§ *VISCOUNT MILNERMy Lords, I rise to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether in view of the certainty of a world shortage of cereals, and especially of wheat, in 1915, the Government propose to take any steps to ensure an adequate supply in this country, and whether such steps include any encouragement to British farmers to increase the area sown with wheat this autumn. I had some hesitation in putting this Notice on the Paper, or, indeed, in raising any question at the present moment, because I feel strongly that there is only one thought uppermost in the minds of us all and only one point to which all our efforts should be directed, and that is victory in the present struggle. I should not like to do anything to distract the attention or to waste the time of any Government official, high or low, by bringing forward questions which, however important in themselves, have, in view of a great world crisis, for the moment only a subordinate interest. But I do not think that that applies to this great question, because obviously the state of the supplies in this country under our own control may have the most momentous effect upon the course of the struggle in which we are engaged.
I am told on the best authority that the supply of food in this country at the present time is unusually large; the prices, as we see, have not risen excessively; and therefore there is no fear for the immediate future. But is not that rather a reason why the Government should seize this opportunity, when supplies are large and when the price is cheap, to get reserve stocks under their own control which would enable them to keep the price down and prevent a corner being made in any particular article of consumption, such as wheat, at the period when the pinch will come, which I take it we may expect in the early months of next year, if the war continues? That is one 521 point. But there is another and, to my mind, an even more important point to which I wish to direct the noble Lord's attention, and to which, indeed, my Question primarily applies. Whatever happens in regard to the harvest of the present year, it seems to me inconceivable that the harvest of next year should not greatly suffer from what is now going on. I am directing attention specially to the wheat supply, or rather I should say the wheat and rye supply, of the world. For the object which I have in view to-day the two must be taken together.
I think I am right in saying that the total wheat and rye supply of the world amounts normally to something between 600,000,000 and 700,000,000 quarters. More than half of that is produced by countries the whole able-bodied population of which is at the present time engaged in war. Those countries are engaged in a struggle of a most desperate character, which is calling upon the whole of their resources in manhood. It is possible to exaggerate the effect of this. I do not mean to say either that the present harvest will not be got in or that the ground will not be prepared in some sort of fashion for the harvest of next year. I am old enough to remember what happened in Germany in 1870. During the whole of the war I was living in that country and I remember that it was astonishing, when the great armies swept forward to the front, what the remaining population managed to do in the way of getting in the harvest. I do not think there was any loss at all, though there was difficulty in preparing the ground for the sowing of the fresh crops. As the war went on there was a great falling off in labour; and I do not imagine that the drain upon the labour of Germany in 1870, the drain especially upon agricultural labour, was anything like what it is likely to be in the present year. And, mind you, then it was only a case of Germany and of France having between them a production of some 100,000,000 quarters; whereas now Austria-Hungary and Russia, with their upwards of 200,000,000 quarters, are equally involved.
It seems to me an absolute certainty that next year will see a great shortage in the supply of the two principal food stuffs of the world. One does not need to be a great economist to realise what a shortage 522 of 20, or even of 10, per cent. in the supply of an article of universal necessity must mean in the rise of prices. It may be said—I think it can truly be said—that this country is rot as much affected as others, owing to the fact that the transoceanic supply is shut off from a great part of the Continent of Europe while it remains open to us. We at any rate shall be able, if we keep the seas open, as we all hope we shall, to be amply supplied. Yes, my Lords. But in the first place that assumes that there will be no unfortunate accident to our control of the sea highways. And beyond that, assuming that the war was over sooner than we now think likely, that it was over I next spring or within the next few months, in that case it seems to me that a rise of prices in this country would be even a greater certainty than if the war were going on, because in the case of peace all the countries of the world would be competing for the trans-oceanic supplies. By emergency measures the Government might control the price of wheat in this country, but it could not control the world price. From that point of view it seems to me that our only insurance is a large supply under our own control actually within the shores of this country, with which the Government could deal if there was a famine rise all over tire world.
I know of no way of insuring this except by a large increase in our production of wheat during the coming year. The time is very short. If anything material is to be done to encourage British farmers to increase the area sown with wheat it must be done in the next month or two. The Government have had the benefit of the advice of the consultative committee to whom the President of the Board of Agriculture has already referred. The names of the members of that committee command our confidence. It would be a matter of great interest to this House if the noble Lord, should he feel free to do so, could tell us what that committee have recommended and what steps the Government feel justified in taking with regard to those recommendations. I hardly like to make any suggestions myself. I do not claim to be a practical agriculturist, although I happen to have had perhaps quite exceptional experience of what can be done by emergency measures to provide a food supply for a country threatened with famine in consequence of war.
523 It is a question, to my mind, of the encouragement to be given to farmers. First of all, they should be made to realise what the situation is; and, secondly, the assurance should be given them that if they risk something, if they upset their ordinary method of procedure in order to increase the most vital of the food supplies of this country, they will be insured against the possibility of loss. Personally I do not think there is the remotest chance that farmers will lose by a very greatly increased cultivation of wheat in the present year. But they may be of a different opinion; they may feel doubtful as to the effect of such a course. Is it not possible for the Government to take a certain risk in order to insure farmers against loss if they do take that course?
It is no use dealing with this matter it any niggling way. Unless our wheat production could be more than doubled next year I do not think the situation would be materially affected. It is the opinion of many first-rate agriculturists that with an effort this could be done. It could be done by increasing very considerably the area under wheat. It could also be done by an increased use of fertilisers, which I believe all the best agriculturists to-day admit render a second cropping of the same land with wheat a perfectly feasible and practical operation. Next to a victory in the field there is nothing of greater importance to this country than a close attention to the question of our independence, or such independence as we can achieve, whether by storage or by increased production, in the matter of the most vital of all our food supplies—namely, wheat.
§ LORD ST. DAVIDSMy Lords, before the President of the Board of Agriculture replies I should like to say a few words. As I understand, the noble Viscount's suggestions are two. First, that the Government should take advantage of the present low price of wheat to make a store in this country. Of that suggestion I make no complaint. Wheat is low in price and plentiful, and, without taking the pessimistic view of the noble Viscount as to the shortage next year, I think it might conceivably be wise for the Government to make a store of wheat now, merely to reassure the public, even if they do not believe that there is going to be any shortage next year. I cannot 524 help thinking that the noble Viscount is an alarmist in asserting that there is a "certainty of a world shortage of cereals, and especially of wheat, in 1915." That is a most alarming statement, and the one thing which none of us ought to do is to alarm anybody. It is quite probable that with Germany, France, and Russia at war there will be a diminution in the supply so far as those countries are concerned. At the same time we know that in France and Germany, while the fighting men are away, the amount of work done by the elderly men and by the women and even by the children to make up for the deficiency is extraordinary.
§ VISCOUNT MILNERIt is extraordinary, but it does not make up the deficiency. It did not in 1870 over a much smaller area.
§ LORD ST. DAVIDSIf other people believe that there is going to be a shortage in the world's supply there will be larger areas sown in India, in Australia, in Argentina, in the United States, and in Canada. Therefore I think the noble Viscount is going very far in prophecy when he says that there is a certainty of a world shortage in 1915. In all the markets, not only in Great Britain but all over the world, there are clever men dealing daily—gambling, if you like—in produce. There are men watching every storm, every drought, every cloud of locusts, every single thing that can affect a crop anywhere, and putting prices up or down accordingly. You must remember this fact, that wheat was very low in price the day on which war was declared. The price rose suddenly on a panic for a few days, but it has come down to the figure at which it stood before the war. If these produce brokers thought there was going to be a great shortage in 1915 the price of wheat to-day would be double, or more than double, what it is. It is obvious from the price of wheat, and from that alone, that the cleverest men in the markets who are dealing with this commodity do not share the view of the noble Viscount. In agreeing to the noble Viscount's suggestion that the Government might make a store of wheat, I do so more with the idea that a panic or risk of a panic should be prevented than with any idea that there is going to be a shortage. If our fleets hold their 525 own, as we all believe they will, there will be plenty of wheat that can be imported into this country.
I come now to the noble Viscount's other argument—that His Majesty's Government should hold out inducements to British farmers to increase the area sown with wheat. What good is that going to do us? Ours is a small country with a large population. It is a country the greater part of half of which—the Western half—is wholly unsuited to the growing of wheat, and I believe it would be a misfortune to the country to urge farmers to grow wheat under unnatural conditions. Many of the older members of the House can recall the days when the grass lands on the Downs of Wiltshire and Hampshire, grass lands that were admirable sheep runs and ought never to have been interfered with, were broken up, many of them at the time of the Crimean war, to grow wheat. They grew a crop or two, but no more. It would be a misfortune if farmers were encouraged from a false idea of patriotism to repeat that mistake. The best agriculturists agree that more land has been broken up in Great Britain to grow wheat than ever ought to have been put under wheat.
§ VISCOUNT MILNERNo, no. I could mention the names of some leading agriculturists of Great Britain who hold very strongly the opposite view. I would ask the noble Lord the President of the Board of Agriculture to say whether it is the opinion of his consultative committee that land is at present unprofitably cultivated in wheat and that it would be an advantage to this country to cultivate less land in wheat.
§ LORD ST. DAVIDSI did not say that. I said that more lard had been broken up in this country to grow wheat than ought to have been broken up. I was talking of the past. I am not saying that at the present moment you could not grow a certain amount more wheat in this country with advantage.
§ VISCOUNT MILNERI misunderstood the noble Lord and apologise for my interruption. He was referring to too much land having been broken up during the wars of the past. I do not dispute that.
§ LORD ST. DAVIDSMy anxiety is to try and dissuade the Government from doing anything rashly in a panic which would lead to a repetition of the state of things to which I have referred. The best agriculturists have been of late years, with much labour and at great expense, putting back under grass land that never ought to have been broken up, and it would be a misfortune if those men were now told that it was their patriotic duty to break up the grass they have been laying down and put wheat on the land again. This is a very small country with a very small acreage. After all, we cannot grow everything. In the last few weeks we have seen whit the shortage of horses is. Directly this war is over the Government will have to take up the question of horse breeding. If you break up more and more of the good grass lands you are not going to do any service to the breeding of horses and the breeding of cattle. What we have to do at the present time is to encourage people not to be afraid and to deprecate any panic, and I do not believe for a moment that it would be a good thing for the Government to take the advice of the noble Viscount and encourage farmers, under the idea that they are benefiting their country, to grow wheat on land that is not adapted for that purpose.
LORD LUCASMy Lords, I am afraid that I cannot give the noble Viscount a very definite reply—for the reason, not that we have not been considering this question very deeply, but because we are at the present moment in the middle of our deliberations upon the subject. I can give him the assurance that the Cabinet Committee on Food Supplies consider the question of the supply of wheat one of the most important of the questions with which they have to deal, and are now giving it their most serious attention.
There are, as the noble Viscount says, two quite distinct problems to deal with. One is the position that is going to occur in the world's market of wheat next spring when the crop at present being harvested begins to run low, and the second is the question of what is going to be done, if anything in that direction is necessary, to stimulate the sowing of an extra amount of wheat next year. As to whether or not it is necessary for the 527 Government to take any steps, it is obviously impossible to make any statement now. On the other question I agree with my noble friend behind me who spoke last, that the matter is not so simple as the noble Viscount on the Cross Benches seems to think. I am quite sure that if farmers were invited to put a much larger acreage of land under wheat they would willingly respond to the invitation. It would be quite easy to increase very largely the acreage under wheat, and probably, if it was worth while to take the step, we could get sufficient wheat grown in this country to provide us with six months supply, and that in the case of a national shortage would be a very important consideration. But I can assure the noble Viscount that the question is not quite as simple and as straightforward as that, and that the considerations which Lord St. Davids has placed before your Lordships are very cogent ones and regard has to be had to them. If we were to invite the farmers to put a largely increased acreage of land under wheat we might be faced with the prospect of having to apply to Parliament for grants to make good the losses of the farmers should this measure of precaution turn out to have been unnecessary. I can assure your Lordships that the matter is receiving the most careful consideration of the Cabinet Committee on Food Supplies, and I can say for that body that the steps which we may take in the matter will be taken in plenty of time to enable farmers to grow more wheat if we decide that it is the right policy to ask them to do so.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHMy Lords, both of the suggestions which were prominent in the speech of Lord Milner are dealt with very fully in the voluminous Report of the Royal Commission over which I presided some years ago. The question of giving subsidies to farmers in this country to grow wheat was very fully discussed, and four or five plans were put before us which we criticised in a friendly way but we were unable to recommend them as part of a permanent policy to be pursued by this country. I am one of those who do not think that the certainty of a shortage next year is as clear as the noble Viscount on the Cross Benches seems to consider. We must remember that the harvest goes on practically the whole year round, because there are now, by the facility of transit, enormous supplies of 528 wheat to be got from the Southern Hemisphere; and one of the things brought before the Royal Commission by those prominent in the wheat trade was that the prospect of a rise almost certainly brought out wheat from stores in a great many countries, and that a general rise in the price of wheat, so far as could then be foreseen, was improbable. The Final Report of the Royal Commission was published in 1905, and I venture to suggest to those interested that they will find a good many arguments on both sides on both of these questions set out in that Report.
I admit that the special circumstances this year may be peculiar, and that it may be well worth the consideration of the Government whether, as a purely temporary measure, they should offer a certain premium upon land already in cultivation which could be put under wheat. But there are two great difficulties. The question will arise as to whether it will have to be a bounty on the wheat actually produced or upon the acreage put under wheat. There are obvious disadvantages in the latter course, because not the best land might be selected and the results would not be commensurate with the expenditure. With regard to the suggestion of having Government stores of wheat, I venture to hope that the criticisms in our Report on that subject will be examined. There are very great difficulties about the Government going into trade in a matter of this kind. To begin with, wheat is a perishable article, and if the Government accumulated a large stock the question would arise as to whether they should sell or whether they should hold and their action might disarrange the quotations and markets all over the world.
I venture to suggest that before a scheme of this kind is advocated by any responsible persons it would be well for them to look at the arguments which we marshalled and put in as convenient a form as I think it was possible to put them. A perusal of the statistics in that Report will show the range of countries which can produce wheat, and the certainty from previous experience—I take India as an example—that the moment the price rises in other parts of the world the population of India take not to using 529 wheat but to exporting it and to living upon other produce which they have. I venture to think that the reply given by the President of the Board of Agriculture to-day was a judicious one. He told us that the matter was being considered, and if he will pay us the compliment of considering it in the light of the facts and statistics which we brought together in the Report to which I have referred I am sure he will find a great deal of useful material. And I may add that if the experience which I gained in the five years that I presided over the Royal Commission would be of any use to the Government in this matter, they have only to ask for it and it will be cordially given.
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORDMy Lords, I rise to say a few words in support of what the noble Lord has just stated with regard to the great inadvisability of the Government holding stocks. If there is any experience on a large scale to be found in any country, that country is India. During the many famines from which in recent times India has suffered, the question of accumulating Government stocks came most prominently to notice. At first the idea found great favour, but as experience accumulated it was entirely abandoned. Although the Government can do far more than any individual trader, the Government cannot do as much as all traders put together; and any action taken by the Government in the way of accumulating stocks discourages private enterprise, and, in the end, leads to great disaster.
LORD LUCASMy Lords, I desire to express my thanks to Lord Balfour for the offer which be made, and to say that I shall lay it before the Cabinet Committee on Food Supplies. The noble Viscount on the Cross Benches asked for the opinion of the Consultative Committee on these matters. The Consultative Committee have been kind enough to report upon the two questions with which the noble Viscount dealt, and they have made recommendations with regard to both of them—first with regard to the idea of taking steps to maintain in this country a certain amount of this year's English crop; and, secondly, with regard to extending the acreage under wheat for next year. I am bringing both of those recommendations before the Cabinet Committee.
§ VISCOUNT MILNERMy Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord for the answer he has given. The matter, however, is one of such peat importance that the House will, perhaps, forgive me if I appear unduly persistent. I would like to make one or two remarks upon the criticisms which have been passed on these proposals. I am indebted to Lord Balfour for calling my attention to the Report of the Royal Commission, with which I am familiar though I have not consulted it within the last few days. I am aware of all the arguments which have been adduced—and strong arguments they are—against Government stores. I did not go the length of advocating Government stores. What I said was that I thought it would be an advantage if the Government could get control over at least a portion of the present supply in this country, with a view of being able more effectively to control the price next year if it was necessary to do so. As regards the major proposition—the encouragement of production in this country—I think I am entitled to demur to the suggestion that if one tries to point out a danger and to avert an evil one is thereby encouraging panic. There is nothing "panicky" in my attitude.
§ LORD ST. DAVIDSIt was not on that point that I said the noble Viscount was encouraging panic. I said that he was encouraging panic when he stated definitely that there must certainly be a shortage in the world's supply in 1915.
§ VISCOUNT MILNERWell, that is my conviction. I admit that it is always a mistake to talk of certainty in regard to anything; but, humanly speaking, it is certain. I have pointed out that the countries at present engaged in a life and death struggle which is bound, unless all past experience is misleading, materially to affect their agricultural operations, are the producers of half of the whole of the wheat and rye of the world. I submit that that condition of things indicates an overwhelming probability of a shortage, and that as reasonable people we ought to take it into consideration and lay our plans accordingly. It is not as if the suggestion that steps should be taken to increase the wheat supply of this country was running counter to general considerations, because there is a strong preponderance of opinion amongst the best agriculturists that we 531 have gone too far, from the point of view of agriculture, in abandoning the production of wheat; and it would be a positive advantage, even were there no prospect of a deficiency next year, to encourage further production.
My suggestion has no reference to the proposal to break up good pasture lands. I admit that even in an emergency that would be an unwise course to pursue. But is there any likelihood of that? In the first place, there could be a considerable increase in the production of wheat if farmers were encouraged to undertake it upon existing arable land; and, in the next place, there is undoubtedly a great deal of land which has dropped down to pasture that is very wretched pasture, and the reconversion of which into arable land has long been advocated by the most experienced agriculturists. I am grateful to the noble Lord the President of the Board of Agriculture for his explanation, and I feel confident that, with the attention which the Board of Agriculture are paying to the representations of the consultative committee, the result on further consideration is likely to be more favourable to the policy which I have ventured to advocate than the noble Lord seems to indicate at the present moment. At any rate, I am glad to know that the subject is receiving the urgent attention of the Department, and I hope that the time which we have spent in discussing it this evening may not be without advantage.