§ Mr. Loftus (Lowestoft)In the short time available to me I propose raising a matter which I believe is of greater national importance than is generally 264 realised, namely, the failure to use for feeding purposes for stock a vast amount of grass available on aerodromes. We are all begged to-day, each one of us, to economise to the utmost in the consumption and use of all feeding material, and those who can produce food, whether farmers or market gardeners, are urged to do their utmost to increase the food supply of the country. I believe myself that owing to the failure to use this vast amount of grass on our aerodromes we are wasting an enormous quantity of the most valuable animal food in the world. I believe that the loss may well run into over 100,000 tons a year, perhaps considerably more. The drying of grass is probably the most progressive, beneficent step achieved in agriculture in the last 50 years. Dried grass contains in itself a perfect animal food. It has an enormous quantity of vitamins, proteins, and so on; and such a food in these times should not be wasted. I recognise that in putting my case I must be brief, and that I must not use any figures as to the numbers of aerodromes and so on; I must deal with the matter in general terms.
The first thing to note is that every aerodrome could utilise two drying plants. Between 1st May and 1st October each plant would produce 250 tons; that is to say, each aerodrome with two plants would produce 500 tons a year of this valuable food. A hundred aerodromes would produce 50,000 tons a year of this food for our stock. It is possible that some aerodromes could utilise three drying plants, but I take the figure two. Nearly all the surface of an aerodrome—quite 90 per cent.—is grass. On how many aerodromes are we utilising grass for drying? I have asked the Minister on what percentage of aerodromes it has been utilised, or on what number of aerodromes. He gave an answer in one word—"Ten." Whether he meant 10 per cent. or 10 aerodromes I do not know—I presume he meant 10 aerodromes. In any case it is obvious that there is a great waste in not utilising the enormous majority of aerodromes for this purpose. What happens to the grass on these aerodromes? It has to be cut. I believe that in some instances, possibly in many, it is cut and then left to rot. The only way of utilising this grass is to dry it. You cannot utilise it as hay; it would not keep in such quantities, especially the very short grass.
265 What is the answer that the various Government Departments have given on this matter? The first answer probably is that the disposal of the grass is left to the county war agricultural committees. I believe that these committees have the power to deal only with areas outside the aerodrome, small areas containing probably inferior, rough grass. I do not believe they have power to deal with the aerodromes themselves. I have a friend—and I will give particulars to the right hon. Gentleman later—who for 18 months has been trying to get the grass of five or six aerodromes in one county, and has offered £2 an acre, but cannot get an answer. He has been referred from one Department to another, chivvied from pillar to post, and he can find nobody in any Department who will take the responsibility of accepting his offer and adding to the food supplies of the country. The second answer is, that it may be said that camouflaging grass on aerodromes prevents the utilisation of the grass. I suggest that only a small proportion of the grass of an aerodrome is so affected. It should be known that camouflage has taken place for years on aerodromes where the grass has been dried, and further that the grass driers themselves used to apply the camouflage in certain aerodromes. I admit frankly that years ago there was a lot of camouflaging in aerodromes which did prevent the grass being used. I will not go into the details of the methods, naturally, but I know that that method has been abolished and is no longer used.
The third answer may be given as follows; Aerodromes are sown with a special type of grass which is not suitable for grass drying. I reply to that that the majority of aerodromes laid before the war were seeded with first-class grass admirably adapted for grass drying. I have here the analyses of that grass from three aerodromes, and they are as follow: first, carotene, which forms 450 millograms per kilo; the second, 400 millograms per kilo; and the third, 330 millograms per kilo. First quality dried grass is anything above 250 millograms per kilo.
Therefore it is first-quality dry grass. But I am also told by experts that even these special grasses which are used on the minority of aerodromes only can be utilised for grass drying. Surely, if there 266 is any question about it, it can be solved very easily. Let the Minister obtain samples and have them analysed by experts and discover whether the types of grass used on this minority of aerodromes are suitable or not.
A possible answer is that drying plants are not available. I admit that they are not available to-day, but they can be made available quite easily. Grass drying plant can be easily and quickly made. It consists of an oven of sheet metal and a furnace, and I believe that we could get 500 of these plants made by one or two firms within three months, once the order was given and the material provided. I would point out to the Minister that these plants could be used for other purposes, such as drying corn during a wet harvest, and after the war they would be an invaluable national asset in providing food for stock.
I feel that the only explanation is that the Air Ministry is the obstacle. I realise it is the obstacle. The Air Ministry is concentrating on its own magnificent job, which it is carrying out so splendidly, and the Minister and the Ministry personnel say, "We want to get on with our job and with the war, and we cannot deal with these agricultural troubles." It is, I think, because they do not realise the immense importance of the subject. It is important for these and many other reasons. We want more milk, and the ideal food for the purpose is dried grass. We want more meat, we want to import less food for our stock. Dried grass is the perfect food. We have killed off our pig and poultry populations to a large extent, yet here we have the perfect food, not being used. If we had even half this available food, we could enormously increase our stock of pigs and poultry, to the general benefit of the country.
My final consideration is this: Lord Woolton, in a passage which appealed to our people, said the other day, when begging us to economise on bread, that when you fiddle with a piece of bread by the side of your plate you are fiddling with the lives of our seamen. That went home to the British people. Here, I suggest, is a vast store of magnificent animal food which is being wasted. If we used it, it would save great quantities of food which might have to be brought in, indeed, will have to be brought in, in ships at great cost of loss of ships and men I would beg the Parliamentary Secretary 267 to consider this matter seriously. I ask him to take at least this step, to insist on a joint investigation by the Ministry of Agriculture and the Air Ministry. Let there be a joint Departmental Committee to sift the facts and hear the evidence of experts, so that the obstacles are removed. That is a small request to make. I would like to quote the eloquent words used by the Parliamentary Secretary at Cardiff the other day. He is reported to have said:
More food is still the rallying cry in the battle of the fields. Every ton of food produced here helps in the battle against the U-boats. Each ship used to import food is one less to carry the war to the enemy.Let the Parliamentary Secretary now break down this inertia, this lack of realisation of what is happening, and force a thorough investigation into the great possibilities of this food.
§ The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. Tom Williams)My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture is at one with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Loftus) in desiring that the maximum possible use should be made of the grass produced from aerodromes, and I welcome this opportunity of explaining just what the possibilities are and what actually has been done to date. I would appeal to hon. Members not to accept what may be exaggerated statements of the possibilities until they have heard something of what has actually taken place. A considerable time has been devoted to this problem, from the commencement of the war. We have had the full co-operation of the Air Ministry at least since May, 1940, and throughout the intervening period, and our joint efforts have not altogether been in vain. It is, I suggest, easy when travelling about the country, passing aerodromes here and there, to get an exaggerated idea of the acreage of grass on aerodromes capable of being harvested. Hon. Members must recognise that an aerodrome is a base for attacking the enemy. That is the first function of an aerodrome. Operational requirements obviously are, and must be, a limiting factor in the question of food production.
But it is not merely a question of the safety of persons or aircraft when thinking in terms of how best to make use of such grass as does grow on aerodromes here and there. There are other, less 268 obvious, factors which have a very important bearing on the matter. For instance, there is no uniformity in aerodromes. A simple calculation based on the number of aerodromes, the acreage covered, the potential tonnage of grass to be mown and dried, has no relation to the facts and can be very misleading. I ought to tell the House that wherever the Ministry of Agriculture could exercise any sort of power, when the Air Ministry desired aerodromes to be built, here, there and everywhere, the Ministry of Agriculture have always been hard as iron in pushing them on to the worst land and not the best land. Sometimes we have succeeded, sometimes we have failed; sometimes we have partially succeeded and partially failed. Therefore, we can say, at all events, that despite the tests that were made somewhere—I have no intention of denying the statements of my hon. Friend, whose object, I know, is all to the good and in the national interest—we have done our best to force aerodromes on to the worst agricultural land. In some cases, owing to the very character of the land and to seasonal conditions, we have found that actually there is insufficient herbage for the aerodrome itself. In other cases, owing to the necessity of extremely frequent cuttings, the little grass available from one single cutting would make its gathering a hopelessly uneconomic proposition, and therefore, little or no salvage takes place in areas of that description. In some areas the grass is of a hopelessly inferior quality and is of little value for stock feeding.
I am sure hon. Members will appreciate the fact that conditions differ very widely over the whole country. Hence, I repeat that a general calculation based upon the number of aerodromes and the areas covered has no relation to the facts of the situation. It is obvious, therefore, that, with the lack of uniformity and the varying circumstances, each individual aerodrome must be dealt with individually and must be dealt with by people on the spot. I will tell the House exactly what is the machinery for dealing with this potential cattle food. Under arrangements made with the Air Ministry the county war agricultural executive committees have, for quite a long time, assumed full responsibility for the utilisation of such land, and the manner in which it is utilised, on aerodromes that were and still are capable of providing 269 food for livestock. Under these arrangements the station commanders and the county war agricultural executive committees select the grass which shall be used for food production, and they also co-operate in the disposal of grass cuttings from aerodromes.
§ Mr. LoftusCan the Minister answer my point that the county war agricultural executive committees are only allowed to utilise grass outside the aerodromes, the margins and odd bits here and there, and are not allowed to use grass on the aerodromes themselves?
§ Mr. WilliamsNo, that is not the case. The county war agricultural executive committees and the station commanders have power to deal with all grass grown within or without the aerodromes in the manner that appears to be most suitable and in the national interest. The whole of the power must be vested in some responsible persons who are engaged on behalf of one or other Government Department. The station commanders, on definite and specific instructions from the Air Ministry, co-operate with the war agricultural executive committees, and so far they have not been unsuccessful in their general efforts.
The hon. Member lays particular stress on drying grass for livestock. After all, that is only one way, although a highly important way, of dealing with the grass. In some cases it is much more preferable to make it into hay or silage. I think he said the only way of disposing of the grass was to dry it, but there are many cases where it is infinitely preferable to turn it into hay or silage, and in those cases that is done. In other eases the land is best used for arable crops, and in such cases arable crops are produced, but the decision is and must essentially be left to the people actually on the spot. Grass taken from aerodromes has mostly been used for hay and silage, and the harvesting of such grass has been performed by local farmers adjoining the aerodromes. It is open to any person who is in possession of a drying plant to approach the war agricultural executive committee in the county where he desires to operate, and they will give him every assistance in making contact with the station commander for the purpose of 270 proving the practicability or otherwise of any scheme for cutting and drying the grass, and any difficulties relating to the cutting of the grass or the location of the plant can be hammered out on the [...] and the best solution found. It is clear, of course, that grass-drying schemes should be concentrated on areas where facilities are available to enable the plant to work to the best possible advantage.
By means of grass drying, making hay and silage, by growing arable crops or on the very small plots by cultivation by units of the R.A.F. themselves for vegetables for their own messes, we are now doing everything possible to secure the maximum production of food from aerodromes in all parts of the country, and within the limits imposed by operational requirements we shall lose no opportunity anywhere at any time to increase the production of food either for humans or animals. I hope I have satisfied the hon. Member that if persons possessing the plant wish to operate here, there or anywhere, on any aerodrome, we will place at their disposal county agricultural executive committees who will help them in every way possible.
§ Earl Winterton (Horsham and Worthing)I do not quite understand what the right hon. Gentleman has just said. I remember that years ago, when at the Air Ministry, an arrangement was made with a firm which produced dried grass which they actually got from aerodromes. Has that fallen to the ground?
§ Mr. WilliamsI am not aware of the particular case to which the Noble Lord refers. If anyone brings to my notice a particular case where the owner of a plant has tried and the executive committee has failed, I shall be glad to look into it at once.
§ Mr. LoftusWill the right hon. Gentleman appoint a committee to investigate this?
§ Mr. WilliamsWe have an expert committee in every county, in the agricultural executive committees. We could not appoint a more expert committee.
§ Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.