Lords Sitting of 30 September 1941

Preamble
The House met, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932.
Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section I of the Act to the County Borough of Oldham:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and ordered to lie on the Table.

GENTLEMAN USHER OF THE BLACK ROD.
THE SECRETARYOF STATEFOR THE COLONIES(LORD MOYNE): My Lords, I have to acquaint the House that His Majesty has appointed Air Chief Marshal Sir William Mitchell to be Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod in succession to the late Lieut.-General Sir William Pulteney; and that he is at the door ready to receive your Lordships' commands.
Whereupon the House directed that he should be called in. Accordingly he was called in and officiated in his place.

DEATH OF THE EARL OF AYLESFORD.
LORD MOYNE: My Lords, at the time of the evacuation of Dunkirk Lord Aylesford was reported missing. I regret to announce to your Lordships that it has now been confirmed that he was killed in action, and I am sure your Lordships will wish me to express our sympathy with his young wife and family.
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, on behalf of my friends on this side of the House I should like cordially to associate myself with what the Leader of the House has just said.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911, and read 1a.
INDIA AND BURMA (POSTPONEMENT OF ELECTIONS) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.

THE STAMP PEERAGE.
LORD MOYNE LORD MOYNE has given Notice that he would move to resolve, That this House, having heard the statement of the Lord Chancellor as to the devolution of the Stamp Peerage, approves the conclusion at which he has arrived that the Writ in respect of this Peerage should issue to Trevor as third Lord Stamp in succession to his elder brother Wilfrid, second Lord Stamp, deceased.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, you will remember that before the adjournment we were advised by the Lord Chancellor that we were justified in applying the analogy of the Law of Property Act and assuming that the late Lord Stamp predeceased his eldest son. As there was very general agreement, not only from the legal authorities of the House but also from several noble Lords who took part in the short discussion, I have put on the Order Paper, in accordance with what was the wish of the House, a Motion that the Writ shall issue to the present Lord Stamp as the third Peer. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That this House, having heard the statement of the Lord Chancellor as to the devolution of the Stamp Peerage, approves the conclusion at which he has arrived that the Writ in respect of this Peerage should issue to Trevor as third Lord Stamp in succession to his elder brother Wilfrid, second Lord Stamp, deceased.—(Lord Moyne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MARRIAGE (MEMBERS OF HIS MAJESTY'S FORCES) BILL [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, the object of this Bill, which I have introduced on behalf of the Admiralty and to which I am asking your Lordships to give a Second Reading to-day, is to remove some of the difficulties which face members of the Forces who desire to get married but who cannot get leave, or who

77
may suddenly be moved from place to place or ordered abroad. At present members of the Forces are limited in the same way as civilians, and, once their marriage has been arranged for a particular place, there are as a rule considerable formalities to be gone through in arranging for it to take place elsewhere, or, alternatively, considerable expense has to be incurred.
To take what is perhaps the commonest case, marriage by banns in England, banns are called in the parish churches in the places where the two parties are resident, and they can then be married in either of those churches within three months. In the case of the intended marriage of a member of one of His Majesty's Forces, it is probably the custom for the bride's parish church to be selected, since the bridegroom, as a member of the Forces, is likely to be stationed away from his home, and indeed, if he is a sailor in a sea-going ship, he has no alternative, since his banns are called in that ship. If, therefore, the bridegroom finds himself unable to obtain leave, the couple are faced with a grave difficulty. It may, of course, be possible merely to defer the marriage for a few days in anticipation of leave being obtainable, but this course does not always commend itself to young persons in present circumstances, as they may well feel that under war conditions postponement is a risky thing and may lead in turn to further postponement. Again, it may be possible to arrange the ceremony in the parish church where the bridgegroom is stationed and where the banns have been called; but if he is suddenly transferred to another station this alternative is not practicable. The only practical alternative then is to arrange for the marriage to take place by licence—a course which is costly and troublesome for persons unacquainted with the procedure.
There are similar difficulties in respect of weddings arranged in other ways—for example, at a particular registry office. This Bill has been designed to minimise difficulties of this kind to the fullest extent practicable. The underlying principle is that, where a person in the Forces has arranged to get married, and owing to the exigencies of the Service cannot get to the place arranged, so far as possible every facility should be given him to be married elsewhere. For the purpose of the Bill the term "members
78
of His Majesty's Forces" includes women employed in the categories specified in the First Schedule of the Bill, and it will be seen that to these categories others can be added by Orders in Council. It will be appreciated that in many cases both parties will be members of the Forces and both liable to sudden change of station or stoppage of leave—in short, the difficulties in such cases are doubled.
To turn to the Bill, Clause 1, subsection (1), provides that once the necessary formalities to enable the ceremony to be performed in a particular building in England—in a church or registry office—have been complied with, if a person in the Service provides a certificate by his or her Commanding Officer that he or she cannot go to that building, the ceremony can be performed elsewhere in England, or in Scotland. Subsection (2) similarly provides for a marriage to take place in England in cases where it was originally arranged to take place in Scotland. Clause 2 extends the validity of banns (in England), including the marriage licence, or registrar's licence (in England and Scotland), from three months to twelve months where a member of His Majesty's Forces is concerned. Banns in Scotland are a matter for the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland and this Bill does not deal with them. Clause 3 empowers the Registrar-General in England and Wales to authorize a superintendent registrar to issue a marriage licence immediately where at least one of the parties is a member of His Majesty's Forces. At present a superintendent registrar can only issue a marriage licence after a clear day's notice. This will be of particular value in cases where men are suddenly ordered abroad. It is already provided for by Section 2 of the Marriage (Scotland) Act, 1939, that a Sheriff may grant a licence for immediate marriage in unforeseen and exceptional circumstances. Clause 4 qualifies a woman employed with the Navy, Army or Air Force in the capacities specified in the First Schedule, to marry in a naval, military or Air Force chapel. Clause 5 is mainly explanatory and Clause 6 is the short title. There are two Schedules.
Clauses 1, 2 and 3 will have effect during the war period only, Clause 4 is permanent legislation. The difficulties in

79
question only arose to any appreciable extent during the last war in regard to naval personnel, and the Naval Marriages Act, 1915, which was a temporary measure only and contained very similar provisions to those in Clause 1, 2 and 3 of the present Bill, provided for them accordingly. The wording of that Act, however, was found to be unsuitable, especially in regard to Scotland, and has therefore not been adopted in the present Bill. In this war, although the Navy is again the Service principally affected, members of the Army and Royal Air Force are, it is found, experiencing similar difficulties and the Bill therefore covers all His Majesty's Forces. I hope your Lordships will agree that this Bill is a useful and necessary measure under these conditions, and I beg to move that it be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a—(Lord Templemore.)
LORD NATHAN: My Lords, this is a Bill which obviously will assist in dissipating some of the difficulties at present confronting members of the Armed Forces and affecting their happiness and well-being. I am desired by noble Lords on these Benches to say that they cordially support it.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

LIVE STOCK AND FEEDING-STUFFS.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether their attention had been called to Bulletin No. 3 published by Imperial Chemical Industries, Limited, and entitled Home Production and Use of Feeding-Stuffs in War; whether they are in general agreement with its arguments and deductions; and whether, in the light of them, they contemplate an amendment of their calculations regarding the numbers of live stock (especially poultry) that can be maintained without depleting the indispensable supplies of essential human foods, and the consequential revision of their authorized animal rations, based on such calculations; and to move for Papers.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I offer no apology to your Lordships for bringing to your notice the remarkable publication entitled Home Production and Use of Feeding-Stuffs in War, issued by
80
Imperial Chemical Industries, because it is, to my mind, the most illuminating and usefully suggestive publication in regard to home food production that has been issued either during the last war or during the present war. I say so with some little confidence because, during the last war, I served for a time both in the Ministry of Food and in the Ministry of Agriculture, and acted from 1916 to 1918 as President of the Federation of County War Agricultural Committees. It is only fair to Imperial Chemical Industries to indicate the war-time tasks to which they have given their special attention and in which they have carried out most useful and successful work. First of all, in regard to the making of silage according to the modern idea, treated with molasses and made of young grass or other immature herbage or other plants constituting a high-grade protein food and therefore valuable as a substitute for cattle cake, in 1940 the Minister of Agriculture asked Imperial Chemical Industries to undertake a national silage campaign which, with 600 trained men, they have successfully carried on both last year and this year.
The second task which they undertook was in regard to straw pulp, a species of food which they themselves invented some three years ago and which they claimed to be a source of carbo-hydrate or starchy food suitable for the maintenance ration of dairy cattle. It consists of the treatment of straw, chaff, or cavings with dilute caustic soda producing, as they claim, from every million tons of these fibrous materials the equivalent of 500,000 tons of starchy foods. Here again the Ministry of Agriculture gave this task their official blessing. In 1941 the Minister asked Imperial Chemical Industries to conduct a campaign for installing the straw-pulping plants. The last of these tasks, apart from the matter to which I am going to draw your Lordships' special attention, is in regard to gardens and allotments. In October, 1939, Imperial Chemical Industries directed their associated company, Plant Protection, Limited, to launch a national campaign for extended small-scale food production from gardens and allotments. They held public meetings, and also had film exhibitions and demonstrations with the help of a specialist trained staff. Here again the staff of the Ministry have given them every assistance.
Now I come to the fourth and, to my mind, most important activity of this enterprising and enlightened company, and that is the scheme which is outlined in this Bulletin for a better balanced system of British husbandry, involving less dependence on overseas food supplies for man and beast and a prospect of maintaining, during the war, a considerably larger head of pigs and poultry, not to mention dairy cattle, than that contemplated under the present Government coupon rationing scheme, without any reduction of either cattle or sheep. It is to make clear the Government's attitude on this Bulletin and the scheme that it describes that I have put this question and Motion upon the Paper. This Bulletin was published by Imperial Chemical Industries only four months ago, and I think its contents have only come to be generally known amongst the more progressive farmers during the last six weeks or two months. It has been most carefully compiled by Colonel W. R. Peel and Dr. S. J. Watson, two of the ablest and most trustworthy agricultural research workers in the country, and it embodies advice upon war-time fertilization policy by two of our most eminent agricultural chemists, Dr. E. M. Crowther and Mr. F. Yates.
With full knowledge of the present position and the potentialities of British husbandry, and making full allowance for variations of soil and climate, and the limitations necessarily imposed by the unavoidable scarcity of certain fertilizers, particularly of course potash and phosphates, its authors submit in this Bulletin a carefully reasoned scheme for war-time farming under which, in an average or normal year, the output of food for our live stock could be so materially augmented as to render unnecessary the recently decreed reduction in our bovine animals and the very drastic depletion of our pigs and poultry, and especially the latter. The main trend of the argument is that the Government have budgeted too much—as indeed was done, as I remember, during the last war—on enlarged spectacular extension of the acreage under wheat at the expense of oats, barley, grass and clover, beans and other crops grown for live stock, with a resulting inevitable shrinkage of live stock with their products, such as milk, cheese, bacon, and especially eggs. I know it may be contested that this widespread
82
ploughing-up campaign has not materially reduced the number of bovine cattle. Well, I live in the West of England, which includes a large proportion of the best dairying area in the country, and I am able to testify, as I am sure others of your Lordships could, to the fear entertained by a large number of dairy farmers at the inability of maintaining their cattle properly if a considerable area is converted from pasture to arable.
In submitting this Motion to your Lordships' House I have particularly in mind the public dissatisfaction at the scarcity of home-produced new laid eggs, and of the lean bacon which our industrial population has come to rely upon as a source of protein food, and the doubt I entertain is whether the sea-borne substitutes, while occupying valuable shipping space, will entirely dispel that dissatisfaction, especially if, as this Bulletin discloses, a modification of our present agricultural practice can be shown to render it unnecessary. As regards wheat, or rather our human requirements of starchy food, the Bulletin shows that apart from a high milling extraction—and I think the Food Minister has decreed that it shall be 85 per cent. instead of 70 per cent—and a larger consumption of potatoes as providing the nearest starch equivalent, the same output of human cereal food could be obtained largely by increased yields aided by seeds leys and fertilization rather than by increased wheat acreage.
While in no way deprecating the ploughing up of pasture land except that of the very highest quality and some extension of the former arable wheat acreage, the authors state on page 33—and here I am quoting them—
"If there had been no increase in the prewar acreage of wheat and if instead the land had grown barley or oats, there need have been no reduction in the numbers of pigs and poultry."
Later, on page 35, they say:
"It would seem that there need be no further reduction "—
this was written, remember, only last May—
"in the number of live stock in 1941. Indeed the warning recently given to farmers that they will have to reduce their poultry to one-sixth of their pre-war numbers need not have been given."
They then state the amount of food consumed by 11,000,000 birds, one-sixth of the pre-war numbers, and show how easily far more than this amount could

83
be made available by a re-arrangement of war-time cropping.
This Bulletin claims to show, and in my judgment shows convincingly, how the curtailment of imported feeding stuffs can be more than balanced by greater production at home, so that there need be no reduction whatever in the number of live stock. The arguments adduced in support of this opinion may be summarised as follows. First of all, that the main deficiency in imported materials is in carbo-hydrates or starchy foods—these are supplied, of course, mainly in white straw crops—and that the shortage of these amounts annually to 3,500,000 tons. They state on page 13 of the Bulletin that this amount will have to be produced at home if the pre-war numbers of cattle, sheep, pigs and poultry are to be maintained. The second main point they make is this, that cattle and sheep are mainly dependent upon bulky foods such as grass, hay or roots which can quite easily be raised in sufficient quantities in this country. The ration of a milking cow consists to the extent of 75 per cent. of bulky food and 25 per cent. of concentrates, and by modern methods of conserving grass and other fodder crops for use in winter the whole of that 25 per cent., which used to come largely from abroad, can be replaced by home-grown foods.
Thirdly, they go on to say that the pig and the hen on the other hand must have concentrated food—they cannot be fed in any other way—and that is the reason why the annual imports of maize and feeding barley, amounting together to over 3,000,000 tons, are so high, but in feeding animals this starchy food must be properly balanced, and should be no more than balanced, by protein food, or waste will inevitably occur. This waste does occur in fact by excessive feeding of concentrates to cattle and sheep without any corresponding yield of either milk or meat, this being done at the expense of the pigs and the poultry for whose maintenance they are far more essential. That is the point that I want to put. These gentlemen are right. Is it not only fair that a large proportion, if not the greater part of concentrated food obtained from abroad, should pass to the pigs and the poultry for whose maintenance they are essential, and not go largely to creating a
84
lack of balance in the food of cattle—feeding cattle as well as dairy cattle—for which they are far less necessary, if indeed they are required at all? The authors contend that if the pigs and poultry are to receive fair treatment to the advantage of the consuming public, what they call the privileged classes of stock, namely, bovines and sheep, should not be allowed to draw on the supply of available concentrates more than is absolutely necessary.
Fourthly, they say that the increase during the last sixty years in the amount of imported maize, which represents considerably more than half the total imported food-stuffs as such, while partly due no doubt to the larger number of pigs and poultry and dairy cows, is mainly due to the enormous decrease in recent years of the acreage under barley in this country, from 2,500,000 acres in 1875 to no more than 984,000 acres in 1938, a reduction of nearly two-thirds. Even much of this reduced output is, of course, converted into malt for brewing purposes. Fifthly, they reckon, in terms of barley and cattle cake respectively, the amount of starchy animal foods imported each year as equivalent to 4,500,000 tons of barley and that of the protein-rich foods to 660,000 tons of oil cake. These amounts, they say, can be made good from our own soil in various ways which are set out clearly in the Bulletin on pages 31 and 34, the chief items being the placing of an additional 3,000,000 acres under barley and oats as a source of starchy food, with an anticipated yield of over 2,000,000 tons, and an increase in the yield of each of these crops, now most deplorably low, as well as of hay and roots, by better manuring and a much larger home production of the pulse crops—that is peas and beans—approximating to that of seventy years ago, as well as increased production of silage according to modern methods. They draw attention to the fact that all of these three feeding stuffs—peas, beans and silage—are sources of protein as well as of starch.
The home food output can, it is urged, be augmented also by what is described as "an early bite" from the pastures by proper management and fertilization of grass-land equivalent to two months ration of purchased concentrates in the early spring. Every farmer probably knows that the most difficult month in the

85
whole year as far as dairy cattle are concerned is the month of April, particularly if the early spring happens to be cold. The amount of concentrates that are normally fed to dairy cattle during the early spring is out of all proportion to their true requirements if only more of the right kind of food is raised and made available to them from the soil of this country. This "early bite" of young herbage has, as modern research has disclosed, a very high protein content. It is comparable in valve to cattle cake, like modern silage, but, unlike hay, it can be classed as providing a production ration and not merely a maintenance ration for dairy cows.
As a source of protein the authors specially stress the importance of beans and peas. They correctly describe beans as being the one crop in this country, apart from young grass, which produces the food that is richest in protein, being followed in this respect by peas. They add rather interestingly that they have moreover a high biological value, which renders the protein content more assimilable, and also that they are a useful food for all descriptions of live stock. Apart from this, being leguminous crops, they leave the soil richer rather than poorer after being harvested, owing to the property, as your Lordships know, of certain organisms on the roots of these crops fixing nitrogen from the air. A return to the areas under these crops seventy years ago is strongly advocated in this Bulletin. As a source of carbohydrates or starchy matter—energy producers—similar stress is laid on potatoes, their dry matter having an almost identical starch value with maize. Like beans they are excellent food for all classes of live stock. It is noted that whereas at the end of the last war—and this is a very significant figure—there were 803,000 acres under potatoes in Great Britain, there were at the outbreak of this war only (609,000 acres, a decrease of nearly 25 per cent. I may say in passing that I am fully conscious that owing to the activities of war agricultural executive committees in certain counties this acreage has been materially augmented, and I am confident that if more and more encouragement is given to allotment holders and gardeners the output of potatoes can be even more largely increased. Potatoes, it is pointed out, can if desired be turned
86
into silage and thus kept for a prolonged period.
Of all the subjects dealt with in this Bulletin I regard personally as the most important the paragraphs dealing firstly with "catch crops," that is crops sandwiched in between two main crops, and secondly those dealing with leys. We have always understood leys to mean in past years mixtures of clover and rye grass, which under the old Norfolk four-course rotation formed a crop once in every four years, and in certain other rotations practised in other parts of the country would last not for one year only but for two or even four or five years in the rotation. These "catch crops" and short-term leys seem to me to provide in the most effective manner for the maintenance of soil fertility and to furnish the answer to the controversy now raging between the champions of humus or organic residues on the one hand and chemical fertilizers, especially those that like sulphate of ammonia contain nitrogen, on the other. The authors contend that, in spite of the conversion of old pasture into arable, the policy should be to maintain at least the same number of live stock as before the war and the cropping of land should be arranged to produce food for both man and beast.
They recommend as "catch crops" Italian rye-grass sown in a corn crop, winter rye, kale, cabbage mustard or rape and also (no doubt reminiscent of the old Norfolk four-course rotation) the inclusion of the short-term ley consisting not only of rye grass and clover but also, where conditions are suitable, of lucerne and sanfoin. These crops, as your Lordships know, are grown very largely on the chalk and on the limestone. These leguminous crops, while imparting both humus and chemical fertility to the soil, will yield far more food for live stock than the herbage and adulterant weeds of so-called permanent pasture and over a more extended season of growth and availability. They even advocate "in intensive dairying districts" the immediate sowing to herbage plants as well as corn of a certain area of ploughed-up old pasture on every farm, the corn being undersown with a ley mixture. After ploughing up the old pasture and liming the land, they advocate a fertilizing dressing of nitrogen and phosphates followed by frequent rollings. They tell us, rather surprisingly, that in this way the standard

87
of first-rate pasture will be reached within twelve months. They add significantly—and this, I think, is extraordinarily interesting—that "it is the tons of nutritive matter and not the acres which are important," a useful motto, in my judgment, to hang up in every room where war agricultural executive committees meet. It is the tons of nutritive matter and not the acreage which are important. As regards chemical fertilization, discreetly applied, they point out that you must maintain some sort of balance between the mineral contents of the surface soil. They state that the consumption of nitrogenous fertilizers per acre of arable land was, before the war, five times as high in Holland and Belgium and more than twice as high in Germany as in Great Britain. They deprecate the ploughing up of Britain's very best pastures.
Finally, on the last page of the Bulletin they refer most usefully to a suggestion that to a far greater extent than at present use should be made of slaughterhouse offals and refuse and kitchen waste. In passing, I may say that certain municipalities have taken up this subject in recent months with great patriotism and enterprise, led by the Borough of Tottenham, and far more of this material is being rendered available for feeding pigs and poultry than was the case six or eight months ago. Still, it is only a drop in the ocean to-day, and I am certain that far more can be done by municipal organizations, by women's institutes and by Government pressure than has so far been done in this matter.
The other item dealt with on the last page is waterlogged land. I, personally, feel somewhat strongly on this subject of the waterlogging of much of our best agricultural land, having been Chairman of the Royal Commission on the Land Drainage of England and Wales in 1929 and our Report having been translated into an Act of Parliament in the following year. Speaking relatively, a very small proportion of our waterlogged land has really been rendered fit even now for productive output. May I remind your Lordships that where land is waterlogged through lack of drainage, or inadequate drainage, or choking up of natural outfalls and watercourses into the sea, the temperature of the soil is reduced to such an extent that there is a very serious fall in the germination and progressive growth
88
of grass or any farm crop that may be grown upon it. The authors quote the estimate, which on expert advice the National Farmers' Union adopted, of the total area of land capable of improvement by adequate drainage as amounting to 7,000,000 acres or one-fourth of the whole of the cultivated area of this country.
I venture to suggest that this Bulletin, which to the best of my ability I have attempted to summarise, is worthy of your very serious consideration and of the full sympathy of His Majesty's Government. I would like to add one suggestion, or perhaps two suggestions of my own, as addenda worth considering. One is that some pressure, as well as advice, should be put upon dilatory farmers in the matter of the early conversion of their meadow grass into either silage or hay. When grass begins to flower and when it has passed from the flowering stage to seed, at least half to two-thirds of its whole nutritive value is gone. The number of farms in this country, especially I am sorry to say in the West Country, where they make silage from grass not in the first or second week in June but much later is very considerable, and they thereby lose some very valuable animal food which ought to be fully utilized. The other suggestion which I am going to make as a useful addendum is the use with a tractor of three- or four-furrow ploughs to expedite cultivation during spells of fine weather. The average plough drawn by a tractor is no more than a two-furrow plough. Except in the case of hilly land or very stiff land there is no earthly reason why the time should not be reduced by one-third or one half by the use of three- or four-furrow ploughs.
In conclusion I suggest to your Lordships that this Bulletin is a most useful vade mecum for any stock owner who wants to pull his full weight during the war, especially if the war proves to be of long duration. What I should like to see is the Government giving their full official imprimatur or endorsement to this publication, which is the work of experts of outstanding reputation throughout the Empire, and issuing it free of cost and at the public expense (which would be relatively trifling) to every farmer, large and small, throughout Great Britain. Such a course would prove in its results to be true national economy. It would, moreover,

89
be indicative of the Government's foresight and breadth of view. It would add to their prestige amongst those farmers of experience who are alarmed at what appear to their conservative minds to be unnecessary violations of the old accepted canons of sound husbandry, and arouse hope in the minds of urban dwellers, whose war-time morale is beneficially affected by a sufficiency of eggs, milk and bacon and who entertain a not unreasonable prejudice for these food commodities in a fresh and unsophisticated state, supplied direct from the soil of their own country, leaving available for much-needed war material the dwindling shipping space on our trans.-Atlantic merchantmen. I beg to move.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords. I feel that we are extremely grateful to my noble friend for hiving opened up this subject. It is with some trepidation that I follow one with such great knowledge on this subject, particularly, if I may say so, in view of his most admirable speech on this question. I think we have every reason to be very grateful to Imperial Chemical Industries for having issued this Bulletin. It is of great interest and of the utmost importance. I am very glad that in this debate we have represented on the Front Bench to-day not only the Ministry of Agriculture but also tae Ministry of Food, because really, when one thinks over these questions, it is very difficult to tell where the Ministry of Agriculture ends and the Ministry of Food begins, and vice versa.
On page 5 of this Bulletin the following is said: I believe it to be of the utmost importance and I would like to see it more recognized. Our first concern, of course, must be the production of human food, but of almost equal, if not quite equal, importance is the production of live-stock food, and the former really is very dependent on the latter. I propose, with your permission, to read on page 17, paragraph 17, how that is brought about:
"Increased acreage under the plough should not be confined to arable land districts only. It might be argued that the mainly arable districts should turn entirely to the production of crops for human consumption and that the live stock in these districts should be reduced to a minimum. Such-an argument overlooks the fact that on every arable farm"—
now this is the important point—
"there are always large quantities of byproducts unfit for human consumption but
90
which can be converted through the animal into human food and which, again through the animal, will maintain the fertility of the soil."
That, I think, does demonstrate how important it is that we should do everything we possibly can to maintain the highest possible number of live stock in the country.
Now I will for a moment touch on the ploughing. I know how difficult this subject is. I do not want to criticise too much or appear to be complaining, but in view of what I see going on round me there does seem to be an idea that you can farm, so to speak, from hand to mouth. Everyone knows that that is not possible with good results, and it must be borne in mind that the production of any year must be prepared beforehand, one, two or more years in advance. I agree particularly with what my noble friend just said, that is to say, do not let us worry about the acreage so much if we can get the bulk of nutrition: that is the important thing. I am afraid that sometimes that seems to me to be a little forgotten. I say that because I do feel that farmers are a little nonplussed as to how, under the present policy, they are going to make plans.
I have a letter here which was sent to me from Cheshire and I hope I shall not weary your Lordships by reading quite a considerable part of it. This is what I propose to read:
"It is agreed that even on stiff clay farms' the dairy farmer should plough an acreage sufficient to provide enough feeding stuffs to make his farm self-supporting, but is it the Government's intention that these farms should plough an acreage in excess of their requirements to provide corn or root crops for human consumption? If this is so, it must be understood that the present milk shortage will increase in the coming winter and in the winter of 1942 there will be only enough milk for the needs of mothers and children."
That has already begun to show itself.
"Dairy farmers are being ordered to plough land in excess of their requirements and considerably to reduce their stocks on the assumption that the shipping situation in 1942 will be so serious as to necessitate the growing of as much wheat in this country as it is humanly possible to obtain. This may be the correct policy to adopt and the Government alone are able to judge to what extent the shipping losses are likely to affect the food situation, but in fairness to farmers and the public they should openly state"—

91
here and now—
"that this policy is necessitated by circumstances and that milk must be sacrificed to bread. At present dairy farmers feel that the Government are displaying indecision as to whether they intend to pursue their present policy or adjust it to meet the requirements of milk production".
That comes from a source of which I am bound to take most serious notice. It is well known that the farmers of Cheshire are very astute men, who understand the production of milk and cheese. They have always aimed at being self-supporting, and it will be evident that when they are told to plough up more land and grow wheat, those who have been producing a maximum amount of milk and cheese on their farms will have to sacrifice that production for the sake of the wheat. Do the Government want that? That is one point which I wish to make.
Farmers are really in a quandary. At the beginning of what I will call the emergency period, we were all encouraged to be self-supporting as far as possible. Then we were encouraged to increase the pig and poultry population. I was delighted to hear what my noble friend said about pigs and poultry, because in my neighbourhood the land, which is very short of water and very poor land, is growing magnificient crops—this year it has produced wheat up to 68 bushels an acre—simply on account of the fertility derived from folding pigs and poultry on the land. Next we were told to reduce the number of our pigs and poultry. That means that a great deal of this land will go out of fertility altogether, and will be given over to rabbits and so on. Next we were told that we should not be allowed to retain even one per cent. of the wheat we grow on our farms, although it is of very material assistance in keeping pigs and poultry healthy. I do beg the Government to take a more comprehensive view of the difficulties of farmers to-day. A great many farmers really do not know what to do.
The statement that the deficiency of feeding-stuffs for live stock due to the war can probably be made up in the way that my noble friend has illustrated is made by no less an authority than Dr. N. C. Wright, a man of great prominence whose words on this subject deserve serious attention. I make an appeal to both Ministers—because both are concerned—to reconsider the decision that
92
the whole of the wheat must be sold. Only a few days ago, my noble friend the Minister of Food said that never before in history had there been so much wheat in this country. In view of that, I do feel we might beg of him, if he is the influence behind this Order to us to sell all our wheat, to say "In view of this improved position, I agree that you may retain for your own use, to feed your own animals, ten per cent. of what you grow." I do not believe that a great many farmers will use even that amount, but on many farms that I know it would be of the utmost possible value to them, and to the general fertility of the country, if this were permitted.
What is the position to-day with regard to poultry? Let us take the case of two individuals. One is a farmer, farming 750 acres, who in June, 1939, had 6,000 hens. The other is a man who is not a farmer at all, but who has a battery of hens on a few acres, and who at the same date also had 6,000 hens. Each of them has had to reduce his hens to one-sixth, so that each has now 1,000 hens. We are told that we arc to receive so many units for the feeding of our hens, but the farmer will be penalized, because for every fifteen acres that he farms he is to have one unit deducted. As I read the Order which has been issued, the man who own the battery will receive 50 units, and the farmer, who has the same number of hens, will get no units at all, because he is farming 750 acres, and for every 15 acres one unit is deducted. The farmer is being penalized, yet the production of food on the farm is due very materially to the fertility of the soil, which is to a great extent derived from these birds. I therefore make an urgent appeal to both Ministries—I do not know with which the decision lies—to reconsider this question, and not to penalize the farmer for the benefit of the battery owner, because in fact the battery owner is receiving food from the farmer; the farmer is growing the food for the battery owner. When my noble friend replies, I hope that he will be able to give us a word of hope on this subject.
Some time ago, there was issued a Memorandum to executive officers of county war agricultural committees in England and Wales, headed: "Feeding-Stuffs Rationing Scheme; October, 1941, to April, 1942." I have already referred

93
to the quandary that the farmers are in, and how difficult they find it to make plans. I am going to read paragraphs 47 and 48 of this Memorandum, and your Lordships will readily appreciate how hopeless the future must seem to farmers who are really trying to do the best they can to help the country in this emergency. Paragraph 47 reads:
"Growers of wheal are not allowed to use for feeding to their live stock any millable wheat they have grown, though they may, of course, use tailings. It is desirable, therefore, to make some provision for the wheat-grower who may have little or no acreage under oats or mixed corn but who has live stock. Committees are accordingly having placed at their disposal a quantity of cereal coupons, which may be issued at their discretion to meet the needs of such wheat-growers."
I would ask your Lordships to listen to this:
"The quantity placed at the disposal of each county will be notified later."
How in the world is anybody who is seriously engaged in farming going to make any plans when he does not know what he is going to get? Paragraph 48 is the same sort of thing. The committees will be authorized to substitute protein for cereal coupons up to a limit that again will be notified later. I beg my noble friend to try to remove this uncertainty and to let us know where we are and what we are likely to get—in fact, what we are certain to get. I do hope my noble friend will let us have that information as soon as possible.
I have very nearly finished. My noble friend who preceded me has, as T expected, dealt very exhaustively with the whole question, and I shall not attempt to go over the ground he covered so admirably. There is just this I should like to say. Good grass ploughed up, as we all know, will produce good crops, but I do suggest that a lot of grassland has been ploughed which has very little fertility in it and which ought to have been much more prepared before a white crop was put into it. No doubt your Lordships, in travelling through the country, have seen instances of this. I should like to see permission given so that the poor grassland that is being ploughed, and which obviously is poor and has very little humus in it, should have more preparation than has been given to it. Then perhaps we might get a white crop the second year and not just the first year after ploughing. This could be done in various
94
ways which my noble friend has already mentioned. The soil of our country is our most precious asset; it is the one non-wasting asset that we have got. If we treat it well, if we treat it fairly, it will remain with us for all time. I do hope that this paper which has been issued by the I.C.I., and which I believe to be one of the most important on this subject that has ever been published, with great knowledge behind it and with that knowledge backed by men whose names are household words in agriculture, will be considered most seriously by the Government, and that they will carry out a great many of its recommendations. For these reasons I have the greatest possible pleasure in supporting my noble friend in this very important Motion.
VISCOUNT DAWSON OF PENN: My Lords, the two distinguished noble Lords who have preceded me speak with great authority on the agricultural side of this question, but both of them came down fairly heavily on the difficult subjects of eggs and pigs. It will be agreed that the maintenance of egg production has, from quite an early stage in the war, been a matter of difference of opinion. In the result, the scales went down heavily early in the war, and in my submission too heavily, against the egg. When the poultry stuffs were reduced suddenly by two-thirds, it is no exaggeration to say that a considerable portion of the poultry farmers' living went in the course of a night. The debate in your Lordships' House last February was a mirror of these differences of opinion. After listening to several speeches espousing the cause of the egg, the noble Lord the Minister of Food stated in the course of his reply that he had been considerably confused by the advice tendered to him. Probably it was not the first time he had discovered that expert advisers do not always talk with a single voice. He was told that poultry were very bad converters of feeding stuffs, that to issue rations to hens and pigs was bad agriculture, that the better agricultural policy was first to look after the cow and then to look after the production of beef. In conformity with the Minister's habit of fair-mindedness, he told your Lordships that after listening to the debate he was not quite sure whether the course he had decided to take was well founded or not. In my submission the advice the Minister then received was based on misleading data,

95
and this misleading data led logically to the over-penalizing of the hen. I shall venture to sustain that theme.
The contrast between the cow and the hen in their natural states and in the intensive states is very striking. The cow in its natural state produces something less than one gallon of milk a day during its lactation period, and the hen produces in the course of a year eighty eggs. Contrast that with the examples of these specialized cows and hens in which the cow produces something like 600 gallons a year and the intensive hen, instead of eighty eggs, produces 180 a year. In fact, these two animals are very remarkable creatures. It is almost impossible to believe the difference which they can show under natural and under intensive conditions. The intensive cow, for example, can produce milk in the course of a year which, measured at its dried weight, may be twice as great as the dead weight of the cow itself. I take it that there are very few things to equal that in the course of animal life. There is another contrast between the cow and the hen, and it is this, which is germane to our discussion: whereas the cow can feed to the extent of 80 per cent. on bulk and carbohydrate food, and will do quite well on 20 per cent. of concentrate and protein, it is almost the reverse in the case of the hen. It was at one time calculated that four-fifths of a hen's food had to be of small volume and high protein content. That really, I take it, was the justification for penalizing the hen and the egg to the extent of two-thirds—namely, that it became a competitor for human food and that it consumed too much of imports from abroad.
That would be a perfectly just conclusion provided the hen produced something which could be replaced and which was of small value, but the reverse is the truth, and when the Minister was told at the beginning of the war that the hen was a bad converter he was told something which was in fact erroneous. Far from being an inefficient converter of its feeding-stuffs the hen is really second to the cow, and perhaps here I may remind your Lordships of the conversion figures. If you give one hundred pounds of protein food to the cow it produces thirty-five pounds of milk, the hen produces thirty-one pounds of eggs, the pig twenty-one pounds of meat, and the bullock,
96
which is by far the lowest, only seven pounds of meat. This order of efficiency is accepted by all authorities, including the National Committee on Nutrition which was founded by the League of Nations. My first point, therefore, is that the egg is not something you can treat lightly, and, secondly, that it is a food of very great value from a nutritive point of view. Making a comparison with milk, it is rich in protein and vitamins and as far as vitamin B is concerned it is even better than milk. You may say that together milk and eggs are a very tower of nutrition strength. I think a case can be made out for saying that the importance of the egg is so great that to penalize the hen to the extent of two-thirds was to do something that was based upon a misapprehension of the facts. I think in the light of experience that is now quite clear.
I pass to another and most important aspect of the egg, and that is its digestibility. It is a very digestible and easily handled food. In cookery light foods are of great importance, and they are especially important to workers who are beginning to get weary in mind and weak in their digestions, as they are very apt to do under the conditions that prevail to-day. All authorities are agreed that without milk and without eggs you cannot make light food, and though it is right that there should be a priority of eggs for children and for some invalids from the point of view of preventive medicine, from the point of view of keeping the active population well and fit we cannot neglect the fact that the availability of eggs will play a big and important part. It is interesting to note in passing how the horse sense of the people accords with this view. It is important to remember that since the beginning of food control there has not been, I think, any subject which has disturbed public opinion so much as the discussion over eggs. Housewives, and they are a forcible group when they get going, took the view that some important appanage of their homes was to be interfered with, and they made their voices heard in no uncertain manner in demanding that the maintenance of egg production must be continued.
I would with great respect express the hope that the noble Lord the Minister of Food will take no further steps to ration eggs. Firstly, I would suggest that rather he should try and leave this

97
matter to localities to be dealt with by voluntary efforts. Let the localities look after the egg needs of their children and ailing citizens, and as for the rest the requirements might be met by means of a pool. Any further attempt to ration would not, I think, be productive of the result we all want to bring about. Surely it is always difficult to ration a commodity in short supply, and when that commodity must of necessity be fresh, the lag between production and distribution might easily defeat your object. That is not to say that preserved eggs and even egg powder are not very valuable in cookery, but there is something in fresh food, whether it be in the form of eggs or of milk, or in the form of vegetables, which gives it a place by itself, and no amount of preserved food will, in the case of eggs and milk, entirely replace the value of fresh eggs and milk.
THE MINISTER OF FOOD (LORD WOOLTON): I wonder if I might intervene. I get so much puzzled by the noble Viscount's views that, as I shall not subsequently intervene in this debate, I should be grateful if he would tell me what he means by any further rationing of eggs from the point of view of invalids.
VISCOUNT DAWSON OF PENN: What I meant was that his Department rather gives the impression that as long as we look after the children and invalids the adult population can just take the residue of the liquid milk and eggs that is available; that when we have looked after the needs of children and invalids in regard to milk and eggs it does not much matter about the others, because they are strong enough to get on without them. I am grateful to the noble Lord for having intervened, because I think that the impression I have just stated is abroad and that it needs to be resolved. After all, if you look at it from the point of view of war efficiency we must do our best to keep fit and well, the people who are at work, and there are large r umbers of citizens, as the war progresses, who, if they have to carry on and work overtime, cannot be allowed to remain ailing or to become ill. We must maintain their health on a high level. For that reason I would regret very much, unless it were proved absolutely necessary in future, the idea that we do not want milk and eggs for a healthy population because we do. I should regret very much if there were any studied
98
effort to divert eggs for children and invalids only, unless it were proved that they were not getting enough under the system at present existing.
I will pass for a moment to the home production of eggs. Under the press of circumstances when the food was reduced to one-third the poultry farmers did get busy, and now it seems to be agreed that by the use of domestic waste and by the use of young chopped grass and other expedients, including young potatoes, they have succeeded in maintaining their flocks. That is a tribute to their resourcefulness, and to their adaptability of which we were not, perhaps, fully aware. This leaves only fifty per cent. of food to be obtained from the four cereals. I understand the wet harvest has unfortunately led to a certain amount of wastage of corn, but it may be that this damaged corn can be made use of in a small measure for feeding poultry. If that is done we are still left with the problem of the protein-rich food. My noble friend Lord Bledisloe told us how the lack of protein-rich food can be met, but his method of meeting it was on the long view and not the short view. If what he advocates were carried out we cannot hope to get an increase from home sources until a year from now. We cannot wait till then. We want production now. Animal production has gone down by twenty per cent., and I am told that the average egg production per hen is also going down about twenty per cent. and that production is still on the down range.
Cannot we in this country produce protein-rich food suitable for our animals, not next year, but within the next two or three months? I maintain that we can, and I make the following suggestions. In the manufacture of acetone there is a byproduct containing fifty per cent. of protein which is quite suitable for the feeding of poultry and animals. It was actually used to feed pigs in the last war. At the present time that by-product in the manufacture of acetone is being wasted. I imagine that the manufacturer is emptying it into a neighbouring river. That should be made available, as it was in the last war, for pigs and poultry. The second suggestion is one about which I am not quite so sure, but I believe it is a good one. I refer to castor bean meal which is now used as a fertilizer. That

99
contains unfortunately an ingredient which is poisonous to animals, but by the ingenuity of our chemists—and there are none better than our chemists—this poisonous ingredient can be removed quite satisfactorily, and there is left a protein-rich food available for animal feeding. There are two sources of protein ready to hand, suitable certainly for poultry and pigs, and to a less extent for cows. That would enable us to get more and more eggs from our hens.
Now I will pass to the broader question. My noble friend the Minister for Food will remember, I think, the debate we had in this House last February. I urged upon him then the importance of the study and production of vegetable protein, and he was good enough to express interest at the time. Since then there has been discovered a synthetised vegetable protein of great interest. It is of high value as a protein food. The vehicle of it is yeast and the interesting thing is that while this yeast is playing an important part in the production of this protein of high value the yeast renews itself. That calls to mind the words: "The barrel of meal shall not waste, neither shall the cruse of oil fail." To anybody interested in chemical matters there is something fascinating about this achievement. It has been proved on a small scale, and I believe it is ripe for mass production. Could not large-scale production be expedited? There is even a prospect of the product being cheap, and it is going to be available for human beings. Experiments have shown that it adds to the value of bread and that it is extraordinarily good in the nourishment of children. We have here a product which will not only help humans, who of course come first, but will help in the protein feeding of animals. I urge the Minister of Food that he should hustle this thing on. The production of tanks is being speeded up and I urge that there should be the same hustle in this matter. I believe that the product could be put on the market in two months.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: Can the noble Viscount tell us what is this substance?
VISCOUNT DAWSON OF PENN: It is a vegetable protein which is a part of dried yeast. It is a process that can with the support of the Ministry be put on the
100
market with reasonable promptitude. I want to make an appeal to the Minister of Food. Already poultry farmers and the public have been penalized by the reduction of the ration for poultry. They have been penalized to the extent of two-thirds. That two-thirds reduction was too high—largely owing no doubt to the mistaken view that the egg was not of the importance it is—and I therefore appeal to the noble Lord to postpone the reduction to one-sixth for a few weeks. That would give a little more time. We do not want to see the poultry industry of this country damaged beyond all recovery, and that might easily come about. I think the public will hold His Majesty's Government greatly to blame if they go on with this relentless policy. It was really based upon the mistaken view of the Ministry of Agriculture at the beginning of this war, the view which they persisted in, in face of the facts, that the bullock came second to the cow and the hen and the pig did not count. It was based on ignorance of scientific facts—facts which are accepted by the whole scientific world—and to pursue this policy of going on from two-thirds to one-sixth in the face of the great amount of knowledge to the contrary and in the face of very strong public opinion, would, I think, be very bad statesmanship.
Before I sit down, may I make a few remarks about milk? The rich aftergrowth of grass is a welcome bit of good fortune and will be a standby of the herds no doubt during this autumn, probably for at least a month, but it will not modify the need for cereal and protein-rich foods during the winter. Unless those are forthcoming, the average production per cow and per hen will go on the down grade. It cannot be too widely known that separated milk, powdered milk, is a valuable complementary ration; it can supplement liquid milk but it cannot replace it. It is devoid of cream and lacking in vitamins, and, therefore, it is suitable under certain limited conditions only. It is not an equivalent to liquid milk.
Now if I may touch on one other matter of great importance—that is the protection of our tuberculin-tested herds. Certain food officers do not seem to realize that tuberculin-tested herds have been gathered together for years and years past by patient labour and under many disappointments, and, having once been built up, if anything were to happen to

101
them it would take years to undo the evil. It is a constant effort to preserve these herds against tubercle invasion. You cannot go into the market and buy an attested cow just when you think you will; one is not always forthcoming. Imagine then, that a cow has been mated and the supply of milk for many months ahead has been planned. Fancy receiving orders from an official of the Ministry to reduce sales of tuberculin-tested milk by more than one-third by October 18. Take a concrete consequence. Supposing that a herd of tuberculin-tested cows were serving and supplying a large institution for children, and suppose they were in the habit of sending to that institution 300 gallons of milk a week. All of a sudden the order comes for the quantity to be reduced to 200 gallons a week by October 18. Think of the consequences of that. Think of the way in which, on the one hand, it would shatter the owners of the herds to be suddenly faced with such a situation. It is almost an irony for such a thing to happen at the very time when much concern is being felt at the increased incidence of tuberculosis. There must be some mistake about this. It may be due to some slip on the part of the author of the Order. Maybe the supply of vitamins failed temporarily, or it may be something that has happened in the office and it only needs to be put right.
May I say this: Does not this particular Order on tuberculin-tested milk give us one more example to show that it is a hazardous thing to tamper with the liquid milk supply? The less we control it the better. I admit that with the diminished production of milk, liquid milk, as compared with last winter's production, a certain amount of control has had to take place, but I do urge that the control should act as lightly as possible. What we should rather do is to endeavour to stay the down-grade process in the production of milk. That production is like virtue. It is very easy to make a reputation, but still more easy to lose it, and once you have lost it, it takes a long while to build it up again. This is true of the intensive hen and the intensive cow. Once you stop giving them their full ration they quickly revert to the basic animal. We must remember that it takes two and a half years to make a dairy cow.
102
The further quantity of cheese which is being made available is a very welcome matter. It will not only be of great benefit but will also bring great satisfaction to the population. I always think that in a labour population the stress should be on cheese and in a sedentary population the stress should be on eggs. In this connection, I think it is of interest that trial is being made of sheep cheese. After all, we are there only following the example of many countries in Europe where, for generations, cheese made from the milk of ewes has been a staple food. Many of us, when we hear the word "Roquefort" have called to our memory the fact that not so very long ago, though it seems ages, we lived in quiet and peaceful times. The enterprise of the Northants Agricultural Institute deserves our encouragement. It has had, I believe, the encouragement of the Ministry, and we do appreciate also the aid of our Czecho-Slovak allies in this matter. The cheese is of good value. If you take its conversion power you get a higher value out of the ewe, looked at in terms of cheese than you do looking at it in terms of mutton. I forget the actual proportion but it is something like two or three to one.
The cheese made from the ewe's milk is good if the lamb is taken away from the ewe at ten weeks and in another ten weeks the ewe is milked. I think the average yield amounts to one and a half gallons of milk per week in the total of ten weeks—forty pounds of cheese, and very good cheese too. I believe the difficulty at present is the difficulty of labour, although I am told that an experienced land girl can milk a ewe dry in two minutes. It might be rather a monotonous process to continue that day after day; but it is gratifying that this trial has been made. It does open up the possibility that we may once more get more home-produced cheese and therefore one will require to have less cheese from overseas. It is surely a topsy-turvy world in which we were all lectured by the Government, during the early part of the war, on the great importance of cutting down imports on account of shipping, yet what we are doing now is to import the ready-made articles instead of importing the food and buying it and making more of the articles ourselves. I am not arguing whether that is right or wrong; it is an economic question which is beyond

103
me; but it is none the less a topsy-turvy position.
Those are the comments I have the privilege to make, but I may in conclusion plead as hard as I can that a respite be given to the poultry hen, whose ration is already cut down two-thirds. The poultry keepers have risen to the occasion in a remarkable manner. They have increased considerably the food they can give outside concentrates, and after what I have said about the artificial manufacture of protein food, which in my judgment could be brought into being fairly soon, in the course of two or three months, I do think it is a very strong case which I have presented for at any rate postponing the further reduction of the ration of the hen.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I am sure we have every reason to be grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, for having introduced the discussion on this very important pamphlet which has been issued by Imperial Chemical Industries. We have always had the benefit in the House of a number of noble Lords who are well acquainted with agricultural matters and who are able to speak wisely upon them; and every now and then we have had the good fortune to have as members of the House some noble Lords who have been very specially qualified by experience. We all of us regretted the very short period during which the late Lord Ernie was able to give us the benefit of his great knowledge of the subject; and now we all appreciate the help which, in a matter of this kind, Lord Bledisloe is able to give us. His experience covers membership and, in many cases, the Presidency of almost all the important agricultural societies in the country. He has always been a practical farmer himself and he has had the very special advantage of observing the conditions of farming in New Zealand, the one place in the whole of His Majesty's wide Dominions in which the conditions approximate most nearly to those which obtain in these islands.
Lord Teviot pointed out that both the Ministry of Food and the Ministry of Agriculture were concerned with the question raised in this debate. That is perfectly true, and it is also true that those two Departments are compelled to look at questions of this kind from a somewhat different point of view. I have
104
no doubt that their relations are in every respect most harmonious, but they very often must take a totally different view of the necessities which the moment demands, for this reason: the Ministry of Food is not an institution, it is an expedient. We all know that the British public will not look forward to having its food rationed for an indefinite period. We certainly should not describe Lord Woolton (to quote a familiar phrase of Lord Beaconsfield) as "a transient and embarrassed phantom," and I have no doubt that nobody will be more pleased than he when he is able to announce that the ordinary householder and his wife will be able, if they have the money in their pockets, to buy a pound of cheese or a dozen eggs or a pound of sugar without asking the leave of His Majesty's Government.
We all have to agree that in the competition for supplies the needs of the human being have to be considered first, but it is also true, as is pointed out in this pamphlet, that the supply of food for live stock comes almost into the same line of necessity. I am afraid it is true, as has been pointed out by previous speakers, that, by the instructions which it has received, the farming community has often found itself greatly puzzled. Certainly, from the inquiries that I personally have been able to make, I have found that to be so, because those instructions have not only been varied, as is probably necessary because the conditions vary, but they have also sometimes been almost directly contradictory, and the farming community on several occasions has been at a complete loss to know what line it ought to take in such matters as the slaughter of cattle and the alarming instructions that, as we have been reminded again to-day, have been given in the matter of pigs and poultry.
The central point of this pamphlet, as the noble Viscount, Lord Biedisloe, has pointed out, is that it ought to be possible to supply the required amount of food for human consumption without continuing to diminish the live stock of the country. It is pointed out in these very illuminating pages that that can be done. The statement is made that, as those of us who have been connected with farming all our lives are well aware, the central pivot of British agriculture has been the production of farmyard manure, and that, in spite of all that we know of the value

105
of chemical manures of all kinds, we ought to have regard to that fact. That applies not only to large-scale farming but also to smallholdings and allotments. Moreover, as the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, has said, the use of farmyard manure can be to a large extent eked out by the addition of a proportion of organic wastes of different kinds—rubbish, weeds, and so on—which, if carefully and properly treated, are found useful.
In the very interesting speech of my noble friend Lord Dawson of Penn, reference was made in most forcible terms to the errors—I think that one may go so far as to describe them as errors—made with regard to pigs and poultry, and especially poultry. In addition to the broad reasons which the noble Viscount gave for preserving the national stock of poultry, it will be clear, as I think any noble Lord will find who consults the experience of the county agricultural committees, that these restrictions cause special hardship to the small man. It is the smallholder and the allotment holder, the man who has only a few acres, and whose whole margin of profit very often depends on the few pigs and the small number of poultry which he and his wife have been able to keep and look after, who is adversely affected, and not merely the large poultry farmer, who produces great numbers of eggs, which, as has been pointed out, play so important a part in the nutrition of the country. It is on behalf of these small people that we pray for mercy to the Ministry of Food or to the Ministry of Agriculture—whichever is more concerned—so that the position with regard to poultry may be improved.
I think that it is reasonable to make two requests to His Majesty's Government. In the first place, I should like to support strongly the request made by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, that this very remarkable document should be placed as far as possible in the hands of all members of the farming community, whether they farm on a large or on a small scale. There are pages in it which will be of the utmost value to all those engaged in the varied forms of industry covered by the word "farming." Secondly, I beg the Departments concerned to refrain as far as possible from arriving at too hurried conclusions, sometimes based on imperfect knowledge of the facts, and so to prevent reversals of policy which in some cases, as I have said, have tended to puzzle
106
farmers and to discourage them from making the great effort which I am sure that, almost without exception, they are anxious to make to provide the proper amount of food, first for the population of the country and afterwards for the livestock on which their own living depends.
LORD PHILLIMORE: My Lords, the motto of the Royal Agricultural Society is "Practice with Science." I hope that on this occasion I may represent practice, if not science, the latter having been already abundantly expounded in the speeches which have preceded my own. I am in fairly up-to-date and constant touch with certain parts of the farming community, and certain conclusions are borne in on me. The first is that we are now in the third year of the war, that we have taken two white straw crops off the land, that we have now in many cases exhausted what little stored-up fertility there was under the ranching grass system, and we have to put some of that fertility back before we can go on cropping that land again. There are two ways of putting it back. The first is to grow leguminous crops, including clover mixtures, and that is a very excellent way; the second is the method which I was glad to hear referred to by the noble Marquess opposite, the method of farmyard manure and the dung-cart. Nothing will ever remove its importance in British or any other agriculture. We cannot get farmyard manure unless we have got live stock. We cannot get it carted out of the yards, and we cannot get it scattered over the fields as hens, pigs, and sheep scatter it. Therefore, some effort must be made to increase our stock-carrying capacity if the fertility of the land is to be maintained. What is more, if the great opportunity presented to us by the ploughing-up campaign is to be properly used, we must, pari passu with ploughing-up, add to our live stock, otherwise we at once lose the essential balance between stock and crops. That, all your Lordships will recognize, is an elementary principle.
So we come to this, that more direct encouragement should be given by the Minister of Agriculture, with the collaboration of the Minister of Food, to the production, raising, and fattening of stock of all kinds, and certainly I should say of the hen, above all others, except the cow. The hen—it has been put in a different way by Lord Dawson—converts

107
about 43 pence into 100 pence of saleable value, and that is pretty valuable going. The hen is extraordinarily good at picking up a large part of its living from the land on which it is allowed to roam, and it has other merits such as clearing up wire-worm and so on. The hen and the egg have been dwelt on considerably today. We hope egg production will be further encouraged instead of discouraged, but, on the whole subject, I hope the Government will not get away from advancing, as I say, pari passu with the ploughing-up scheme, by encouraging farmers to provide more live stock.
I would urge this also on them—somebody has already mentioned it in the debate—that it is, at times, a mistake to impose control on an industry or part of an industry which you may particularly wish to foster. It is very difficult, for instance, to justify the latest provisions of the proposed milk rationing scheme that is going to operate from October 12. Under that scheme customers are classified, giving priority to people, no doubt, who should have priority; but the breadwinner, to whom Lord Dawson referred in his most interesting speech, and the breadwinner's wife, who may be also a breadwinner, were threatened the other day with a basic ration of four pints in seven days. In other words, the only restorative liquor, if I may put it this way, that these poor hardworking people were to be allowed was something less than one-third of a pint a day. We are now told that this basic quantity—I think it was in yesterday's newspapers—is not fixed, but is a fluctuating figure dependent on the amount of milk available after dealing with the priority classes. I can quite see that care must be lavished on the priority classes, but there is something to be said for the point my noble friend Lord Teviot made that these sudden alterations and these loose engagements make it extraordinarily difficult for the producer to conform and do his best.
One quite sees that when it is a case of a convoy being sunk, or an unexpected loss of food in some direction or other, the Government cannot tie themselves too tightly, but they should give all possible notice they can, and be as little vague in their instructions as they can find it in their hearts to be. Under this new milk rationing scheme the producer-retailer will go out into his neighbourhood prepared to
108
supply an almost unknown quantity, a very minute quantity, per house except where there is illness, young children, a school, or a hospital; but that very minute quantity will have to be delivered in quantities of one-third of a pint, which means a very expensive one-third pint bottle. There will also have to be just as many stops at customers' houses as there were before the scheme was introduced. There will be just as much petrol used, just as much wear and tear on vans, just as many roundsmen employed; but the quantity sold by the producer-retailer, under the scheme adumbrated by the Government, if his customers are healthy and of adult age, will be almost halved. He will incur the same expenses in supplying half the quantity, and that he will be unable to do. In consequence he will go out of milk production or, at best, he will sell to the wholesaler if the margin offered by the wholesaler is sufficiently good. I make the point that this scheme may very well result in a diminution of milk being available. In that way we are defeating our own ends. The safe way for the Government is to encourage production of all kinds up to the hilt. Let us farm as intensively and widely as we can and, to some extent, at any rate, let distribution look after itself.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE DUKE OF NORFOLK): My Lords, first of all I should like to make it quite clear, without any discourtesy, which I hope noble Lords will not feel, that I do not propose to deal with the very wide issues that have been raised in this debate, but which, if I may be allowed to say so, are quite outside the Motion tabled by the noble Viscount. At the same time I should like to assure Lord Teviot that if he wishes to have a word with me at any time on the matter of that letter which he read out, I shall be only too pleased to discuss it with him. I am glad that the noble Viscount has put forward the Motion which we have been discussing to-day as it gives me an opportunity of reviewing, as far as is possible in Open Session, the position of animal feeding-stuffs. I cannot agree with the suggestion underlying the Motion that the Government's policy with regard to live stock and feeding-stuffs might be influenced by the issues contained in the pamphlet published

109
by Imperial Chemical Industries. It is no disparagement of this document, which is well suited to bring home the essential features of the situation to the general public, to say that all these features are very fully realized by those whose duty it is to study these difficult problems. We have attempted to deal with them, not in broad generalities as in this pamphlet, but by means of prolonged and continuous examination of the day-to-day position.
In the first place I would like to say that my right honourable friend was sent a copy of the pamphlet, and it has been read with very real interest by all the officials of his Department. It contains many important points, perhaps the most important being that it draws attention to the enormous quantities of imported feeding-stuffs which have now to be replaced by the farmers at home. It shows that over and above pre-war production we must produce 5,400,000 tons of carbohydrate foods and 600,000 tons of protein foods. The writers contend that over a period with a long-term policy this would have been possible, but I cannot accept their figures, and for the moment I propose to deal with that side of their argument. It is for this reason that the second question in the Motion must be answered in the negative. His Majesty's Government are in general agreement with its arguments, but not with its deductions, deductions necessarily made without knowledge of the position either of imports or of the live-stock numbers.
Perhaps it may be said that the adequate supply and efficient use of fertilizers is the main issue in the argument. I cannot give figures in this respect, but I can say, and Imperial Chemicals know this, that the supplies of nitrogen are expected to be adequate for all needs. The position regarding phosphatic manures is satisfactory. We should have about double the pre-war supply and arrangements have been made whereby the county committees will assist in their distribution and priority. But these supplies will be available for crops, and they will not be sufficient to allow for the permanent grassland to be freely dressed. The position regarding potash is, of course, not so good. We have lost our European sources of supply, and the limited quantity we have will be available only for certain crops such as
110
potatoes, sugar beet and onions, and for soils deficient in this manure. Therefore, though the position regarding fertilizers is satisfactory, in no sense must it be thought that the supplies are sufficient to increase by some 20 per cent. the yield per acre as advocated in the I.C.I. Bulletin. All the more is this so when we consider the very great loss in fertilizing materials which we are suffering by the absence of imported cakes and meals.
At an earlier stage I suggested that the figures set forth were misleading. My Department knows only too well how difficult it is to provide a really accurate and true statistical appraisal of food supplies and live-stock requirements. It is a matter to which they devote exhaustive and continuous study. Without the means my Department has of obtaining such figures, I suggest that it is almost impossible to arrive at a true result. The Bulletin points out that our live-stock producers have lost over 4,000,000 tons of imported starchy foods and 600,000 tons of protein foods. I think that this is an under-estimate, because it ignores the appreciable quantity of imported wheat that was fed to stock in pre-war years. Also, no account has been taken of the loss of home-grown wheat used for feeding stock. In the year 1938–39 over 1,500,000 tons of imported and home-produced wheat are estimated to have been used for feeding purposes. This is no longer available. It has been estimated by various competent authorities that prior to the war grass and hay provided about half of the nutrients required by all live stock in the United Kingdom expressed in terms of starch equivalent. The ploughing up of 4,000,000 acres of grassland together with the further programme in the third year of war must necessarily diminish slightly the feeding materials. But I think that these have to a large extent been made good, though of course there is less hay.
Table VIII of the Bulletin purports to show how increased production of home-produced feeding stuffs will compensate for the loss of imports. Although described as conservative, these figures are, I think, over-optimistic. We may get somewhere very near the extra production of oats and barley, but we will get less than about half of the suggested

111
figure for beans and peas. Most of the protein deficiency, and over one-third of the carbo-hydrate deficiency, is expected by the authors to be made up by the production of 5,000,000 tons of silage and the treatment of 1,000,000 tons of straw with caustic soda. These estimates particularly are over-sanguine. The target for silage for this 3year was between 2,000,000 and 3,000,000 tons. I think that in spite of the aftermath of this autumn I can say that the figure will be nearer 2,000,000 tons than 3,000,000 tons. Even the caustic soda treatment for hay is a new one for the average farmer. It calls for labour, it calls for a water supply, and it calls for specially-constructed tanks. It would be unreasonable to expect the farmers, in spite of an active propaganda campaign, to make more than an average response, and I suggest that the figure is likely to be nearer 100,000 tons than 1,000,000 tons. But I gladly join in the tributes that have been paid to the contribution made by Imperial Chemical Industries in developing this process, and also to their generous assistance in the drive for straw pulp and for silage. They have freely lent us their skilled staff and services, and county committees who have been extremely busy with other work have expressed their great appreciation of this assistance.
I will go no further into figures, for I have no wish to embark on detailed criticism or to become controversial on any constructive contribution to the common effort; but I may say that the poultry in the country have by no means been reduced to one-sixth of the pre-war number. I prefer to leave aside this aspect and some other aspects that the noble Viscount has spoken upon, since I imagine that the real reason for tabling this Motion, and in fact the real reason this pamphlet was written, was that no step should be left untaken to see our live stock maintained at the highest possible level. If that is so, then I can assure your Lordships of my Department's whole-hearted support consistent, that is to say, with meeting the country's necessary requirements for crops for direct human food. It is true we cannot live by bread alone, but it is also true that we cannot live by meat and eggs alone. Moreover, all of us here know that neither live stock nor crop production can be considered alone. Each is dependent on
112
the other in a properly balanced agriculture.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: My Lords, I do not propose to press this Motion, but I cannot pretend to be wholly satisfied with the reply of the noble Duke as representing the Government's policy towards the scheme of food production which is dealt with in this Bulletin. It is quite obvious that we cannot continue this discussion at this late hour, but I cannot help thinking that it would be very salutary and very desirable that at no distant date, after carefully studying in print the reply of the noble Duke, we should have a further debate, and particularly that opportunity should be given to Imperial Chemical Industries to reply to the arguments put forward, if I may say so a little vaguely, on behalf of the Ministry of Agriculture.
I rather contest one statement of the noble Duke to the effect that Imperial Chemical Industries have stated their case in broad generalities. I should have thought that any careful study of this pamphlet would indicate that they have made their estimates very carefully and have carefully stated the conclusions that are to be drawn from them. I was rather interested to learn, by the way, that this pamphlet has been read by all the officials of the Ministry of Agriculture, because I have very great reason to doubt whether quite a considerable number of them would fully understand it, or at any rate the more highly scientific part of it. One thing which the noble Duke said rather surprised me, and that was his statement that the position regarding phosphatic fertilizers is satisfactory. I would urge that these phosphatic fertilizers—and no fertilizers are more needed to-day to maintain the fertility of the land—should be rendered easily available to farmers, because there is no doubt that many of those who gave their orders for basic slag, superphosphate and other phosphatic fertilizers six or eight months ago have not yet received their supplies.
I would like if I may to refer to one very interesting remark from the noble Viscount, Lord Dawson. He referred to the desirability of maintaining in their entirety tuberculin-tested herds. If there was one fact that came out more prominently than another during the discussions at the British Association conference which took place during the week-

113
end—all the sessions of which I attended—it was the fact that in the scorched and devastated enemy-occupied areas there is going to be a most fearful depletion of good quality stock, particularly of pigs and pedigree and tuberculin-tested cattle. The representatives particularly of Poland and Russia appealed to the United States and Great Britain 1o prepare for making that good immediately the war is over. That appears to me a very strong argument in favour of maintaining our high quality stock, not only for our own requirements,
114
but to meet the very serious requirements of the European countries when this war is over. As I said I cannot pretend to be satisfied, but I am very grateful to the noble Duke for the assurance that these matters will be brought to the notice of the Minister and his advisers. I would add the hope that more of them will be given sympathetic attention.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn .
House adjourned.