the Minister will tell us that, in arriving at this price, he has done so in full consultation and agreement with the representatives of the National Farmers' Union Fruit Committee. That may be so. I do not want to dispute that at all, but I come back to ask him these two questions: What principle did that representative body act upon in arriving at this price; and, secondly, Was he certain in his own mind that that representative body is really representative of the small fruit growers of the country?
I do not want to say anything at all in criticism of the National Farmers' Union, who have done magnificent work for the farmers of the country, but it is my impression, without checking it up in any detail, that a large proportion of fruit growers are not, in fact, members of the National Farmers' Union. I would like to ask the Minister whether, in approaching this very difficult question of fruit prices, he would not think it worth while to take the broad point of view of the national interest and go into the whole question with the representatives of the fruit growers and see whether or not what he is now doing is, in fact, going to preserve the fruit growing industry of this country both as a national industry and as a contribution to the war effort.

§ Mr. Evelyn Walkden (Doncaster)
I hope that the House does not imagine that, because this question has been raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Chislehurst (Sir. W. Smithers)—and on two recent occasions when he has raised matters on the Adjournment, I have followed him—I did not seek, Mr. Speaker, to catch your eye in order to tender congratulations to the Minister and to his Noble Friend for the excellent way in which they have tried to deal with both the early and the late strawberry and soft fruit crops this year as compared with 1941. I do not think it is quite true to say that it costs 1s. a lb. to produce strawberries to-day.

§ Sir W. Smithers
Is my word doubted? I have gone very carefully into all the available figures and statistics and the figure has been backed up by a Ministry of Food official. The average cost of production is 1s. per lb. this year.

§ Mr. Walkden
The hon. Gentleman has just told the House how glad he is that we are able to discuss these matters here in what he terms the highest court of the land and I think I am entitled to express doubts about the figures he has brought to the House. I would ask him to produce evidence, so that we may judge more fairly, to show the average prices before the war, in the Kent area, at this time of year. Did they ever, for instance, during the second and third week in June average 70s. per cwt.? They may have in some areas, but Kent strawberries were being sold in Lancashire in 1938 at lower prices than those which growers are receiving under this Order to-day. If the hon. Gentleman wishes, I can give him the names of merchants in Manchester and Liverpool who in 1938—which happened to be a slightly better year than the year before—were able to offer strawberries retail at 7½d. to 8½d. per lb. after bringing them some 250 miles from the area about which the hon. Member is talking to-day. Why has this case been brought to the House and why are these people complaining? I think it is fairly true to say—and the hon. Gentleman has thrown some light on it—that the people in this area cannot retail their strawberries any more because they have no licence.
We have good reason to congratulate the Minister of Food on stopping the racket which took place in 1941. Let me tell the House why. This time last year 2221 I went to Tiptree, in Essex, with friends of mine who had been dealing in the London fruit and vegetable markets for years with growers from that area. Up to 1941 they had been obtaining adequate and generous supplies, but when this Order came into force strawberries from that area ceased to arrive at Covent Garden and Spitalfields Markets. Why? Because in that area the growers were able to sell to motorists, passers-by and others all the strawberries they could possibly pick at a retail price, I believe, of 1s. 2d. a lb. They were selling at 2s. 4d. a basket on the one hand, whereas the Ministry guaranteed them, as growers, only 70s. per cwt. But they did not send those strawberries to market; they sold to motorists and to all comers in the area. What has the Minister done this year? He has accepted some part of the advice we have tried to give him, that there should be a canalisation of the fruit supply from these areas and that it should be directed either to factories or to markets where it is most needed and distributed to other parts of the country. The growers of Kent are prevented this year from selling all their strawberries to passers-by. There are no motorists now, or at any rate very few. The growers have either to sell to factories, or to merchants who purchase for factories, or get whatever price they can, so long as they do not exceed on the spot the Maximum Prices Order. Up to last Saturday growers were able to get 168s. per cwt., as growers.

§ Sir W. Smithers
We had no strawberries to pick.

§ Mr. Walkden
Strawberries were being sold from the Kent area by the ton in London last week at 2s. 3d. per lb.

§ Sir W. Smithers
But they did not come from Kent. That is the whole point.

§ Mr. Walkden
Many of these strawberries came from Kent. Last week the Order came into effect and the price slumped from 168s. to 70s. What the growers have done is to forget to provide themselves with retailers' licences. You cannot blame the Minister for that. We, as customers, who do not happen to live in strawberry areas feel rather pleased with the arrangement and would like to congratulate the Minister. The racket by growers in Tiptree who in one week-end last year sold between 4,000 and 5,000 2222 baskets of strawberries to passing motorists has been stopped. The Minister will explain what has been done. I understand, too, that tomatoes have been so distributed that in parts of the country where they are not normally obtainable they are available to-day. As I understand it, the Minister said he wished to commandeer all crops up to a point and transfer them to factories for the making of adequate supplies of jam for the winter months.
I remember that on 30th April, 1931, when I made my first contribution to a Debate in this House, I referred to factories that were closed because they could not obtain fruit, and others that were likely to be in difficulties, because the Minister would not take action. Well, he took action and the result is that we get an improved Order. What would the hon. Member for Chislehurst have said if coal-miners in Yorkshire had said, "We intend to sell locally. You people in London must starve because we are able to get better prices locally"? We know that there must be distribution throughout the country and here the Minister has tried to do a good job of work. If the price is low, I am sorry that the farmers in Kent did not take advantage of consultation with the Minister at the right time. But the price is not low; it is very high indeed. Scottish growers, I see, are to be protected and growers in Northumberland, Cumberland, Durham and Westmorland are to enjoy 224s. per cwt., as growers, up to Saturday next. After next Saturday, the price in that area will drop to 168s., and after 7th July, the grower's price will fall to 74s. Why? Because the crop is later in the Northern parts of the country.

§ Sir W. Smithers
That is our argument. The hon. Member condemns his whole argument when he says that. Our case is that our crop is three weeks later than the crop in other parts of the country.

§ Mr. Walkden
I was married on a 21st June, and my wife reminds me, every 21st June, that I have to get a basket of strawberries, because by some accident I had a basket of strawberries foisted on me on my wedding day. They were Kent strawberries. On 21st June, I always take home to my wife a basket of strawberries, if they are available. In the Northern part of England, in Lancashire and Yorkshire, Kent strawberries were the only ones that we knew of, before the 2223 last war, as being the first available to the consumer. Kent strawberries came first and Hampshire strawberries followed.

§ Sir W. Smithers
Really, I must protest. I believe that in a Debate on the Adjournment, I am not allowed to make a second speech, but may I interrupt the hon. Member to say his speech is so wanting in knowledge of the whole situation that it can be absolutely smashed to pieces. All we are—

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Member must give someone else a chance of smashing it.

§ Sir W. Smithers
May I simply ask the hon. Member, who said that the growers sell the strawberries at the roadside, how the growers get on when they live in lanes where there are no motorists? We are not asking for profiteering prices in wartime; all we are asking is 1s. a lb. for jam strawberries, which is the cost of production.

§ Mr. Walkden
I am sorry the hon. Gentleman may not make a second speech. To continue my remarks, Kent strawberries were available in Lancashire up to the time when I was last resident there 14 years ago, and even last year and the year before they were available in Lancashire and Yorkshire, although in smaller quantities. The hon. Member has come to the House to complain because the Minister has taken certain action and the growers are not able to get the price which they think they should get and the price which they were able to get up to Saturday last. I hope the Minister will not give way in the least to this agitation. I hope he will protect the consumers, and that, if need be, he will commandeer a greater quantity of strawberries, because I am not interested very much—except on that one day to which I have referred—whether I get strawberries or not; I am interested, however, in whether we are to have an adequate and generous supply of jam next winter. This being the case, I say that the Parliamentary Secretary's duty is to tell his Noble Friend that we in the House feel that all the strawberries that can be gathered should go to the factories, and that, generally speaking, the rest of the community do not care very much whether strawberries and cream are available or not. The growers have been guaranteed prices the like of which, up 2224 to 1938, they had never dreamed of at this time of the year.

§ Sir W. Smithers
That is not true.

Mr. Walken
I say it is true. We are very grateful to the Minister for taking such stern and resolute action in dealing with this very difficult problem.

§ Colonel Ponsonby
The hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walkden) quoted the prices of Kent strawberries in Lancashire in 1938. Has he any idea of what were the costs of production, wages, fertilisers and so on, in 1938?

§ Mr. Walkden
Wages may have gone up 50 per cent., and fertilisers may have gone up even 100 per cent. in price, if you like, but the general costs of production of strawberries have not risen to the extent that retail prices have risen, taking them on the average.

§ Colonel Sir George Courthope (Rye)
I do not want to enter into a controversy about detailed figures, but I Want to say a few words about the general position created by the issuing of these price control Orders for fruit. Before doing so, I am tempted by the remarks that have been made in the last two or three minutes to tell the House, with due humility, that I have lived all my life in the county of Sussex, between Kent and Hampshire, and that both Kent and Hampshire produce strawberries a little bit earlier than Sussex, although the Hampshire strawberries come in first every year and the Kent strawberries second; and then, if we are lucky enough, we can get some in Sussex. I shall not enter into arguments about costs of production, but at the present time I happen to be the chairman of an agricultural committee upstairs, which is the recipient of complaints from many constituencies. These come in from many hon. Members and filter through my hands. I am quite convinced that very definite harm is being done by the late date at which price control Orders for fruit are being issued. I am not at all convinced that if they had been issued earlier, the prices might not have been adequate; perhaps they would, but I do not want to argue about that. I am convinced, however, that it is a bad policy to issue prices for perishable fruit, such as strawberries, gooseberries and so on, after the ordinary laws of supply and demand have created another price in the market.
2225 The result of this, as I see it, is as follows. At the present time there is a very considerable crop of strawberries and gooseberries, with other fruit to follow, but there is a very grave risk that much of it will not be picked. I believe that risk is very largely due to the fact that prices, whether they were right or wrong, were issued too late. I suggest that if the Ministry are not in a position to issue the controlled prices earlier, it is better not to issue them. It is most important that these crops should be brought into consumption this year and produced again and brought into consumption next year, but if they are not picked this year, there is the danger that they will not be grown next year. It is most important that the crops produced should be picked now, and that sufficient satisfaction should exist among producers to induce them to do their utmost in future years. I feel that, in connection with some of these price matters, there is a tendency on the part of the Government to overlook the very great difference in costs, both in production and in marketing, between the little man and the big man. We want to get the little man's crop into consumption, just as much as the big man's crop. I hope this matter will be very seriously taken into consideration by the Minister, not only for this season but for the seasons which are to come.

§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Mr. Mabane)
I think it is very evident from what has been said that there is a considerable conflict of view on this very complicated matter. I appreciate what my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Sir Waldron Smithers) said when he regretted having to raise this question at such short notice; I recognise that it is because we are dealing with a very perishable crop. First of all I should like to consider the background to these prices. The prices for strawberries and other soft fruits were determined after the fullest consultation with the representatives of the growers through the National Farmers' Union. My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst seems to doubt whether the prices which were determined had been agreed to by the growers' representatives, but I can assure him he may trust what I say when I state that the prices were agreed to by the growers' representatives. More than that, in the case of strawberries they were higher than the prices originally suggested 2226 by the growers' representatives. My hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Palmer) raised a very significant matter, when he suggested it might well be that the growers of strawberries and other soft fruits were not fully represented in the National Farmers' Union.

§ Mr. Palmer
Particularly the smaller ones.

§ Mr. Mabane
I think the House will recognise our difficulty. The National Farmers' Union and the Soft Fruit Committee of the National Farmers' Union are the only growers' representatives we know. There is no other organised body, and, if we cannot deal with them, whom are we to deal with? I believe the date on which the matter was finally settled was 29th May, although there were discussions much earlier than that. On that occasion we were recommended prices which would not, in fact, have worked out at 7½d. per lb., but at 7¼d. per lb. My right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Rye (Sir G. Courthope), who is an authority on these matters, said it would be much better had the prices been settled earlier. This is obviously a matter for consideration, but the view has been taken that it is in the growers' interests to settle prices as late as possible, because indeed the crops may be altered by one night's frost. It was because we deferred issuing the Price Order until we did, that we were able, in view of subsequent developments in weather conditions, to make the growers' basic price 7½d. per lb. instead of 7¼d. The House must recognise that the basic price of 7½d. is not the only price. There are three prices. Firstly, there is the growers' basic price of 7½d.; then there is the grower-salesman's price, which works out at approximately 9d. per lb., and, finally, there is the retail price at 1s. 2½d. per lb.

§ Sir W. Smithers
Our complaint, and we believe we are correct, is that the whole of the crop of many of our growers was pre-empted at 7½d. four or five days ago.

§ Mr. Mabane
Let me continue with this question of price. I think we must recognise that, when prices of this character have to be fixed, they must be fixed on a wide basis. You cannot vary the price from district to district, and between grower and grower. We must recognise 2227 that, whatever price is fixed as a maximum price, someone is going to make a loss. If we went to the furthest corner of the Kingdom to find the least efficient producer, the maximum price would be too high. Therefore, I must not attempt to dispute the suggestion that some people may make a loss.

§ Mr. Bossom (Maidstone)
The Parliamentary Secretary used the words "least efficient." Farmers in Kent are as efficient as any in the country, but their crops are not ready as early as others, and consequently all our strawberries are sold at the lower price. They will not want to do it another year.

§ Mr. Mabane
Perhaps I may continue to develop my argument. I was coming to the question of whether the price is adequate. It is now said that this price provides no one with a profit. All the evidence which the growers' representatives give us—and it is not our experience that they advise the Minister of Food to fix prices which are too low—shows that the prices allow the producer to make a profit. It must be remembered that, in the ordinary way when there is no control, prices vary very greatly during the season. At the beginning of the season prices are high, and later on they fall to a very low level indeed. Here there is a price of 7½d. for the whole of the crop, and that, we are informed, works out at an average which is better than would be obtained in the ordinary way with prices high at the beginning and then falling very low.

§ Sir W. Smithers
rose—

§ Mr. Mabane
The hon. Member agreed that this was a very complicated matter, and it is difficult to keep the thread of it unless I can keep to my argument. It was suggested that the small man was badly hit by this Order, and that he ought to be given special consideration. There is a great deal in that, and, since the hon. Member for Chislehurst raised this matter, the whole position of the small man has been very carefully reviewed. I should like to say in passing that it is sometimes difficult to determine who is a small man. The appeal is made for the small man, and I have done my best to discover what may be a small man—the man who produces an acre or under, which is a lot of strawberries— 2228 but then the hon. Member for Chislehurst says that he is not a small man and gives a figure of 20 acres.

§ Sir W. Smithers
That is really not fair.

§ Mr. Mabane
I took down the words of the hon. Member. He said from three to 20 acres.

§ Sir W. Smithers
That is the figure for the whole holding, but the average strawberry acreage is three. You cannot know the details like I do.

§ Mr. Mabane
I agree that we can only do our best. The position of the small man has been very carefully considered in the last 48 hours, and, in reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Cardiff, a concession was made which I think is very valuable indeed. The small man is immediately to be issued with a general licence which will enable him to sell his strawberries or other soft fruit or cherries at wholesale or retail prices according to the nature of the transaction. If he elects to sell direct to consumers, it will be necessary to obtain a retailer's licence from his local committee. That puts him in a much better position. The hon. Member for Don-caster may disagree with what has been done.

§ Mr. Walkden
I do, very strongly in deed.

§ Mr. Mabane
The small man will be able to sell at an advantage—9d. or, with the appropriate licence, 1s. 2½d. From what the hon. Member for Chislehurst said, it appears that he was under the impression that growers who grew more than an acre could not engage in this sort of transaction at all. But that is not the case. The grower, no matter how large his holding may be, may sell as a grower-salesman, that is, at the wholesale price, or as a retailer, that is at the retail price if he holds the appropriate licence. What are the conditions of holding the licence? He must be able to show that it has been his practice in the past to do that sort of thing. There would be no strawberry jam for the population at all if a grower, however large, could sell the whole of his produce at either the wholesale or the retail price. There would be none left. Therefore, if he can show that in the past he has sold at wholesale or at retail, he can get a licence to sell the same proportion 2229 of his crop in that way this year as he did in the past. Many of the growers who were in a position to do it have already provided themselves with licences and are able to behave in that way.

§ Sir W. Smithers
Will the hon. Gentleman do what he can for those who apply for a licence to get it without a fortnight's delay, because the crop is ripening fast and, unless they can get it, they may be breaking the law?

§ Mr. Mabane
I will if the hon. Gentleman will give me the name of the farmer with less than 48 hours' delay, which is the time that has elapsed since I asked him to give it me. I asked him for the name on Monday or Tuesday, and I shall be glad to make immediate inquiries as soon as I can get to know the name of the farmer who asked for a licence and has been unable to get it.
May I turn now to the matter of distribution? Our purpose is to secure the best possible distribution of soft and stone fruit. It is almost impossible to get an equitable distribution if it is being distributed as fresh fruit. The most equitable way of securing just distribution is by converting it into some form of preserve. It is for that reason that the Ministry has made it the object of its policy this year to secure that such fruit as is available shall reach the public in as nearly as possible equal quantities by pre-empting as much of the crop as they may so that it can be converted into a form of preserve.
It has been said by the hon. Member for Winchester that the prices in some cases are lower than last year. But it is a very much bigger crop. I think he asked on what principle the prices were determined. Clearly the guiding principle is that a price shall be determined which is fair to the average grower and also to the public. I have just had a 2230 message from the headquarters of the National Farmers' Union confirming that they represent a very large number of small growers, down to one acre at least. That is the information now given me. I am also told that it is strongly representative of the North-West Kent growers of strawberries.

§ Mr. Walkden
Did the National Farmers' Union negotiate the price, and do they regard it as equitable and just?

§ Mr. Mabane
Yes, I have said that. That is quite true. I think the concession that has been made to-day is a most important one. The Ministry has no desire whatever to make the way hard for any grower. I was very sorry to hear the hon. Gentleman behind me say that one effect of the concession to enable growers of an acre or less to sell at these very favourable prices will be that the grower of more than an acre—of three acres, say—will now plough up two acres in order to get the higher price for one. I sincerely appeal to him to dissuade people from that course of action, which I am sure the whole House would agree to be against the national interest. The Ministry sets out to determine a price which shall be fair and shall protect the national interest and, as this brief but valuable Debate has revealed, in making these determinations it is making a way through a most complicated and difficult business. It cannot possibly please everyone but it does its best to please as many as it can.

§ Sir W. Smithers
May I say, in reference to the news which has been received since I addressed the House, that my information is that the representatives of the North-West Kent growers are two apple and cherry growers from East Kent?