§ LORD LOVAT asked His Majesty's Government when an announcement is to be made on the subject of the Govern- 640 ment policy on cereal farming which is to implement the pledge given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and reaffirmed by the Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries on the 19th of November last in the House of Lords.
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, in rising to ask the Question which stands in my name, I should like first to express regret at being unable to ask the Question on the day for which it was set down last week. I am one of those who live at a considerable distance from your Lordships' House. As I have very often criticised His Majesty's Government, of whatever Party, for shifting dates, I am sorry to have had to alter a date myself. In asking this Question I do not want to say anything about the position of cereal farming to-day. That is well-known to your Lordships. It is sufficient to say that for some time the price obtained for the product has no relation to the cost of production, and that if this state of things continues very much longer there is no question that there will be a very considerable alteration in the method of agriculture in this country.
§
I do wish, however, to make three points before I put this Question. The first is that I should like at once to challenge the idea that. I think has been rather sedulously put about, mainly by His Majesty's Government, that cereal crops are really of minor importance in the whole agricultural scheme of Great Britain. To quote from the noble Earl an example of the many statements made by him and others, he said on November 19 last:—
This is only one side"—
he was speaking of cereal farming—
of the agricultural problem and, if your Lordships will allow me to draw your attention to certain figures, I think you will agree with me that it is by no means the most important side of the industry.
I am quite prepared to accept the fact that wheat represents only 4 per cent. of the total amount of the products of our general farming, and that the total cereal crops do not amount to much more than 10 per cent., but upon arable farms and farms where rotation is practised, it is the practice throughout this country that the cereal crop always represents two out of the four, five or six crops with which you crop your land. It is called
641
one of the cash crops and, if it is done away with, where is the money coming from?
§ Let me express briefly the view of the Scottish farmers and, indeed, of all those interested in Scottish farming. The National Agricultural Committee in Scotland represents three of the leading farmers' associations—the Highland and Agricultural Society, the National Farmers' Union of Scotland. and the Scottish Chamber of Agriculture—and includes not only the farmers but the smallholders' organisation, the county, city and burgh organisations and also the Farm Servants' Union. These bodies are united in the opinion that the position of arable agriculture to-day is such that the point has now been reached when the turning down of arable land to grass on an unprecedented scale and the wholesale reduction of employment are imminent. In view of the dependence of stock-breeders on arable farming and the severe competition that already exists in dairy farming the Committee are of opinion that an alteration in farming practice must have severe repercussions on the other sections of the agricultural community.
§ Perhaps I may be allowed to enlarge for a few moments on this point. Cereal farming is the key of farming in Great Britain. Take sheep as an example. Your Lordships who go through the southern counties see that the folding of sheep has practically gone, because it is not worth while going to the expense of trying to raise the fertility of the soil if the subsequent crops of barley or wheat do not pay the cost of working. Take the sheep on the 9,000,000 acres of rough pasture in Scotland. If you do away with your arable farming, what are you going to do with your cast ewes and broken-mouthed ewes? If you cannot feed them with green crops, what is going to happen to the Scottish sheep farmer? What, again, is going to happen to the sheep farmer if he is not able to get proper value for his wedder lambs, which are fattened up at the end of the year? If there is a serious reduction in the area of arable land, Which will occur if cereal prices remain what they are, how will he be able to sell his stock? We already know that in the northern counties of England and in Scotland a bad turnip crop means a drop in prices for ewes and for hogs. What is 642 going to happen if this state of things is likely to become permanent?
§ This is an important matter because it is undisputed that if a large area is going to be turned down to grass, the farmer will be using that grass for grazing stock and he will be using such little arable land as he has for feeding his own stock. Exactly the same thing will happen over meat production. How are you going to obtain the necessary products for your animals? You have the Leicestershire pastures and the Carse of Gowrie, but what is going to happen to the animals that have to be turned out at the end of the year if cereal farming is no longer possible? I think the argument from the numerical proportion of cereal crops to our total production is the most foolish that I have ever heard put forward. I have heard it put forward both in this House and in the other House. It is entirely in the face of farming experience, and it care only be put forward because people have accepted a few loose statements made by an Oxford professor and one or two other people who have put forward their views. This matter is really serious and, if the turning down of arable to grass continues, the effect in the near future may be disastrous.
§ I turn to my second point, that we want this answer soon. I do not say this in criticism of His Majesty's Government, but I do think it is fair to say that they must themselves allow that their record is not a good one. Agriculturists from England and Scotland came and had interviews with the Prime Minister last year, and were informed that no decision could be arrived at until the Imperial Conference had taken place, and promises were given on August 1 by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the effect that he was going to take action which was going to put cereal farming on an economic basis. The Conference has sat. I have read all that was issued of that Imperial Conference, and I am afraid that I have found nothing at any period which prevented a decision being made, either before or after the Conference, if there was any policy. Now we ask if there is any policy? We have waited patiently for several weeks. It is a matter which ought to exercise the mind of the Government, and surely the time has come now, before the end of the Session, 643 when we should have announced what is going to be done for cereal farming, which is so important a matter that it cannot be left any longer.
§ This also is a point which must be considered. Cereal farming on regular rotation is a matter which you cannot change in a day, and now is the time when the preparations are being made for next year's crops. Already it is too late for winter sowing, but every day lost now is a day of real importance as regards next year's crops. May I just remind the Government of a further point, and it is the last point that I intend to make? Whatever views one may hold about the Labour Government, one will not, I think, consider that it will go down to history as a Government which was fortunate in its treatment of the question of unemployment. We know that promises were made before the Election of the wonderful things that were going to be done, but as yet we have seen very little signs of them. Surely any one who faces this matter in a practical way must be aware that there are 150,000 potential labour-employing centres in the farming industry of this country, because there are between 140,000 and 160,000 farms which actually employ men, and the more you do to put these farms under rotation crops the inure you do to promote employment for men upon them.
§ Speaking for Scotland, and from knowledge gained as a practical man, and as one who has sat on committees, I say that there are very few farms in Scotland—and I believe it is exactly the same in England—which to-day could not be made to employ more labour. By the Government's failure to take action they are turning these potential labour-employing centres into labour-dismissing centres. They are helping to cut down the labour employed on these farms, and every day that they put off announcing their policy the more they do to reduce employment. Speaking frankly, I do not think that the Government have any right to hold up their decision any longer. Men are being turned away from work every day, and future historians will, I think, say that the Government's record in regard to employment has not been such that they can afford to waste any opportunity for providing employment, which can be given by standing up to their promises and taking early 644 action on the subject of putting cereal farming on an economic basis. I beg to ask the Question standing in my name, and I hope that the noble Earl will not only tell us that an early answer is going to be given as to the Government's policy, but will take this opportunity of letting us know something of what that policy is going to be.
LORD SEMPILLMy Lords, the noble Earl gave me the other day certain figures relating to cereal produce in Scotland, but he did not give me the date on which the oats to which he referred were valued. He put the oats at something over 24s. per quarter, but I would like to know how that average was arrived at. I would ask him to enquire, and see whether there is not possibly some mistake, because I cannot believe that the average price was more than something like 14s. or 16s. per quarter.
§ THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY or THE MINISTRY or AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EARL DE LA WARR)My Lords, with regard to the question of the last speaker, I will certainly let him have particulars of the figures to which he refers. I hope that Lord Lovat will forgive me if I do not follow him in his general discussion on the subject of agricultural policy, partly because it is somewhat late in the evening, and also because I inflicted my general views on the House at some length only a short time ago. Suffice it to say on one matter of general policy that the noble Lord said that if something were not done in the near future the whole basis of our agricultural system would have to be changed. Whether we decide to take some special emergency act for the moment or not in order to stave off ruin in certain districts, I am pretty convinced that circumstances have changed in the world, industries have had to change their methods all over the world and all over this country, and agriculture itself is bound to take note of the changed circumstances under which it works. I cannot help feeling very considerable sympathy with the noble Lord in his impatience, and I fully appreciate the reasonableness of the noble Lord in only asking us when we are going to give an interpretation of the pledge of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to which he has 645 referred—when rather than how. But I am afraid really there is not very much difference between the two, because we all know that by the time you know when a Committee is going to make its report you generally know how it is going to make that report.
But I would point out that, after all, it is now only five weeks since the Imperial Conference finished, and this subject is full of the greatest difficulties. We all know that it was too great for our predecessors over a very much longer period than we have had for dealing with it, but I am happy to say we have got a good deal beyond the position we found when we first took office. It is a very difficult subject both in principle and in detail. It is difficult in principle because it is essential, if we decide to take certain steps, to see that we are not merely helping one branch of industry at the expense of another. I am referring not only to the consuming population of the towns, which might be harmed by increasing the price of food, but also to our own agriculturists, to whom the cheapness of feeding stuffs is so vitally important. I think that applies as much in Scotland as anywhere else, because the main cereal crop in Scotland is oats, which is mainly a feeding stuff for live stock. Then with regard to the detail of the question, we are dealing in the wheat trade with the most complex trade, and it is essential before we tell the country that we arc going to adopt a particular system, say, for the moment, a quota for wheat, that we should be quite sure that the scheme really is workable. It is quite easy for the Leader of the Opposition, because he is in opposition, to make an announcement that he has adopted the quota system for his Party; it is a very different matter for a Government to say that it has worked out the details of that scheme, and has found it to be practicable.
But I can assure the noble Lord that this question is under daily consideration, and we are endeavouring to work out a practicable policy on the matter. For the moment, I can only reiterate our determination to carry out that pledge. Furthermore, I would point; out the very definite nature of that pledge. It cannot possibly on any interpretation be taken to mean that we are going to leave the 646 cereal industry to work out its future without any assistance. The wording of the pledge compels us to undertake certain steps. And I think, therefore, the noble Lord, even though he may be disappointed that I cannot at the moment tell him exactly what these steps are, can at least comfort himself by the fact that we are definitely committed to undertake definite steps for the alleviation of the condition of the cereal industry. I am sorry that I cannot say more, but I can assure your Lordships that as soon as possible an announcement will be made on this subject.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYMy Lords, I hardly think that the noble Lord will be satisfied with the reply which has been given to him. I feel that I should be wrong in blaming the noble Earl who has undertaken the very difficult task of trying to hold out some hope to a community which has been waiting for a considerable time for some vestige of a policy which may content them in the future. I realise that the task allotted to the noble Earl who represents the Minister of Agriculture in another place is one which it is very difficult to fulfil, because the Minister of Agriculture is a member of a Government which came in full of promises. They told us exactly what they were going to do, and how quickly they were going to do it. Yet in the time that they have been in office, they have done nothing whatever and are bringing this country into an infinitely worse position than it has been in for many years past. It was highly interesting to listen to the noble Lord who introduced this Question, and I can only regret that, owing to the lateness of the hour, the House was almost empty and that the members of your Lordships' House failed to hear a very interesting address. The noble Lord is a practical farmer himself, he speaks with the backing of farmers in England and in Scotland, and I sincerely hope that he will not leave the matter where it is at present, but will press the Government to give an answer of a more satisfactory character than we have received to-night, and will take whatever course is open to him in accordance with the rules of this House.
§ House adjourned at half past seven o'clock.