HC Deb 03 November 1947 vol 443 cc1339-41
58. Mr. De la Bère

asked the Minister of Agriculture, whether, in view of the fact that only 3¼ per cent. of the country's steel has been allocated to agriculture for the manufacture of vitally-needed agricultural machines and tractors, he will give an assurance that the proposed increased exports of agricultural machinery will be abandoned, having regard to the fact that there will be no more Canadian or American supplies of agricultural machinery.

Mr. G. Brown

No, Sir. As my right hon. Friend said in reply to the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) on 27th October, I hope that the increased steel allocations will enable us both to meet our home needs and to continue our export drive. We are still importing from North America such supplies as we can get of special types of machines not available from home sources.

Mr. De la Bère

Is the Minister aware that we are desperately short of tractors and most machines, and it is useless for the Government to ask for increased production if they do not provide the additional machines required to get the increased production? Thank goodness this Government are coming to an end very soon?

Mr. Brown

I only want to say that certainly the first half of the Question and, I think, the second half are probably inaccurate.

Major Legge-Bourke

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that unless we are also given an assurance that there will be an increase in the allocation of implements for the home market, the increase in allocation means very little from the point of view of home agriculture?

Mr. Brown

To be quite clear, the home market obtains, and will still obtain, the major part of the supplies available.

60. Mr. Manningham-Buller

asked the Minister of Agriculture what priority has been given to makers of agricultural machinery for the obtaining by them of the necessary raw materials.

Mr. G. Brown

I would refer the hon. Member to the replies my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Ludlow (Lieut.-Colonel Corbett), the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis), and the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. J. Morrison) on 27th October.

Mr. Manningham-Buller

Would it not be much shorter to answer that the priority is none?

Mr. Brown

It would not be true.

Mr. Peter Thorneycroft

Will the hon. Gentleman say what kind of priority this is? Am I right in understanding that the only sort of priority that is worth anything is that of being on the Prime Minister's list? Has agriculture got that priority?

Mr. Brown

Agricultural machinery requirements are receiving very favourable consideration. As regards steel, for example, the allocation of agricultural machinery for the fourth quarter of 1947 is nearly twice as large as that for the third quarter. We are getting nearly as much as we can take up.

Mr. Manningham-Buller

I did not ask about allocations but about priorities. Is the answer that there is no priority for agriculture?

Mr. Brown

The answer is that the whole question of priority is under review at the moment. [Interruption.] Once again, it is as well to wait. As things are at present, agriculture is getting its fair share.

Mr. Manningham-Buller

Will the Minister say what is the priority for agriculture?

Mr. York

Is the Minister aware that, in Yorkshire, the steel allocation has been mortgaged for a year to come, and that, unless he gives priority, there will be none available for agriculture?

Mr. Brown

If the hon. Member will give me the particulars, I will go into it, but I suspect that it is not so.