§ LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM rose to ask His Majesty's Government what benefit accrues to farmers by answering the following questions asked them in the Agricultural Return form used by the Ministry of Agriculture: Acreage of strawberries; acreage of raspberries; acreage of currants, gooseberries and other kinds of soft fruit; number of apple trees; number of pear trees; number of cherry trees; number of plum trees; total gallons of milk produced year ending 31st May; total amount of butter made; total amount of cheese; gallons of whole milk sold; gallons of skim milk sold; gallons of cream sold; what amount of butter sold; what amount of cheese sold: number of animals, one year old and over, which have died on the holding; number of animals, under one year, which have died; number of animals born: if hoes are kept; number of poultry hatched before 1925; number of poultry hatched in 1925; number of poultry killed or sold alive; number of day old chicks sold; number of eggs produced.
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, these are only a few of the questions which are asked of the unfortunate farmer on the enormous form sent to him. Other 728 questions are as to how many acres he has under seed, how many acres he has under permanent pasture, how many acres he has to mow, how many acres of wheat, how many of roots, how many of barley. In addition to that there are a large number of questions as to the number of horses and other animals. On the whole, I think it might possibly be held that there is some use to the farmer in finding out the actual number of acres of arable land and, possibly, the number of acres sown in wheat, and the area in permanent pasture and in temporary pasture, but what on earth the farmer is going to gain by trying to answer all these innumerable questions which, I venture to say, are impossible to answer if you are going to answer them honestly and truthfully, I fail to see.
§ It must be remembered that this alteration in the form—to the best of my knowledge it has been altered since last year—is made while the form is voluntary, but the other place and your Lordships have practically passed a Bill which, when it receives the Royal Assent, as I presume it will shortly, will make these returns compulsory. If the Ministry of Agriculture, when these returns are voluntary, asks all these questions, what will it do when the return is compulsory and the farmer can be prosecuted if he does not answer all the questions that are put. I fill up these forms myself, and I would ask how it is possible for me to go round my garden and count the number 729 of pear trees, cherry trees, plum trees, currant bushes, gooseberry bushes and other kinds of soft fruit, and still attend to my other pursuits? How do I know what amount of butter I have made? I have a few cows, and the milk goes into the house. Am I to go to the cook and ask her how many pounds of butter she has made in the year and how many pounds of butter she has sold? I make a charge to the milk when it comes in, and then I have clone with it. Am I to ask her how much she has made and how much she has sold?
§ What am I to do about the number of animals that have died? I have a small flock of sheep. I go up in the lambing time nearly every day, if I am not detained in your Lordships' House, and the shepherd says to me: "I am afraid I lost a lamb last night." I am afraid that when I hear that I sometimes use a. word which I believe would be out of order if I were to repeat it in this House, but I do not go down to my house, get a book and enter into it: "January 22—one lamb lost." I know when their tails are cut how many lambs I have, because I have an agreement with the shepherd that when tail-cutting comes I pay him 4d. a head for every lamb that is alive when their tails are cut, and therefore I know at, that time how many lambs I have on my farm. But I do not know how many have been born, and it is quite impossible to find all this out unless I have an office and a clerk.
§ I know a certain landowner, not very far from me, who, I believe, instituted a system of costings, and every time a shepherd moved a hurdle across a field he had to put it down in a book. The result was that he had to keep a number of clerks, and I believe he has now got rid of the whole lot because he lost so much money in doing this. How do I know how many eggs I have? I cat an egg every morning for breakfast. Am I to put down in a book that every morning I have eaten an egg? How do I know how many day-old chicks have been sold? There is one question that might have been asked. I see that my noble Mend has not asked how much water I put in the milk. I rather think that it might have some good results if he were to put that question, in addition.
§ I received yesterday a letter from a total stranger, who writes to me that his 730 case may be a helpful example. He had seen in the newspaper that I proposed to ask this Question. He writes that he has about eight acres, including six acres of grass which he lets. The remainder is rough garden. He says that he wrote a few years ago explaining that his land was not farm land, but they still keep on sending him a form. He says that last time he filled up the form he stated that he had one dozen currant bushes, half a dozen apple trees, one pear tree and one plum tree. What is the use of finding out all that sort of information? I can only believe that there is one reason for it. I find that in the year 1913–14 the total expenditure of the Board of Agriculture was £309,000. In the year 1914–15—the year in which the War broke out—it was £344,000. Now I find that the estimate is £2,840,000. I am sure that my noble friend is not a, party to this, but it is necessary for these officials, if they are going to keep up the expenditure of £2,840,000, to have something to do, and, in order that they may have something to do, I suppose, they invent all these absurd questions, which, I presume, have all to be tabulated, summarised and dealt with at some time or other.
§ Presuming that I am wrong, and that there is something to be gained by the farmer—I do not know whether my noble friend can persuade me that there is anything to be gained by the farmer through answering these questions; but supposing he can—may I ask him if the Government are not committed to a policy of economy, and does it tend to economy to keep up a large number of officials to ask absurd and foolish questions? This position is not confined to the Ministry of Agriculture. The same thing happens with the Income Tax. An unfortunate person who lives with his wife, and thinks he is going to reap the benefit because he does so, has to fill up any quantity of forms and go through any number of searching questions before he can get back the money to which he is entitled. I unfortunately last year did not succeed in making my rent on my farm. I did not lose anything except the rent, but I did not, I am sorry to say, make the rent last year, and it took me a very long time, the filling up of any quantity of forms and the producing of any number of books, before I received what. I was entitled 731 to—namely, an allowance for Income Tax because I had made no profit on the farm in the year in question.
§ I believe that this sort of thing is done in order that the office may find something to do and in order that there may be no excuse for reducing the number of officials, as is absolutely necessary, I venture to say, if this country is ever to recover the prosperity of ancient times. Business and trade are bad in this country at the present moment. They cannot be put right by officials. The idea that all you have to do is to bring in a Bill or to get an official to ask a question and to send in forms, and that you will then restore the trade of the country to its former prosperous condition, is absolutely ludicrous. The more the Government interferes, the more questions are asked, and the more officials there are, the worse it will be for the country and for the unfortunate people that have to fill up the forms. I beg to ask this Question of my noble friend.
§ LORD HINDLIPMy Lords, before the noble Lord answers, may I suggest that the noble Lord who has just sat down forgot the fact, mentioned, I think, by my noble friend Lord Bledisloe earlier this afternoon, that there is a Government agricultural policy that someone has got up his sleeve, I think he said, or at the back of his head. I can only suppose that these extraordinary documents are needed to assist the Government in their efforts to produce this policy. There are only 32 kinds of small fruits and grasses, with the extraordinary omission of asparagus, and I suggest that mushrooms might also be added to this list, because I am sure they would be as useful as most of the others. Does the noble Lord really wish to know how many crab apple trees there are in an orchard and all round a field? As he knows very well, in the western country we have fruit trees growing in the fences of a great many, if not the majority, of the farms. They are not orchard trees. Have the farmers to go round and count all the fruit trees and everything else around their fields, and include them in the number of trees in their orchards?
To be serious, if the noble Lord would look at the form where it deals with milk he will see the words "the total milk produced, 732 excluding whole milk fed to calves or pigs, in twelve months." I cannot see the object of that. If he wants to get at the total milk production of the country what in the name of fortune is the use of excluding the whole milk fed to calves and pigs? On this form it would be absolutely impossible for him or any Government to get any accurate returns. The noble Lord knows that a great deal better than I do, because he is a large producer of milk, and has been a very enthusiastic supporter of the milk recording societies. Unless you are going to force all your milk producers to belong to milk recording societies you will not get a return of the amount of milk produced. They do not know it, and they cannot tell you what it is. All the forms of the milk recording societies have to go up to the Ministry of Agriculture at the end of the year, which I think is in October. This return is made in May. If, for example, the form that I send up to the milk recording society contains X gallons, the amount I should enter in this form would be something totally different. I do not know if the noble Lord has considered that. What is the use of this return
I think the same kind of argument applies to the number of animals under one year, excluding any stillborn. There you get up against your contagious abortion again. Any animal that dies owing to contagious abortion will not appear, so far as I understand it, on this form at all, and, therefore, any value that this form might have is, to my mind, utterly and entirely lost. The noble Lord, Lord Banbury of Southam, referred to the day-old chicks and the eggs of the ducks and geese. I do not know if anybody ever counts these eggs. Then we come to the motive power—wind! I have got a wind mill that pumps water. Is it really necessary for that to be put into agricultural statistics? I think this exceeds the bounds of usefulness, and I hope the noble Lord will, if he can, withdraw it. It is a rather exasperating document, and I ask the noble Lord, if he cannot withdraw, it, to use his influence to get it modified.
§ LORD STRACHIEMay I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Banbury of Southam, upon having brought forward this Question at the present moment. Although the returns are not compulsory, 733 they completely alter the old returns of previous years. Formerly we did not have to give these details.
§ LORD BLEDISLOEYes.
§ LORD STRACHIEAs for myself I certainly did not give many of them. Many people were under the impression that this was not compulsory, and that they were not bound to put in all these details. I think I am right in saying that the Bill which has passed through this House and is now in another place, makes it compulsory for occupiers to make this return.
§ LORD BLEDISLOEPerhaps the noble Lord will allow me to interrupt him? Two thirds of the matters to which the noble Lord's Question relates have nothing whatever to do with the annual agriculture statistical return. They are connected with the census of production which is made, or ought to be made, quinquennially, but it has been interrupted by the War, and is about to take place again this year. They have nothing whatever to do with the annual return to which the Bill lately before your Lordships' House refers.
§ LORD STRACHIEThe noble Lord has not answered my Question whether this is to be a compulsory return or not?
§ LORD BLEDISLOEI am trying to point out to the noble Lord that part of this return will in future be compulsory, but a very small proportion of the particular items referred to in Lord Banbury's Question are included in the compulsory return. There is a supplementary voluntary return on the back of the paper to which reference has been made.
§ LORD STRACHIEI think that should be made quite clear, because in the country generally there was a feeling that it was compulsory as regards a great many of these details—details which are very difficult indeed to give. Is it compulsory in regard to apple and other fruit trees?
§ LORD BLEDISLOEYes.
§ LORD STRACHIEThere is no doubt that will cause a good deal of dissatisfaction and trouble, and it is of very little use, because people may have to cut 734 down a number of apple trees which are old. What is the use of giving people this trouble when the return in this respect will be of no value? It will occasion a considerable amount of trouble to count all the trees, young and old. I am not sure whether, under the Census of Production Act, any return ought to have been made. I should mike the noble Lord to give us the names of the Regulations under which he has the power to call compulsorily for these various returns. If there is a regulation it would be very desirable that we should have an opportunity of discussing in this House any particular order made under that regulation. I am sure the noble Lord would be quite ready to give us an opportunity of expressing our opinions upon it, which, of course, we cannot do on the Question which has been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Banbury of Southam.
§ LORD BLEDISLOEMy Lords, I should like to make it clear to my noble friend Lord Strachie that the Agricultural Returns Bill, which was recently before your Lordships' House, does not apply to the returns made this year. It will operate as from the beginning of next year. In the meantime no doubt Regulations will be made, as the noble Lord suggests. When we come to look at this form, we find that there is, first of all, a very polite invitation on the first page to all economic producers to be good enough to fill in the form. The third page, which contains the items, is in the ordinary form which is rendered annually. The last page is an exceptional page, and is described as a supplementary schedule which producers are politely invited to be good enough to send in under the Census of Production Act, 1906, which is being put into operation this year, and which, were it not for the abnormal period of the war, would have been put into operation at even periods of five years from the date when the return was first made—1908. So far as this last page is concerned—and most of the items mentioned by the noble Lord are included in the last page—it is a matter of courtesy. We approach the producers and ask them to be good enough to fill that in, so as to give us a periodic picture of the whole condition of agriculture, as, indeed of other industries, because this form is issued in respect of 735 all other British industries by the Board of Trade, so as to get a fair picture of the condition of the industries of this country periodically.
What I should like to impress upon my noble friend is that no additional officials are being employed in connection with this task. So far as the form itself is concerned, it does not materially differ from the form which has been in use for many years past. So far even as the supplementary schedule is concerned, that form, with one exception, has been issued ever since the Census of Production Act was passed on every occasion when the census has been taken—and that is, as I say, only a polite request to producers to give us that supplementary information. The one exception is honey, to which the noble Lord, curiously enough, did not refer. If he had referred to honey he would have been on much stronger ground, and it is an addition to the list that will not involve the employment of a single additional official.
§ LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAMWhat I want the noble Lord to do is to show his zeal for social reform and reduce the number of officials.
§ LORD BLEDISLOEThe noble Lord in that connection reminded the House that the expenditure of the Ministry of Agriculture had now reached something like £2,840,000, and laid great stress upon the fact that it was a very different figure from that which used to be voted to that Department before the War, appearing to suggest that this form had something to do with the additional expenditure. As I have tried to point out, the expenditure in relation to this form is appreciably the same now as it was in the pre-War period. Beyond that I am not prepared at the moment to go. But what I should like your Lordships to realise is this. We do want to obtain, and every other civilised country does obtain in a similar way, some accurate picture of our agricultural output, and of the condition of the agricultural industry in this country. I do not suppose any of your Lordships will take exception to that.
We expect the commercial agricultural producers to fill up this form in order, in the aggregate, to provide us with the information which we require. We do not expect, and we certainly put no pressure 736 upon, the amateur gardeners, or even the amateur farmers of a small area, to give us information which is likely to have any material effect upon the aggregate figures which we present from time to time to Parliament. Assuming that the noble Lord's horticultural area exceeds one acre—because this document does not refer to any area less than one acre—and assuming that he grows fruit on a commercial basis, we shall be very grateful to him if he will calculate the number of his apple trees with approximate accuracy. But, whether it is four, or six, or seven, I should like to assure him that such differences will not materially affect our aggregate figures.
What I should like to make clear to the noble Lord, however, is that all the leading organisations of farmers, fruit growers, bee-keepers and others have not only pressed us to issue this document in substantially the form in which it is issued but have appealed to their own bodies to be good enough to fill it up promptly and accurately, and those are the people who are really material in this respect. If a certain number of amateurs find it a nuisance, and do not do it, no great complaint will be made, and none at all, so far as that supplementary schedule is concerned, which is required for the purposes of the census of production. I really hope that the noble Lord and those who sympathise with him will not press too hard the question of the employment of officials and the so-called absurdity of obtaining some meticulous figures in reply to these questions. The truth of the matter is that there is very little real criticism outside this House. There is no substantial criticism on the part of the commercial growers of this country, and it is their produce which is really important. I rather assume that your Lordships would desire that this census of production, so far as agriculture is concerned, should be approximately correct, that as great an effort should be made in our industry as is made in other industries to give, as the result, a fair picture of that industry and its output.
When the noble Lord asks what good this is to the agricultural community, my answer is that it may not be of great value to an individual farmer, but it is of considerable value in the mass. And it is of some importance to the consumers 737 and the public generally. Let me illustrate what I mean. About six years ago the profits which were being made out of a small area under black currants were, without exaggeration, enormous—considerably more than the noble Lord probably was able to get from 300 acres of extensively cultivated farm land. What was the result? The result was that there was an enormous increase in the planting of black currant bushes, and to-day it is very material to those who may be inclined to grow black currants to know what is the increased production of black currants in the country, and whether it is wise as a commercial proposition for them to develop their fruit land in growing black currants. I happen to be a somewhat large fruit grower, and I was on the verge of planting five acres of black currants—a very expensive process—but, as a result of information which I received from the Ministry of Agriculture, I desisted from the task, and I am very glad that I did, because it would have been an unprofitable undertaking, in my country at any rate. That shows that it is of some advantage to producers in the mass to obtain just such information as these returns would give.
But there is some advantage also to the consumer, and let me stop for a moment to refer to milk. It is perfectly true, as Lord Hindlip said, that without, a system of milk recording in operation throughout the country we shall not get precise 738 figures as to the production of milk, and unless we know what milk is put on the market, apart from what is fed to animals, it will be very difficult for those who watch the interests of the milk producers to make a good bargain with the United Dairies, Limited, and others who represent the middlemen's interests. Let me turn to the consumers. These forms are not intended to be filled up mainly in the interests of the producers; they are p[...]ponderatingly in the interests of the consumers. It is only fair to the consumer that he should know what proportion of the agricultural produce consumed in this country, including milk, is raised in this country, and to what extent we have to depend upon outside sources for supply. It is a matter that the public are perfectly entitled to know.
I do not want to stress the matter, but I do hope that the noble Lords who are inclined to criticise these returns will be patient with the Department which represent. We do not want to give a lot of unnecessary trouble to producers. In particular, we do not want to harass those who are not economic producers but are what I may call amateur gardeners or farmers, for whom there is plenty of scope. But we want to ask them to provide such figures as will enable us to obtain from time to time a fairly accurate picture of the agriculture of this country and of its agricultural outlook.
§ House adjourned at twenty minutes before seven o'clock.