AGRICULTURE (AMENDMENT) BILL. [H.L.] (Hansard, 26 April 1921)

§ THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE
My Lords, I desire to ask one or two questions of the noble Earl, Lord Ancaster, on the Bill itself. On the Second Reading Lord Buckmaster said that it is of high consequence that some statement should be made as to the real purpose that the Bill is intended to accomplish. The Bill of 1920 was strongly opposed by many members of your Lordships' House, but it is now law and all law-abiding citizens are anxious to obey the law. I venture to think that we ought to know what it is. Up to the present moment what we have discovered is what it is not.
If your Lordships will bear with me for one moment 1 would give an example of what I mean. We were told in the early part of this year that under the Act no guaranteed prices could be given for the 1920 crop. Everybody was under the impression that that was in the Bill, and it naturally caused a good deal of apprehension amongst tenant farmers. They at once came up to London and saw the Prime Minister, who apparently threw over his colleague, the Minister of Agriculture. He told them that they must not worry about that; everything would be arranged; and he gave them a pledge that the Act would be administered not only in the letter, but in the spirit. The farmers naturally went home much pleased with their interview, though perhaps they might have been somewhat puzzled to know why, if a subsidy was indefensible in the case of people who dig under the ground, it should be right, proper, patriotic and correct in that of people who earn their living by digging on the top of it.
We had a second instance when Lord Clinton fortunately discovered that under the measure all the advantages that farmers would receive under the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1906, which was incorporated in the Consolidation Act of 1908, went by the board. Surely there must have been some great misunderstanding on that point. All those who have had anything to do with bringing in controversial Bills in this House know with what splendid intellects those gentlemen are 5 endowed to whom the Government entrust the drafting of Bills; and if there was such a misunderstanding in their n minds, the laymen in this House may be somewhat excused if they fail altogether to understand the subtleties and the intricacies of the 1920 Act. But the measure is law and we must obey it, and I only want to ask two questions of which. I have given private notice to the noble Earl who represents the Ministry of Agriculture.
The first question is this. Is the guaranteed price which we are told is to be granted to tenant farmers -namely, 95s. in the case of wheat and 45s. in the case of oats—to be distinctly understood to be a maximum, or is it, as we were given to understand all through the debates in the House of. Commons and in your Lordships' House, to be a minimum? If it is to be a minimum—and I think this is a fair question to ask—and the farmers find that their patriotic endeavours to grow wheat for the purpose of making this country self-supporting (which is the fons et origo of this Bill) result in their being left with a large quantity of this wheat for which there is no demand and which is unsaleable—because there must he an enormous quantity of wheat grown in this country to make it self-supporting—are we to understand that the Government will take off their hands the surplus wheat which they cannot, sell at the guaranteed price?
The second question relates to the cost to the country of this guarantee. There was a great diversity of opinion about that Lord Lee of Fareham, on the Third Reading of the Bill, was asked if he could state definitely what would be the probable cost to the country, within five or ten million pounds, if the wheat fell say 10s., 15s.. or £1 per quarter. His answer was that it would be nothing, for certain. I do not wish in any way to misinterpret the answer of the noble. Lord, but it seems to me that the plain English of that would be, "It would certainly not cost a million." But that does not correspond with the calculations of other pundits in this House and in the Commons House of Parliament, because your Lordships will remember that Lord Cawley, on the Third Reading of the Bill, calculated that if the difference between the world price and the guaranteed price was 20s. the subsidy would amount to £35,000,000; and Major Barnes, in another place, calculated that the subsidy would be £40,000,000 a year.
6 I should like to point out that that is on wheat alone, not on oats. Oats are to be subsidised also, and, speaking under correction, I believe, as a great quantity of oats is being planted all over the country, that the subsidy on oats will be an additional tax on the British taxpayer. Those best qualified to speak say that that will be a much heavier drain on the Exchequer than the subsidy on wheat alone will be. I hope I may be excused for having brought these two questions before the house. A large number of people in England who are absolutely or partially dependent on agriculture would be grateful for a straight answer to them, as many of us still look upon the Act with feelings of alarm, anxiety, and, to some extent, with bewilderment.

§ THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF ANCASTER)
My Lords, I will do my best to answer the questions of which the noble. Marquess gave me private notice two days ago, though I may say that the noble Marquess has somewhat strayed front his letter in which he requested information on the points which he has mentioned. I naturally believed from his letter that his questions would relate almost entirely to the prices of cereals, and how those prices would be affected by the Act of 1920—that is to say, to the cereals which are at the present moment growing in the ground and will be harvested next August or September. In the course of his speech he has dwelt on the prices for wheat and oats of the harvest of last year. I did not know that the noble Marquess would raise the question of the prices of last year's harvest, but I was present in your Lordships' House about three weeks ago, and I recollect the noble Earl the First Commissioner of Works giving a most lucid and lengthy explanation of the whole of the arrangements by which the farmers were to receive their money for wheat which they sold under a certain price. The noble Earl had charge of that question, and, if I may say so, dealt with it very fully and very freely on that, occasion. I do not think the noble Marquess informed the noble Earl that he intended again to raise this question. However, I am quite able to answer part of it—namely, that this 95s. for wheat. which was spoken about on that occasion was a maximum price. I think that is perfectly clear to everybody.
7 Now I come to the question which merely concerns me and the fortunes of this small Bill, which I have in charge, and which, as your Lordships know, is an amending Bill to the Act of 1920. As regards the guaranteed prices given by the Act of 1920 those refer only to the corn which will be grown this year, and it is perfectly clear that the guaranteed prices which were given by the Act for the crop grown in the year 1921 are minimum prices—not maximum, but minimum prices.
Next there is the question of the cost to the country. Of course, at this period of the year, it is perfectly impossible to make a very precise estimate or, indeed, hardly any estimate at all, of what the cost will be. So far as the wheat guarantee is concerned, it is impossible at the present time. to give exact figures. So far, however, as can be foreseen the highest estimate will not exceed £1,500,000. On the other hand, if there is a bad harvest this year in America prices in this country will probably remain high and the guarantee, therefore, will not become operative; so that it is even possible that the Government may have to pay nothing at all on account of wheat. It largely depends, of course, on the markets of the world, and very largely on the crops in America.
With regard to oats, however, it is considered that it will be necessary to pay out a considerable sum, though, here again, it is impossible to give any useful estimate at the present moment. From all the information we can obtain the amount that will have to be paid on the wheat will be a small amount, perhaps nothing at all should the American crop not be a good one, but so far as we can tell there will be a considerable amount to pay to make up the guarantee in respect of the oats. But I hope the noble Marquess will understand that it is exceedingly difficult to form an estimate of what the price of oats will be after next harvest, before one can get returns from the various countries and knew how the crops will turn out and the extent of the supply.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE
My Lords, I do not wish to pursue this discussion, but could the noble Earl who has just spoken inform us on what figure for the price of imported wheat the possible liability of £1,500,000 is estimated?

THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD):
8 Would the noble Marquess kindly repeat that question?

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE
The noble Earl, Lord Ancaster, stated that it was conceivable that if the harvests in other parts of the world were good the Government, in fulfilling its obligation to the farmers, might have to pay out as much as £1,500,000 sterling. The question I put to the noble Earl was whether he could say on what figure of price for imported wheat that estimate—which I quite understand did not profess to be an accurate one—was based.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD
Of course, the estimate is based on the average price c.i.f. of imported wheat, and that price is ascertained by taking the ruling market figures of two months for imported wheat plus twenty days of the third month, the 20th of the month being the date approximately upon which the weight figures are made public. There is no principle beyond that. British wheat does not make its own price. The price of home-grown grain is made by continental exporters.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE
Certainly.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD
We, therefore, are at the mercy of foreign markets. In view of the fact that at the period of our maximum production during the war we never used more than 24 per cent. of our own breadstuffs, I am afraid I cannot answer the question of the noble Marquess except in these very general terms. With your Lordships' permission I should like to express my horror and amazement at the estimate referred to by the noble Marquess, Lord Lincolnshire, that the subsidy to home-grown wheat would be £40,000,000. It could not be anything comparable with that figure, or with a fraction of it. I do not want to trouble your Lordships on this matter, because it arises out of the Corn Production Act, and in the Bill which is now before the House there is no reference whatever to guaranteed prices. The Corn Production Act which governs this matter is already passed and the discussion, therefore, is hardly relevant to the Bill which is now before us.
May I, however, add just one word. If the State is paying a subsidy to produce home-grown wheat to-day when foreign prices are relatively low, four months ago, when those prices were high, the 9 farmer, in effect, was paying a subsidy to the State when fie received 95s., or thereabouts, for his wheat comparable to that from abroad for which we were paying 105s. and 110s.