§ LORD STRACHIE had given Notice to ask the Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Agriculture what was the number of crop reporters, and what was the cost of crop reporting during the past financial year, and what was the number of crop reporters and the cost of crop reporting for the last financial year before the war: and to move for Papers.
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, in putting this question to the noble Earl, the Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Agriculture, I do so not so much in order to obtain private information for my own benefit, but because a great many farmers and agriculturists generally in this country are disturbed by the way in which money is being spent upon what they consider a very useless, and certainly not a very profitable, process. So much is that the case that the Central Chamber of Agriculture, at their meeting next Monday, are going to consider the question of crop reports from the point of view of whether the reports are necessary, and, if they are necessary, whether we should have them in such great detail. Undoubtedly, the increase in officials has been very great since the beginning of the war.
§ Before the war there were a number of officials, part-time men as they are at the present moment, who made these reports either to the Inland Revenue or to the Ministry of Agriculture— I am not quite sure which, but it comes exactly to the samething. They are Government part-time officials receiving pay. The complaint of agriculturists is that instead of reducing expenditure, as they ought to have done after the war when there was not so much necessity for details, the Government have acted on their usual principle of maintaining a large number of extra part-time officials, and have also done what they so much enjoy— increased their pay. I am credibly informed that the usual pay of these part-time crop reporters, in the old days before the war, was £16 or £20 a year, and that now it varies from £70 to £100 a year, which represents a very large increase.
§ I should have thought, it would be quite easy to get the secretaries of chambers of agriculture or members of agricultural committees to make any necessary reports simply by paying them their out-of-pocket expenses. It seems to me very undesirable to discourage that kind of voluntary work, 172 as now appears to be generally done in most Government Departments. I think it is all the more important that there should not be this heavy expenditure on part-time officials employed by the Ministry of Agriculture when one considers that the want of money is so very great in the country at the present moment.
§ Only this week the Chancellor of the Exchequer complained of the serious financial position; so much so that he said that the Government could not possibly give another shilling a week to starving children under a Bill to which your Lordships have given a Second Reading to-day. It shows both how strong was the feeling in another place that this shilling ought to be given and how strong was the feeling of economy on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the Government majority went down to thirty, while a day or two before they had had a majority of over four hundred on a Vote of Censure. There must be a real feeling on the part of the Government that economy is necessary, or they would not have faced what was practically a defeat in another place.
§ I am urging these points on the ground of economy, and also on the ground that these returns are not wanted in the elaborate form in which they are made at the present time. It would be easy to go back to the old system of getting voluntary help from leading farmers and secretaries of agricultural clubs, instead of supporting a number of officials. These returns might have been necessary during the war, but in this, as in many things, we have now to cut our clothes according to our cloth. There is no doubt that at the present moment we have not the money to spend on this sort of thing, and, as my noble friend behind me said on a previous occasion, we have to realise, and the country has to realise, that we must carry things on in a much smaller way; even, as he said, in a mean way; and that we cannot afford to have this large expenditure upon extra officials that we had during the war. Before the war we spent less money on these returns. I hope the noble Earl will be able to give me an answer regarding the numbers, and that he will undertake to consider whether these crop reporters cannot be reduced in number, and whether we cannot go back to the old system of getting voluntary work and paying out-of-pocket expenses, instead of salaries of £70 to £100 a year.
173§ THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF ANCASTER)My Lords, the answer to the noble Lord's Question asking for these particulars is that the number of crop reporters in the year 1913–14 was 220, and in 1920–21, 336. The amount voted for crop reporting in the earlier year was £3,600, and the actual cost £3,137; in 1920–21 the amount voted was £36,500 and the actual cost was £34,117. The increase in the cost since 1913–14 was mainly due to the fact: that in the earlier period the Annual Agricultural Returns were collected by the Customs and Excise. The actual cost of the work to the Customs and Excise in 1913–19 is not known. It was all taken as a block Vote, and the only information we can give on that point is that about thirty years earlier the annual cost was estimated at £11,800; but since 1890 no special provision has been made in the Vote for the work done by the Customs or Inland Revenue under this head, as it has been lumped in with other services. There has been, however, no material change in the character of the work between 1913–14 and 1920–21, and although it is probable that it is more efficiently done under the present system, it may be taken as certain that the collection of the Annual Returns is not more costly than if they were still being collected by the Customs.
The transfer from the Customs was made in consequence of the increased duties placed upon that Department in other directions, and was authorised by the Treasury in 1919, the work relating to these Annual Returns being undertaken from that time by part time officers of the Ministry, known as crop reporters. That is to say, crop reporters, after that time, had to furnish the Annual Agricultural Returns which, up to that time, had been furnished by the Customs. These officers, who received in the aggregate £3,600 in 1913–14 and £5,325 in 1915–16, when other duties were cast upon them, were considered to be underpaid. I think they were complaining that they did not receive enough money, and when this additional work was placed upon them, their remuneration was increased, partly in respect of the new work, and partly in respect of their previous duties.
These persons who, as I have said, number 336, are usually land agents, land valuers, or other persons possessing a know 174 ledge of agriculture in the districts with which they deal. They are paid by fees averaging about £100 per annum, but varying according to the size of the district allotted to them. When the heavy work previously done by the Customs was taken over in 1919, it was considered that this work could only be done efficiently by creating smaller districts than those which had hitherto been used for the Ministry's crop reporting; hence the number of reporters was increased from 220 to 336. The work consists of:—(a) The collection annually of a Return of the area under crops and the number of live stock on holdings of more than one acre; (b) the estimation of the production of the principal crops; and (c) the supply to the Ministry of a. monthly report on the condition of crops and agricultural conditions generally. In addition the crop reporters supply special information as required.
The value of these Returns cannot be questioned. They are the basis of all discussions on agricultural policy, and afford the only real measure of the dimensions of the industry, the changes in cultivation, the number of live stock, the yield of crops, and other question of primary importance from an economic point of view. I may say that this question has been carefully gone into by the Ministry, and I think it is very doubtful indeed if any possible economy can be made in this direction, if the information that is now obtained is still desired. Of course, it is a question of policy, and perhaps a very proper question for the Agricultural council, or some body like that, to state whether these Returns and crop reports need be so full. There is now, as the noble Lord knows, a monthly crop report, but I may say that the Department have examined it very closely, and that it is certainly the general opinion of the Ministry that these reports should be as full and the statistics as careful and as well-informed as they now are. I am afraid it is very doubtful indeed, in fact impossible, that the expenditure upon them can he cut to any large extent.
§ LORD STRACHIEMy Lords, after the very full answer of the noble Earl I do not wish to press any further for the Return for which I moved, I am quite satisfied to get the fullest information he can give me, but I would ask him carefully to consider any representations which may be made to him by agricultural bodies, 175 because I can assure him there is a very strong feeling in the country, having regard to the money paid for the Returns, that we do not get value for them, and that they are quite unnecessary in the present circumstances.