HL Deb 24 July 1917 vol 26 cc7-13

VISCOUNT CHAPLIN had the following Question on the Paper—

To ask the Secretary of State for War, in reference to the Order of the War Council, dated May 9, 1917, prohibiting the use of wheat-straw for any purpose other than the feeding of live stock and thatching, and of oat-straw, except for the feeding of live stock, also except under licence from the purchasing officer; whether it is the fact that this Order has been cancelled entirely in Scotland, and, if so, will he take steps immediately to cancel it also entirely in England; and to move for Papers.

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I hope it may be unnecessary for me to say more than a few words upon this Question, partly because the noble Earl the Secretary of State for War has been courteous enough to write to me explaining that a mistake was made in the answer which he gave to me on this subject on a former occasion, and also because I understand that the Order in question has been cancelled in Scotland. Whether that is so or not, I sincerely hope it will be cancelled in England, for reasons which I shall give before I sit down. This particular Order, called the Forage Order, is an instance of a great number of Orders which are being constantly issued by various Departments of the Government other than the Board of Agriculture, and which give rise in consequence to the greatest possible confusion. They are often issued, so far as I am able to form an opinion from their nature, by people who have, to say the least, an extremely limited acquaintance with the necessary requirements of the agricultural industry if it is to be made successful, especially at a time when we are called upon day after day by the Government in the most strenuous terms to increase as largely as possible the production of food, and especially of corn.

In these circumstances I will briefly remind your Lordships of what happened on the last occasion. On June 20 the noble Earl, Lord Camperdown, called attention to the Army Council Order of May 9, 1917, which prohibited the use of wheat-straw or oat-straw in Great Britain for any purpose, except the feeding of live stock or thatching, without a licence from the district purchasing officer, and he also represented the hardship of farmers being expected to know and obey Orders issued by several different Government authorities. The noble Earl, as I thought, made out a very good case for the suggestions which he submitted to the Secretary of State. Indeed, in my humble judgment, it was not only a good case, but one which seemed to me to be overwhelming. In the course of his reply the Secretary of State for War made it clear that three different Departments of the Government had been concerned in this matter—the Board of Agriculture, the Forage Committee, and the Food Production Department. As it did not seem to me to be quite clear what the position was, I then asked. Did the Board of Agriculture concur in the decision of the two other Departments? and I added that I had been told that it had happened over and over again that this Department had not always concurred in these Orders. The Secretary of State for War replied— I can inform the noble Viscount at once. It was in thorough agreement of all three, and it was at the request of the Board of Agriculture that we issued the Order. To this I replied— Then I think we shall have something to say to the Board of Agriculture if that be the case. Curiously enough, not many days afterwards I was walking through the Lobby to the other House when a gentleman put his hand on my shoulder. It happened to be the President of the Board of Agriculture, so I related to him what had occurred, and he gave an absolutely unqualified contradiction to the statement made by the noble Earl. This is now confirmed to a certain extent by Lord Derby's letter to myself, and although I do not think it necessary to read this letter—that is, unless the noble Earl wishes me to do so—

The EARL OF DERBY

I will explain the matter in the terms of the letter.

VISCOUNT CHAPLIN

Perhaps it would be best to leave it so. The objections to this Order are obvious. We are told day after day, as I have already mentioned, to devote all our agricultural energies to growing large quantities of additional corn. How on earth are we to grow that corn if we are not to be allowed to use the straw which is already grown to be made into manure for the purpose of growing corn? All control over our own straw is taken away from us by the Board of Agriculture, As I am on this subject, perhaps I may be permitted to say a word with regard to the rumour which I have heard, and which I know to be true, that there is now a scheme on hand in another Government Department—the Food Production Department—under which vast numbers of our English cattle, beginning from a date not far hence, are to be killed. Again I ask, How are we to grow corn if we have not the cattle to tread down the straw and to make it into manure? This is absolutely necessary if we are to grow any crops worth growing. The answer is obvious. It cannot be trodden down. And if this is the policy which is going to be pursued by other Departments of the Government, sometimes in direct contradiction to the views and wishes of the one Department which does know its business with regard to agriculture and ought to be consulted, how can anybody suppose that we shall be able to carry out the proposals which have been pressed upon us over and over again by the Prime Minister as absolutely vital to the safety of the country at the present time? I conclude with an expression of my most earnest hope that the Secretary of State will agree to cancel this Order with the least possible delay.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (THE EARL OF DERBY)

My Lords, I will first give the answer to the Question as it appears on the Paper, and then say a few words on the subject which the noble Viscount has raised with regard to my reply to him on a previous occasion. The Army Council Order of May 9 has been cancelled not only in Scotland but also in England (except as regards oat-straw in the last named country) by paragraph 2 of the Army Council Order of July 17. The Order was never in force in Ireland. It was introduced originally to ensure the conservation of all forage supplies capable of consumption, as at the time there was no certainty that the hay crop would be adequate to meet all requirements. Since then the outlook has improved, and it has therefore been possible to cancel all restrictions on wheat-straw. It is still necessary to restrict the use of oat-straw in England and Wales to consuming purposes, but in Scotland this also may be used for any purpose. This distinction is largely due to the fact that whereas the release of wheat-straw in England meets the needs for bedding and kindred purposes, there is not sufficient in Scotland. Moreover, in the latter country large quantities of oat-straw are available in excess of those that can be consumed. The cost and difficulties of transporting such straw to the South of England would be prohibitive.

The question of uncertainty with reference to forage is always in front of those in the War Office who are responsible for the foraging of the horses abroad. I can assure the noble Viscount that we have had a most anxious time, and we have lost several ships which were conveying forage to various theatres of war. We are obliged to take such steps as we think necessary—I am sure the noble Viscount will agree with me in this—so that the horses in the theatres of war shall be assured of the proper amount of forage. When uncertainty exists we have to do things as a provision against something which may not happen. We are only too glad if it does not happen, but we must make provision in case it does. With regard to my answer on the last occasion, I stand in a white sheet before the noble Viscount. I admit that I made a mistake when I said that we had issued this Order at the request of the Board of Agriculture. But I think I am still justified in what I said as to its being issued with the consent of that Board. The Forage Committee is not a War Office Committee in the sense that it is composed of War Office officials. It is a Joint Committee, and if I read the names of its members the noble Viscount will see that it is a fairly representative one. The Committee consists of Mr. H. Trustram Eve; Mr. E. J. Cheney, Chief Agricultural Adviser of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries; Colonel H. G. Morgan, the representative of the Supply Branch of the War Office; Sir Robert P. Wright, of Edinburgh; Mr. Hugh Barrio, M.P., of the Manor House, Coleraine, Ireland; Mr. Samuel Kidner, of Bickley Farm, Milverton, Somerset; Mr. John Inns, of Stevenage, Herts; and Mr. Clement C. Smith, of Walton Hall, Felixstowe. These gentlemen form the Committee to advise us as to any action that we should take, and if the representative of the Board of Agriculture attending the Committee does not offer any opposition to the issue of an Order, surely one has the right to assume that the Department he represents agrees to the proposal? I think the noble Viscount will allow that this is most certainly the case. I do not profess to know anything at all about this matter myself. I make no pretence in that direction. I know that the Department requires certain things, and I am guided by the Forage Committee, which is representative, as I hope, of the various farming interests of the country. They give their advice to us and we act on that advice. I submit to the noble Viscount that I am bound to take such action as this Committee, having in view the provision of the large amount of forage we require, may tell me they think necessary.

VISCOUNT HARCOURT

Are we to understand that all straw, except oat-straw, in England is now free from control and may be used for all purposes?

THE EARL OF DERBY

Yes. The restriction applied only to oat-straw.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

As I initiated the discussion in your Lordships' House on this matter on June 20, perhaps you will allow me to say a few words. The noble Earl on that occasion gave to my suggestion that this Order should be withdrawn a very unfavourable reception. He said that—but perhaps I had better not quote what he said—at any rate, he was not at all complimentary. And at the end of his remarks he said that he thought it a pity that because some private individuals were affected the Department should be called in question. So far from any private individuals being affected, the whole of the farmers in Scotland rose as one man against this Order; and the noble Earl, if he peruses the correspondence that has taken place between the Scottish Secretary and I presume this Department, for apparently it is the Forage Committee which really does the work in this matter, he will see that the Scottish Secretary insisted on this Order being withdrawn. Therefore so far as Scotland is concerned, the noble Earl, having given me the unfavourable answer that he did, has been compelled to withdraw the whole of the Order. He has been forced to do the very thing which I asked him to do, and which on that occasion he declined to do.

As to the question of oat-straw in England, I do not know the particular merits. It may be, as the noble Earl has said, that it is necessary to keep oat-straw in limbo in England. But let me point out that the oat-straw of last year has been deteriorating for several months now. It was not bought by the War Office because they did not want it; it has been deteriorating, and in another month or two it will be spoilt, and then the straw of the new crop will want to be put away in its place. And pray how is that to be done? Every word that I said on the former occasion has been justified by the facts, and the Department has been obliged to withdraw this Order, which as I maintain, and can prove if necessary, was issued without full consideration. The noble Earl said that it was issued by the advice of three Departments. I know that on June 13 the official of the Board of Agriculture for England requested the Forage Committee to withdraw the Order at once, and they declined to do so. That was on June 13. I was speaking in this House on the 20th. Yet on that day the noble Earl said that this was done by the consent of all three Departments. He admits now that he made a mistake. I do not think it was the noble Earl's mistake. I think it was the mistake of the Forage Committee, on whose authority he says he acts. I am quite content, so far as Scotland is concerned, because the Order has been revoked, as I suggested it should be; and I hope that with regard to England the noble Earl will, if possible, have regard at all events to the straw which is now in the stack and allow agriculturists to use it before it is utterly spoilt.

THE EARL OF DERBY

I should like to say to the noble Earl, whom I have known for so many years, that I am extremely sorry if my answer to him was discourteous

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

I do not care about that in the least.

THE EARL OF DERBY

As to the statement that we were compelled to withdraw the Order, please believe me that is not the case. Circumstances altered. A position may become much better in a week than it appeared likely to be, especially when you have sinking of ships by submarines. I am sorry if any Order is issued which can he considered in any way detrimental to farmers, but my duty is to see that the horses with the troops abroad are kept properly foraged. That must be my principal duty; and when I am advised that unless I take certain action this will not be the case, I am afraid that, whatever my personal opinion may be, I shall have to take that action.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

My Lords, I have no doubt that the House will be willing to agree in the main that all is well that ends well, and that, the Order having been in its principal part withdrawn, it is not necessary to pursue the subject much further; although I gather from what the noble Earl (Lord Camperdown) said that he is not entirely contented about the oat-straw in Scotland—most of which I conceive has been already, or at any rate a great part of it, consumed by the rats—and that in his opinion it would have been an advantage to the farmers it they had known their fate a little earlier. I think the moral of this discussion is this. The noble Earl the Secretary of State has explained that the Forage Committee were compelled to take the course which he described to the House because they were in a state of uncertainty as to whether or not the hay crop would be a failure, and therefore it was necessary to conserve all the forage which might possibly be required for the use of the great number of horses at the different theatres of war. That, I agree, is an exceedingly strong argument. But it must be remembered that the farming community at all times lives under a cloud of uncertainty from its dependence on the seasons, and that so far as that community can be spared the further uncertainty of Government regulations it is desirable to spare it; and if at the time either the noble Earl or the noble Duke next him (the Duke of Marlborough) had explained the position and had said, "This is an Order which we feel compelled to hold more or less in terrorem over the fanners for fear the hay crop should be so light as to be a failure, but if there is an average hay crop we shall not insist upon it and it will not be pressed," I think a great deal of the actual inconvenience and also the Teal alarm which has existed in many parts both in England and Scotland over this Order would have been at any rate mitigated.