Lords Sitting of 10 February 1953

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

GALE DAMAGE TO SCOTTISH FORESTS
2.34 p.m.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask Her Majesty's Government the Question of which I have given private notice.
[The Question was as follows:
"To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are yet in a position to state the damage caused in acreage and cubic volume to Scottish forests and woodlands by the gale of January 31, and whether they have come to any decision as to the prohibition meantime of timber imports, the cessation of the issuing of felling licences for conifers, the fixing of minimum prices per cubic foot for the various categories of blown trees, the possible importation of Canadian, Scandinavian or other foreign woodsmen to assist in the clearing up of the storm damage, and similar relevant problems."]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, I very much regret that the amount of wind damage to woodlands is severe. The damage is mainly concentrated in the North-East particularly in Moray and Nairn, Banff, Aberdeenshire and Kincardineshire. North of the Caledonian Canal spasmodic damage has occurred, but it is on a much smaller scale. The South and West of Scotland, fortunately, have largely escaped. The damage is predominantly in the middle-aged and older woodlands on private estates. In the younger plantations of the Forestry Commission the windfall is much less extensive. Estimates of the quantity blown must necessarily be treated with reserve at this stage. The total in Scotland as a whole might be of the order of 30 to 35 million cubic feet. The magnitude of this figure can be gauged if I mention that in
292
Scotland last year a total of 16 million cubic feet of all categories and types of timber was licensed for felling. This figure included 4 million cubic feet of hardwoods and 5 million cubic feet from thinnings in coniferous woodlands.
The clearing up of the windblow will need to be tackled energetically by the Forestry Commission, private owners and the timber trade. Detailed plans must await a more accurate assessment of the quantity of timber of the various categories involved, and an estimate of the time at which they can be placed on the market. In the meantime plans are, however, being made to ensure the orderly consumption of the produce from the blown trees. The present rate of consumption of sawn softwoods in Great Britain is approximately 1.2 million standards per annum, of which less than 5 per cent. is available from the home woodlands. Consumption is restricted by licensing, and the Ministry of Materials have agreed to make special arrangements to facilitate the licensing of the produce from these blown trees. Broadly speaking, they propose to arrange that licences are freely issued to consumers to use sawn timber from the blown trees for any reasonable purpose. The Ministry of Materials will also consider the purchase of suitable timber, both sawn and in the log, for stockpiling purposes as soon as more details can be given of the quantities and specifications available.
With regard to the smaller sizes produced, suitable for pitwood, discussions are proceeding with the National Coal Board, who are readily co-operating with a view to working out the best measures to ensure the rapid absorption of the material. Here again, detailed plans must await more precise assessments of quantities and period of delivery. For the present, the Forestry Commission have stopped the issue of clear felling licences for softwoods in Scotland, save where circumstances are exceptional. Discussions are proceeding in Scotland between the owners and the timber trade and with the Advisory Committees of the Forestry Commission of the areas primarily concerned. Further proposals for Government action may emerge as a result of more detailed information and of the consultations which are in progress. It would be a mistake to take hasty action until the situation has been more closely examined.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his full answer, may I ask him to impress upon the Government that they should take steps to get an ample labour force, because the labour force available in Scotland will be nowhere near sufficient? In view of the importance of this matter, I shall ask a further Question in a few weeks' time.

KOREA: REPATRIATION OF PRISONERS
2.39 p.m.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the concern in this country and throughout the greater part of the world at the breakdown of the Korean armistice negotiations on the question of the forcible repatriation of prisoners of war, and the contention of the Soviet Government that this is obligatory under International Law, they will take steps to make clear that the principles on which the United Nations have taken their stand are in conformity with the 1949 Geneva Conventions.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF READING): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government intend to issue shortly a White Paper on Korea, which will include this amongst other topics. Your Lordships would, however, probably desire that I should state the position now as briefly as I can, though I fear that it must be at a certain length. The principles on which the United Nations have taken their stand on the question of the repatriation of prisoners of war rest ultimately on a moral basis, which has been endorsed by an overwhelming majority in the General Assembly. However, I welcome this opportunity to reaffirm that those principles are also, on a strictly legal interpretation, fully in conformity with the provisions of the Third Geneva Convention of 1949 on the Treatment of Prisoners of War.
Article 118 of the 1949 Convention lays down that
294
"prisoners of war shall be released and repatriated without delay after the cessation of active hostilities."
It is incorrect to read into this language more than it actually says. The term "repatriate" cannot properly be interpreted to mean "forcibly repatriate," which introduces quite a different conception and one which is foreign to the whole spirit of the Prisoner of War Convention. The relevant phrase is "shall be released and repatriated." Forcible repatriation would obviously involve precisely the opposite from release. The 1949 Convention was intended to be mainly for the benefit and in the interests of the prisoners of war themselves. Its purpose was to safeguard the rights of individual prisoners and to impose obligations on States to respect these rights. It was no part of its purpose to increase in any way the powers of States over their nationals who are prisoners. It ought not, therefore, to be interpreted in such a way as to compel the repatriation of a prisoner of war against his wishes in any case where he has bona fide grounds for his objection.
Article 7 of the 1949 Convention provides that
"prisoners of war may in no circumstances renounce in part or in entirety the rights secured to them by the present Convention."
The purpose of this Article was to guard against any attempt by the detaining Power to exercise pressure upon prisoners of war to consent to derogation from their rights, including, of course, the right to repatriation. It was designed to protect prisoners of war from being forced to surrender their rights against their will, but it was not intended to mean that prisoners of war should be forcibly compelled to exercise those rights where they were convinced that to do so would be contrary to their own interests.
In general, Article 118 of the Convention must be given a reasonable interpretation. It was intended, in the interests of prisoners, to place an obligation in principle on the detaining State to repatriate on the cessation of hostilities and to take positive steps to that end, such as the provision of the necessary facilities. It was in particular intended to break away from what used previously to be the rule, that in the absence of special agreement no obligation to repatriate prisoners arose merely on the cessation of active

295
hostilities, but only on the actual conclusion of peace, when the prisoners would in any event cease to have the status of prisoners of war. It was designed to ensure that henceforth the cessation of hostilities would itself automatically result in the repatriation of all prisoners. To read into this art obligation on the detaining State to force a prisoner to return against his reasonable wishes would, however, be to go altogether beyond anything the provision was intended to achieve, and would be contrary to the whole spirit of the Convention, which was designed primarily in the interests of the prisoners themselves.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: I thank the noble Marquess for his full reply.
LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, arising out of this reference to the Soviet Government, could we not stress rather more than we do the fact that, since the war, the Soviet Government have retained over 400,000 Japanese prisoners of war, and that the number of German prisoners of war retained and unaccounted for runs into seven figures?
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, arising out of the answer of the noble Marquess, may I ask whether he has observed that at the end of the first German war there was an armistice, of thirty days I think, but there was no question of a general exchange of prisoners of war because an armistice had been arranged? On the contrary, the provision for the repatriation of prisoners appears as an Article in the Treaty of Versailles. Is that not the true relation between the duty to repatriate prisoners at the end of belligerency as opposed to the idea that there is a duty to return prisoners merely because an armistice is arrived at?
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I think that was the conception which was current before this 1949 Convention was arrived at, but, as I understand the position, the 1949 Convention was designed to change that situation in the sense that I have given in my answer to the noble Viscount, and to introduce
296
the system whereby the end of actual hostilities was the moment at which prisoners became eligible for return, and not the conclusion of an actual treaty of peace when, as I said, they cease to have the status of prisoners of war at all.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I am much obliged to the noble Marquess. What I ventured to suggest was not intended in criticism of his very full statement. But has the noble Marquess not observed that in Oppenheim's International Law, the seventh edition, second volume, in the part of the book which deals with armistices the learned author points out, at page 392, that the provision in the 1949 Convention was really aimed to cure a situation that arose after the second German war when, notwithstanding that all belligerency had ceased, prisoners of war remained for an indefinite time in the hands of the former belligerents? The learned author, I think, there points out that that is the reason why the Geneva Convention was made, and it would be quite wrong to interpret this provision in the Convention of 1949 as though it altered the ordinary practice as to the time when prisoners of war were due to be repatriated. May I point out that, if that is not so, an armistice, which is a "cease fire," loses all its meaning, for if, merely because you have arranged a "cease fire," you enter into an immediate obligation to return, it may be, hundreds of thousands of fighting men, then it is not a "cease fire"; it is an alteration of the situation for the benefit of one side or the other.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I am much obliged to the noble and learned Viscount. The point that he raised has, of course, been observed and I appreciate the considerations which he has brought to your Lordships' attention.
LORD HANKEY: Could the noble Marquess say how many of the belligerents, have ratified the 1949 Convention? I only ask for information.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I am afraid I have not the information with me.

INTERFERENCE WITH TRADE WITH CHINA
2.52 p.m.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To draw the attention of Her Majesty's Government to the answer which they gave in this House on February 20, 1952, that the Government had no intention whatever of intervening in the Chinese civil war, and to ask Her Majesty's Government whether, having regard to possible eventualities arising out of the recently-announced policy of the Government of the United States in relation to Formosa, they will consider the advisability of issuing a statement that no interference will be permitted with any legitimate trade which is being, or which will be, conducted by the United Kingdom with Hong Kong and continental China.]
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for drawing attention to the answer which I gave in this House a year ago, which needs no qualification in the circumstances of to-day. Her Majesty's Government do not see the necessity to issue any statement at the present time. There have been cases recently, before President Eisenhower's announcement, of Chinese Nationalist interference with British ships engaged upon their lawful business. Her Majesty's Government have taken appropriate action in each case to defend legitimate British interests. The noble Viscount can rest assured that we shall not fail in this duty in the future.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, beg to thank Her Majesty's Government and the noble Marquess for the very satisfactory answer that he has given me.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, arising out of the answer of the noble Marquess, when "appropriate action" is spoken of, may I ask whether we have secured the release of the vessels and of their cargoes, and compensation from people who have no belligerent status at all?
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I think it is right to say that release has been secured. As to the question of
298
the confiscation of cargo, in the most recent case of interference the cargo was not interfered with.
LORD STRABOLGI: Then are we in these cases demanding compensation for the delay and loss occasioned to our merchants?
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, unfortunately, the last case was a serious one, in which the master of the ship was killed; and in that case certainly a claim for compensation has been put forward. The other cases are dealt with in the normal way.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Marquess whether his answer is to be understood to mean that British shipping, and I assume Commonwealth shipping, for instance from Ceylon, will be protected from interference from any quarter?
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, the quarter with which I was dealing was the Chinese Nationalist quarter. That is the only quarter from which we should anticipate any interference.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Then the noble Marquess discounts the rather grave news which we have received—namely, that it is contemplated to establish a blockade of the China coast.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I imagine that what the noble Viscount is referring to is the statement by Admiral Radford which has been reproduced in the Press. It was evidence given before a Committee of the Senate the proceedings of which are, I believe, secret, so we have only such Press reports as have been published. Exactly what the Admiral said is therefore not entirely plain. But the idea of a naval blockade of the China coast is not new; it has been considered in America for some considerable time past, and it is not unnatural that it should be reconsidered in the present circumstances of a new Administration. But no proposals for the carrying out of such a blockade have been submitted to Her Majesty's Government, who would view with concern any proposal to institute such a naval blockade. It would not, in our view, contribute to the early conclusion of hostilities in Korea.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I am grateful to the noble Marquess. There is one other small point about which I should like to ask him. Has he observed that the Government of Ceylon are embarrassed about a contract that they have made with China for rice and rubber? Would their ships, receive, say from Formosa attack, the same protection as British ships?
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I am answering this offhand. I imagine that that would be so. I do not think that Ceylon has a Navy of her own which would be capable of undertaking that task. I imagine that the same principle would apply.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, may I ask the noble Marquess a question in relation to the answer which he has just given to the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate? I concluded from his answer to me, which I termed as satisfactory, that no interference from any quarter would be permitted with any legitimate trade between the United Kingdom and Hong Kong and China. But now has not the noble Marquess limited that answer by his reply to the noble Viscount, that it is only if that interference comes from Formosa that British shipping will be protected?
THE MARQUESS OF READING: Not only if it came from Formosa; presumably if it came from the mainland of China as well. I do not think that was quite what the noble Viscount had in mind.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My question was intended in the widest sense. It may well be that there are the gravest reasons for not answering it. But it is very important that we should protect our shipping from the blockade which has been talked about in authoritative quarters in America.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I think in effect I have answered that by saying that we should be opposed to any such blockade. I do not think we need take it further.

CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL
2.55 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I think this is a matter with which this House normally deals formally. I beg to move that the Bill be read a Second Time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Bill read 2a; Committee negatived.

DECONTROL OF CEREALS AND FEEDING-STUFFS
2.56 p.m.
LORD WISE LORD WISE rose to call attention to Her Majesty's Government's statement of policy as contained in the White Paper on the Decontrol of Cereals and Feeding Stuffs (Cmd. 8745); and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. I think we should confine our discussion this afternoon to the White Paper, the Government policy outlined in that Paper and, of course, any matter which arises from the information contained therein. I do not think we ought to enter into a general debate on agriculture such as took place a few days ago in another place. That debate covered a variety of subjects, but this particular Motion deals with one Paper only. The Government have come forward with certain proposals, and in the interests of agriculture and of the consumers of this country, these should be discussed in the very clear and calm way in which we carry on our discussions here. In the course of my remarks I want to make one thing perfectly plain. I propose to be very fair in my examination of the Government's proposals, but I feel that some comment on them is justifiable and that we are entitled to further information from the Government. Drastic changes in agricultural practice are outlined in the White Paper—in some respects complete changes—and what we must decide in our own minds is whether or not these changes are likely to be beneficial to producers, are likely to assist in the great productive efforts which we are about to undertake, and whether the

301
proposed alteration of recognised and tried systems which we have carried on for many years in the past is in the national interest.
With your Lordships' permission, perhaps I may, first of all, enter into a brief examination of the Government's proposals. Various proposals are outlined in the White Paper but there is one upon which, in the course of our discussion this afternoon, we may not think it necessary to touch—namely, the question of the national or the whiter bread, and the extraction rates of flour referred to in paragraph 2 of the Paper. The proposals in this White Paper seem to me to start from the Annual Review and the fixing of farm prices last year. It may be remembered that the February Review was somewhat late, and there was published in May last a Paper, to one particular paragraph of which I might refer at this stage, because the White Paper which we are now considering seems to be the outcome of this particular reference. The Paper to which I refer is Command Paper 8556 which, as I say, was published last May. If noble Lords should by chance have this Paper, I would direct their attention to the last few sentences of paragraph 16, which deals with feeding-stuffs prices and contains the following passage:
"The Government have decided nevertheless to continue the present basic Ministry of Food release prices for a further year, i.e. to March 31, 1953, for the following reasons. The downward trends in production noted above are partly occasioned by the difficulties of the smaller farmers in providing enough working capital in a period of steadily rising costs. Further, there are many farmers in many parts of the country who cannot, by reason of the size and position of their holdings and the nature of their soil, achieve a reasonable degree of self-sufficiency in feeding stuffs. At the same time the output of their livestock is an essential part of the industry's total. In the consideration of further aspects of policy now taking place the Government propose to give particular attention to this problem."
I have quoted that paragraph because I anticipate that in the course of our debate to-day many points arising from it will be dealt with. In the Paper it is proposed that certain parts of the proposals of the Government should be translated into action at once: April 1 is the actual date—it may have some significance, of course. The other
302
proposals, it is suggested, should not be brought into operation so soon.
I think it will be well if, for the purposes of my speech, I refer in my own words to the various proposals which are outlined in the Paper. Noble Lords will then have some idea as to what we shall be speaking on later. Existing arrangements, if desired, apparently cover the 1953 harvest prices, but after decontrol there will no longer be maximum prices for the four cereal crops included in Part I of the Agriculture Act, 1947. Controls of feeding-stuffs will be brought to an end at the next harvest. The import of cereals from outside the sterling area will still be controlled. Satisfactory stocks will be available at the date of decontrol. No reserve stocks will be created. Additional imports from dollar areas may he authorised if that is considered necessary. New arrangements for implementing the price and market guarantees under the Agriculture Act of 1947 may be settled after full and mature consideration with all interests concerned. Bulk purchase of imports by the Government will cease, and private importers will operate. The purchase of homegrown cereals will be handed over to private merchants. I think the Parliamentary Secretary will agree with me that I have given a fair summary of what is contained in the White Paper.
We are all agreed, I believe, that there is a case for some relaxation of controls. The control of feeding-stuffs has operated for a number of years since the beginning of the war, and in many cases the controls have been somewhat irksome, and possibly not particularly agreeable to the farming interests. For instance, one restriction which has proved during the course of the years, I think, to be very detrimental to the agricultural production, is the one in connection with which coupons were issued in relation to the 1939 stock which a farmer had on his particular farm. That scheme was found to be not quite in tune with the circumstances which existed throughout the war, and I think we can rightly take the view that the relaxation of such a control will be beneficial to the interests of agriculture. Then, of course, there is the trouble which has been felt in regard to coupons, and—small though this has been—with respect to the filling up of forms. We are told, though I myself do not agree, that this form-filling is very trying to the

303
farming interests as a whole. Form-filling, in general, is quite a simple matter, and I am certain that farmers experience no special difficulty in filling up forms for the receipt of subsidies, acreage payments and that sort of thing.
Having referred to the various proposals of the Government appearing in the White Paper, I now come to examine them, though not necessarily in great detail, for I wish to be quite brief in my opening remarks, as I know that a number of other Lords wish to take part in this discussion. I think we should examine the proposals of the White Paper and decide whether we should ask the Government for further information and explanations. One point in the White Paper which calls especially for comment arises in this way. At the present time, the future of farming is somewhat obscure; doubts and difficulties have arisen during the last two or three years, as was acknowledged in another place a few days ago, both by the Minister and by the Parliamentary Secretary, and it is recognised that the prosperity of the industry has to some extent decreased during the last few years. No one, I think, can gainsay that or quarrel with such a statement. There are money difficulties, both in regard to loans and in regard to the payment of accounts in the farming industry, and it does seem that the bringing into operation at this particular moment of such drastic proposals as are outlined in the White Paper is somewhat ill-timed.
From the White Paper it would appear that there is an element of uncertainty in the minds of the Government about what the future policy will be. It appears that this part of their policy is not being dealt with as part of the whole of their long-term operations but, possibly, seeks to amend some existing plan which was brought into operation by a former Government during the war. That is borne out largely by newspaper reports of farmers' meetings and speeches. There was an exceptional editorial about a fortnight ago in the Observer, which no doubt most noble Lords have read, and from reports of speeches in country newspapers it may be seen that the farming community are not at all certain which way the industry is going. I do not want to trouble noble Lords with
304
extracts from newspapers, but I have here some caustic comments which I could read on the timing of this particular agricultural operation.
I think it is necessary that we should receive to-day, if possible, some assurance from the noble Lord who is to reply that the Government know which way they are going and how the alteration in the feeding-stuffs policy fits in with their general views about the future. A few days ago I was at a meeting, at which I sat beside a well-known land agent. He said quite openly that he was afraid we were going back to 1920. So far as he could see, the Government were avoiding a responsibility which they should undertake that of seeing that the agricultural industry was kept on a proper footing, so as to be in a position to produce additional foodstuffs and to reach the goals which both the Government and ourselves hope that it will reach within a few years. That gives your Lordships some idea of what people in the agricultural industry are thinking.
Looking through the White Paper I have extracted certain points upon which I think your Lordships may wish to receive further information. I have submitted certain questions to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, which, with your Lordships' permission, I will read one by one, with my comments upon them. I hope that when the noble Lord comes to reply he will be able to give me some information which will go beyond the bounds of your Lordships' House and will receive approval in the farming industry. There is no desire whatever to make any political points out of what I have to ask and what I have to say. I think the questions I have put down are of general interest, and I hope that they will clear up points of doubt and difficulty which are held by ourselves on this side of the House and by people outside.
The first question is: When the control of prices and the sale of the four cereal crops mentioned in the First Schedule of the Agriculture Act, 1947, ceases, how do the Government propose (a) to guarantee prices and (b) to assure markets to the farmers, in accordance with provisions of Section 1 (1) of Part I of the Act. I hope I shall not weary your Lordships, but this is the most important point at the present time—whether or not the features of the Agriculture Act, 1947,

305
are to be reversed. A few days ago in another place we heard from the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary that there was no desire on the part of the Government to make any amendments to Part I of the Act. But there is a difficulty here, which I hope the Government will be able to tell us they have overcome. Under the proposals in the White Paper the Minister of Food will eventually cease to be the purchaser of farm products. The purchase of farm products is to be handed back to private trading concerns. I want to know what the position is likely to be. Are we going back to pre-war years, when we, as farmers, had to take our corn and produce round and round markets before we could find a buyer? According to the White Paper there is to be a minimum price. That will be a difficulty, because we shall never know what prices we are likely to obtain for the cereals we have for sale and, what is far more important than that, if we are not very careful the assured market will go, because, except for one or two years, there is no obligation upon the Minister of Food to purchase surpluses. I am certain that all sorts of difficulties will arise if we commence to amend or alter, in any way Part I of the Act. When the proposals contained in the White Paper come into operation, there will be no guaranteed price, except the minimum price to sellers.
LORD CARRINGTON: There will be no maximum either.
LORD WISE: I know that there will be no maximum. But the opening up of free trading, such as we knew before the war, is bound to have repercussions on the prosperity of the industry. But there is the question. I hope the noble Lord will deal with it fully, because the main concern of the agricultural industry at the present time is whether or not the 1947 Act is to be operated in future as it has been in the past. Personally, I am sorry to see that the Ministry of Food are going out of the market as a customer for agricultural products. Over a period of years they have been the best customer the farming industry has ever known, or is likely to know.
LORD CARRINGTON: I hesitate to interrupt the noble Lord, but this White Paper applies only to cereals and feeding-stuffs. Does he realise that?
LORD WISE: I agree. We shall be waiting to hear the livestock policy of the Government. The Ministry of Food have purchased all our cereals, and that is what I am dealing with now.
The next question I should like to ask the noble Lord is this: Is it proposed that there shall be any control whatever of the annual prices to be charged to the farmer by the private merchants for either home-grown or imported feeding-stuffs? At the present time it is suggested that, when the subsidy is taken off, the increase in price of feeding-stuffs will be, on the average, £2 10s. a ton—that is, on the basis of a subsidy of £30 million, or thereabouts. I believe I am right in saying that, under the present system, profits of the intermediaries are limited throughout the whole of the transaction from the producer to the consumer. Under the new system which may operate, is there to be any limitation of profit which can be obtained by the merchant? And is any control likely to come into operation as to the quality of the product? In the past—as I am sure those of your Lordships who are engaged in agriculture will agree—it was extremely difficult for a farmer to know just what quality product he was purchasing. Compound cakes, and other things, may have had their analysis, but the farmer of those days was very much pestered by agents going round the country and selling articles which were not up to standard, and which, possibly, were dear at any price. When we open the markets once again to free trading, I should like to know whether the Government propose in any way to control not only the maximum price of these feeding-stuffs but also the quality of the commodity which the farmer has to buy.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I do not want to interrupt the noble Lord unnecessarily, but I should like to ask him a question on his last point. Does he wish the farming community to be allowed to sell any rubbish they like, or to produce first-class quality articles? It seemed to me that he was hinting that there should be reason to sell rubbish, which I think is the last thing the farming community want put forward for them.
LORD WISE: The noble Earl has it the wrong way round. My trouble is that the farming community, in regard to

307
feeding-stuffs, and things of that sort, which they have to buy, may have to buy rubbish, not sell rubbish. I want to increase the quality of our products, and also to be assured about the things which the farmer is asked to buy.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Surely, you cannot be a buyer without being a seller.
LORD WISE: I agree. But the products which the farmer had to buy in the past were very much composed of imported products, compounded food cakes and meals, and things of that sort. My concern is that the quality of those products should be up to a satisfactory standard.
The third question that I desire to ask is: Will the present subsidy of approximately £30 million, which is essentially an agricultural subsidy, be retained by the Exchequer for general purposes, or will it be returned in some form to agriculture? If it is proposed to grant loans to importers for the purchase of feeding-stuffs from the dollar area, could not some part of the subsidy which agriculture may lose be set aside to assist small farmers and others, who are unable to produce sufficient feeding-stuffs themselves and must therefore buy some or all in order to satisfy their needs and increase production? The point of that question is to know whether, by one stroke of the pen—if I may so describe it—on April 1 the farming community are to lose a subsidy of about £30 million. If so, where is that subsidy to be applied in the future? Or will the money go into the general Exchequer? According to the White Paper, in order to assist the importer to import from the dollar area, or to increase imports in other directions, it may be possible for the Government to grant loans for that purpose. If it is possible to grant such loans to the importer to purchase from outside sources, then it may he possible to re-use some portion of that subsidy which agriculture is likely to lose to assist the small farmer, or the small producer, to purchase the feeding-stuffs which are likely to rise in price. Many of the small farmers will find a difficulty, as was outlined in the first paragraph of the White Paper of last year, which I have quoted. If they do find difficulty in paying the higher prices for commodities which they have to buy, then those commodities will not be bought, and
308
production will suffer accordingly. It may be that the Parliamentary Secretary will say that the subsidy will come back in some form or another after the next review of prices. But it is extremely difficult, once having lost a subsidy, to get it back again in any form.
My fourth question is: Have the Government any information or figures to justify the claim that it will be possible for the private importer, under present world conditions of demand, to purchase more advantageously than is the case under the operation of Government-to-Government bulk sale and purchase? Under the White Paper it is proposed to dispense with the Government bulk purchase operations. Personally, I think that is a retrograde step. The system of bulk purchase commenced in the First World War and operated successfully in that period; it carried us through the last war, and has carried us on with great success during the years which have followed. I ask the Government to explain why, at this particular moment, unless they are bitterly opposed to the bulk purchases of any commodities from overseas by the Government, they are setting on one side and dispensing with a trading operation which has proved its worth in two wars and has proved its worth in the peace which has followed. In the international situation as we find it at the present time, can the private trader purchase more cheaply or more advantageously than the British Government?
The last question deals with the Review of Prices. When will this year's February Review of Prices be issued, in view of the proposed change; and how will the 1954 prices he fixed, since costs of future production will be uncertain? Last year publication of the February Review of Prices was greatly delayed. We are now into February, and we generally anticipate that the Review will be issued at about the end of the month. In view of the important change which has taken place, and in view of the uncertainty of the prices of next harvest, I wonder whether the Government can give us any information as to when these negotiations which are in operation at the present time will be concluded, and when the farming industry will be able to receive information as to the future prices which will be obtained for their commodities. There is one part of that question with which I should like the Parliamentary Secretary

309
to deal, as it was not dealt with in another place a few days ago: What will be the basis of the 1954 prices?
Now I come to the last part of what I wish to say. I wish to refer for one moment to reserve stocks. In the White Paper it is proposed that no reserve of stocks shall be held—or words to that effect. I should like to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary how the defence or strategic reserve of stocks is to be replenished. I presume that there is a stockpile at the moment for defence purposes. I presume, also, that in the course of years those commodities will have to be used in ordinary general consumption. The Ministry of Food are going out of trading operations and, according to the White Paper, no reserve of stocks is to be built up. But I presume that for defence purposes—in fact, it is important there should be—some reserves will be kept. Can the noble Lord tell us what form those stocks will take, and how they will be built up sufficiently for our needs?
I want to ask the Government to consider seriously the effect of their proposals. Discussion upon this aspect is already widespread in the agricultural industry, and it is likely to continue for a long time, because once those engaged in an industry commence to talk and discuss matters which affect it, then all sorts of questions and cross-questions are likely to arise. I believe that it would be a serious matter if, through any action of the Government at the present time, there were any lessening of the enthusiasm for the productive provisions of the 1947 Act. So far the Act has operated reasonably well, and I am certain that it would be extremely difficult to approach anything like the target which has been set if any alteration were made that was detrimental to the farming industry in regard to guaranteed prices and assured markets. In the industry the burdens and difficulties are already serious enough, and I therefore ask, in all sincerity, that the Government should act very cautiously and with some circumspection in matters which are so vital to agriculture—production, prosperity and stability. I beg to move for Papers.
3.36 p.m.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: My Lords, we should be grateful to the noble Lord for putting down this Motion and enabling us to discuss this short and
310
unassuming White Paper, which I am certain will mark a great step forward in our drive to get the maximum production from our land. The noble Lord asked a number of questions which my noble friend will answer. I confess that I was not quite certain whether Lord Wise was in favour of the White Paper or not; whether he was generally in favour and had certain small doubts about it, or whether he was opposed to it in principle. My only criticism of the White Paper is that if it had been a little longer and a little less unassuming it might have killed at birth a few of the misgivings which have undoubtedly arisen in certain quarters, and which, I am afraid, to a certain extent have been encouraged by the Party opposite. On the first part of the White Paper, which deals with the making of whiter bread, I have little to say. I consider it an advantage, particularly in so far as the change in extraction rate may produce an increase in feeding-stuffs which can be more efficiently converted by the animal than by the human being. But I know that any discussion on this matter will bring about my head a hornet's nest of people who consider that the extraction of anything but flour from the wheat is almost fatal.
I intend to confine myself to the question of decontrol and derationing of feeding-stuffs. As the noble Lord, Lord Wise, knows, there was in the autumn, certainly in the part of Eastern England from which we both come, a strong and vocal feeling among a large number of responsible farmers that farm-to-farm sales of feeding-stuffs should be allowed. I believe that as long as the system of rationing and subsidies was in existence that would have been impossible. But now that freedom has been announced there seems to be some misgiving. A leading article in this month's British Farmer, the official journal of the National Farmers' Union, said this:
"The need and the will to reach that goal"—
that is, maximum production—
"remains as powerful as ever, but instead of the period of ordered progress which had been foreseen, the industry finds itself embarking on uncharted seas."
One gets the impression from that statement that during the period of rationing and controls the industry was sailing quietly along, that every snag in the path was clearly marked, and that it was expanding all the time. But, of course, we

311
know that that was not the true picture. It is true that between 1947 and 1950 there had been notable expansion, but from that time onwards it was beginning to contract—I think the noble Lord, Lord Wise, admitted this. It was due partly (although he would not, perhaps, admit this) to the vacillating policy of the then Government. It is only since the present Government have been in office that agriculture has started to move forward again. One of the snags, I think, was the frequently changing scales of rations both upward and downward. I do not say that these were not caused by factors outside the Government's control; but I think that it made a consistent and constant expansion programme very difficult. Few things are more expensive than an animal which is being bred and which cannot be properly fed.
But are we launching into "uncharted seas"? I believe it is all part of a long-term plan, of which the ploughing grants and calf subsidies and the fertiliser subsidies are all essential steps. We know what we have to achieve. It is rather like a train which has been slowly moving forward from home signal to home signal and at last finds the distant signal clear, too. One would think, when reading the debate on this subject in another place, that rations and controls were good in themselves; but I think there are few people who would be prepared to get up and defend the present rationing system in detail. It is, as we all know, full of amomalies. It is attached basically to the 1939 prices; and as time goes on it has become more and more unrealistic. That it was necessary when there was an acute shortage of feeding-stuffs I do not doubt; but that it should be retained a day longer than is necessary seems to me to be absurd.
That we should grow the maximum amount of feeding-stuffs in this country is quite obviously necessary; but I am not so certain that the maximum self-sufficiency of each individual farm is the best method of increasing production. I welcome anything which tends to allow the free movement of feeding-stuffs from where they are produced to where they are most needed. I believe that under a rationing system this was hindered. I believe this new policy will be a great encouragement
312
to the smaller producer who has been hardest hit under the rationing scheme. I believe it will unleash tremendous potential production in both pigs and poultry from these small producers. There is a fear that the removal of price control will make prices rise enormously and will make it impossible to produce at a price which the consumer can pay. It does seem that these fears are exaggerated. It has not, I think, been the experience in the case of most other commodities that after they have been decontrolled they have risen in price or, at any rate, that they have risen very far; and it seems to me that now, at this moment, the world price certainly of a number of cereals is falling.
There are three partners in the Agricultural industry: the farmer, the merchant, and the consumer; and each is very much dependent upon the other. It would certainly not be in the interests of any one of those partners to exploit the other for the sake of a quick profit. The Government have emphatically stated that they stand by the guarantees of the 1947 Act; and I see no reason why suitable guarantees will not be worked out at the Price Review between the Ministry and the National Farmers' Union. Of course it will be more difficult, because a system of rationing and fixed prices of feeding-stuffs is the planner's dream; but I cannot see that it is by any means impossible. I welcome this White Paper, and I believe that it will be a signal for the farmers to go forward with confidence towards achieving the maximum production of which this land is capable. I am certain that time will show that this policy is justified.
3.48 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I join with the noble Lord who has just spoken in saying that we should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wise, for initiating this debate this afternoon. It is a debate of great interest. We are discussing a White Paper which, perhaps, shows us a cloud no larger than a man's hand, but the shape of things to come. But that is not the only reason why we should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wise, since the debate will afford us also the opportunity of hearing another charming and informative speech by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. I hope that if the noble Lord is not able to answer all the questions put to him he

313
will be able to answer at least the majority of them. I think this debate goes a little further, and can reasonably go a little further, than the narrow issue of feeding-stuffs. The real essence of this White Paper is in the third paragraph. We can, perhaps, discern something of what the Government's future policy is—although it has not yet emerged what, in the opinion of the Government, is agriculture's correct place in the future economy of this country. I think that that is what is really agitating the mind of my noble friend Lord Wise.
It is apparent to-day that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is seeking to cut down Government expenditure by transferring much of the costs from the shoulders of the Exchequer to the shoulders of the consumer, via the price of the end product. The subsidy is to go; rationing is to go sometime in the future and, I suppose, when rationing ends, the Ministry of Food will go, too. Perhaps I may digress for a moment and ask the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, a question about the cutting down of subsidies which may have a very marked effect upon the price of the end product. It all depends, of course, on the next Price Review and how much of increased cost is passed on to the consumer, and how much is absorbed by extra efficiency in the farming industry. May I ask him whether it is intended to do away with some of the artificial subsidies, such as paying meat distributors for not distributing meat? I remember I asked this question when the noble Lord, Lord Wise, moved his former Motion some months ago. We have been paying £3 millions a year, for years and years, to reimburse meat importers for their loss of profits through not importing meat. I wonder how long that is going on, because I have never yet had an answer to my question.
I can imagine that, as a result of the policy set out in the White Paper, the Government find themselves on the horns of a dilemma. They are steadily removing the assured market from the farmer, but they have not yet suggested what is to take its place. They have said that with a free market they are still going to maintain the guaranteed price, but they cannot make up their minds just how they are to do it. I can sympathise with them in their dilemma. But one cannot blame the farmer for
314
being worried about the matter. My noble friend Lord Wise mentioned a word which I should think sends a cold shiver down the back of any farmer: it was the word "surpluses." I cannot imagine any word that would send a greater shiver down a farmer's spine than that.
Farmers are peculiar people. One has to be something of a psychologist to understand them. I suppose no Government in the history of this country ever did more for the farming industry than the Labour Government. A short while ago in a certain wireless programme this question was put: "Would the team say which they think is the greatest achievement of any Government in recent history?", and I heard even a hard-bitten Tory reply: "Of course, the greatest achievement of the Labour Government was that it produced the finest Minister of Agriculture that this country ever had." With that I agree. Now the farmers are worried that the Conservative Government, to which they give slavish support, are going to let them down. And yet, paradoxically, I doubt whether more than one farmer in 500 voted for the Labour Government at the last Election. Yet it was the Labour Government that gave the farming industry security for the first time in its history.
If ever there was a policy that the Labour Government initiated that was bipartisan, it was their agricultural policy. The 1947 Act received the support of all Parties, and there must be a bipartisan policy for agriculture in the future. I do not want to see agriculture fall into the cockpit of Party politics; it is far too serious a matter. I do not for one moment think that the present Government, in the last analysis, can afford to let the agricultural industry down. I believe they are really honest in their expressed desire to give security to that industry. I think they are honest when they say that they want to implement that part of the Agriculture Act, 1947, which provides for guaranteed prices and assured markets.
But the farmer is worried about the Government's interpretation of what the "guaranteed price" is to be, and he is certainly very worried as to what the "assured market" is to be. He does not want a free market and its consequent risks. He is one of the slavish adherents to the Conservative Party who does not

315
want to be "set free," and I can quite understand why. But what is going to be the "guaranteed price"? The farmer is afraid that the guaranteed price is going to be a "floor" price, and he wants a "ceiling" price. Perhaps the noble Lord will tell us what it is going to be. It is a very difficult problem, because I quite agree that my right honourable friend, Mr. Tom Williams, when he introduced the 1947 Act, never gave any promise of rigidity. If there is one lesson to be learnt from history, it is that fixed prices merely blunt the spur of efficiency. But there is a great difference between a high fixed price that blunts the spur of efficiency and a "floor" price which is a starvation wage. I want to know where the Government are going to fix the figure.
I was interested some little time ago to read in the Manchester Guardian this account of what the Auditor-General had to say about the Ministry of Food's application of the milling subsidy. The Auditor-General had some sharp comments to make. I quote from the Manchester Guardian, which says:
"Sir Frank discovered, from accounts submitted by 215 millers, covering some 90 per cent. of the industry, that the costs for milling a ton of wheat were five times more in some concerns than in others. Even among the larger producers 'the figure for the highest-cost firm was more than twice that of the lowest'."
Sir Frank observed:
"that the Ministry's system of covering all costs and guaranteeing profits 'offers no direct incentive to economy'."
I am afraid that perhaps that has been one of the faults in the agricultural industry brought about by subsidies. I quite agree that any Government or any Minister of Agriculture—and my sympathies are entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, on this point—are faced with another dilemma. To try to find a method of supporting agriculture by subsidy in a country like this, where the conditions, both of climate and of soil, vary so enormously, without glaring inequalities, is almost an impossibility. While I am on the question of climate, may I say to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, on behalf of noble Lords on this side of the House and, I feel, on behalf of noble Lords opposite also, that we extend to the farmers in the flooded areas our very deep sympathy and the hope
316
that they may be able to get their land back into production in a reasonable time?
Now I come to the real point of my observations this afternoon. I am worried about how the Government intend to implement the policy of the 1947 Act as regards guaranteed prices. My anxiety is greater after reading the Minister's speech in another place. Referring to the White Paper, the Minister of Agriculture said—I am quoting now from the Commons OFFICIAL REPORT of February 2, Vol. 510, Col. 1601:
"It is clear from that statement that even at that time it was realised that, as we approached more normal conditions, the methods of implementing guaranteed prices and assured markets would need to be changed. It is the process of change that we are now discussing. I see no reason why, with good will and patience, and the fullest practical consultation with representatives of the farmers and all the other interests, we should not arrive at conclusions which are reasonable and satisfactory from all points of view"—
LORD CARRINGTON: I hesitate to interrupt the noble Lord, but in point of fact the statement to which my right honourable friend was referring was a statement of policy made by Mr. Tom Williams when he was Minister of Agriculture in 1947.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Yes, I am grateful to the noble Lord; he is quite right. The right honourable gentleman went ort to say:
"It has been suggested that one possible way of combining the stability of the Agriculture Act and freedom from control would be to use the machinery of the Agricultural Marketing Acts through which to operate guaranteed prices and assured markets."
Later, the right honourable gentleman continued (Col. 1604):
"We have not yet reached agreement with the representatives of the farmers as to the most suitable interim or long-term arrangements for marketing and for guaranteeing prices. Discussions are still proceeding. I hope to be able to resolve the difficulties over the next week or so. I cannot say more at this stage, but I hope it will riot be long before an announcement can be made that marketing and price guarantee arrangements will take the place of present arrangements, after decontrol in the spring."
LORD CARRINGTON: That, of course, refers to eggs.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Yes, but it is only the shape of things to come. If I am wrong I shall be only too glad to be corrected, but as I see it

317
the long-term policy is to provide machinery, under the Agricultural Marketing Acts, to implement the policy of guaranteed prices and assured markets. If there is a second lesson which history has taught us, it is that producer-controlled marketing boards have never yet meant lower prices to the consumer. Why should they? The very reason for a producer-controlled marketing board is to keep the price up. I was rather shocked at the noble Lord's interjection to my noble friend, "and there is no maximum price." We have had a scheme dealing with apples and pears. I protested very modestly at the time that we had not had time to discuss the scheme. The net result of the scheme will be that the British public will pay more for apples and pears. I hear that we are to have a potato scheme. The net result of that will be that the British public will pay more for potatoes.
My Lords, I sat as Chairman of a Committee inquiring into the working of the Agricultural Marketing Acts and almost every day for nine months I listened to the sad story of the way in which these Acts and the producer-controlled Boards set up under them have increased consumer prices. That is what is going to happen in the future. What did happen in the operations of the Potato Marketing Board in the days before the war? Every artifice was used to keep up the price to the consumer. Some unkind people used to say that there as a lot of "fiddle of the riddle." A riddle was used in connection with potatoes for human consumption. The larger the crop the larger the size of the riddle; and so more potatoes fell through the riddle and were not marketed. The whole object of that was to keep up the price—in other words, to create scarcity conditions. If noble Lords would care to read some of the facts about this matter I can tell them exactly where to look. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, knows it all as well as I do.
There was the Bishop Auckland scheme to sell these rejected potatoes to the poor. The price of potatoes was halved to about 4d. a stone where the people of Bishop Auckland went to fetch them from the places where they were stored. The result was that the consumption of potatoes increased by 69 per cent.
318
The noble Lord has read the history of that scheme. Now we are to have a producers' marketing board for seeds, although I am told authoritatively that the farmers of this country produce only about 2 per cent. of the seeds they use. I do not mind whether the guaranteed price is a "floor" price, or whatever it may be, but if the taxpayer is to be called upon to underwrite the producer's costs or his profits, or a percentage of either or both, then producer-controlled marketing boards cannot have monopoly rights to be used against the taxpayer as a consumer. That was the main conclusion to which the Committee over which I presided came when inquiring into the working of the Agricultural Marketing Acts.
We knew that at some future date the position would arise when our conclusions would have to be implemented. Let me make it perfectly clear that I am not against producer boards. Producer boards can be of inestimable benefit to the industry if they confine their activities to the techniques of production. I do not want to harry noble Lords by going back into the history of 1931 and 1933, because I do not think that the conditions then obtaining will ever come back. Nobody who sat, as I sat, for nine months and heard all this evidence, could have had anything but absolute sympathy with the farmer in those days, but conditions to-day are far different. Suffer exploitation though they will and do, I feel certain that the people of this country will not suffer having to subsidise a guaranteed price while being subjected to the exploitation of maximum prices in a free market. Whatever the noble Lord does, I beg him never to persuade the Government to pursue that line.
I have said in your Lordships' House that I have never claimed that the Lucas Report, as it is called, contained the last word in agricultural marketing wisdom. But I have said on many occasions also that I am convinced that sooner or later something like the scheme outlined in the Report of the Lucas Committee for marketing the product and purchasing it from the producer, in order to give him that assured market and guaranteed prices, will have to come. I am more than ever satisfied that it will have to come now, because the Government have got to implement

319
this policy of guaranteed prices and assured markets. And I give them credit for being honest about it: I think they want to do so. But they should never do it by putting taxpayers' money into the hands of producer-controlled marketing boards operating under monopoly conditions in a free market. That is the substance of what I wanted to say this afternoon, because we on this side of your Lordships' House and in another place will bitterly oppose that, as we have done right up to date. Let there be a place in the future scheme of things for producer boards to improve efficiency, as the noble Lord, Lord Amherst of Hackney, has mentioned. But when it comes to disbursing the taxpayers' money in the form of subsidy—for price support is subsidy—then other interests besides those of the producer and the merchant must be considered. I am very apprehensive that this policy which is so essential to the agricultural industry of this country will fail because of that. And it will fail, perhaps, through one other thing—and here, may be I am treading on dangerous ground. I would ask the farming community who have done a magnificent job of work over these last few years—and may it be said, in all honesty, as well, that they have been well paid for doing it—
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Not more so than anyone else.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: There are some sections of the community that have not been overpaid or well paid. My warning to the agricultural industry is: do not overplay your hand. That is what I am afraid they are doing to-day. On both sides of your Lordships' House it is our desire—a desire shared by the people of this country—that we should have a stable agricultural industry. But one cannot expect the people of this country, on the one hand, to pay subsidies for the necessary price support of the surpluses that are bound to come in these difficult climatic conditions, and, on the other, to find themselves subject to exploitation by reason of maximum prices in a "free market."
4.14 p.m.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, noble Lords will not be surprised that in studying the White Paper my attention has
320
been particularly riveted on paragraph 2. It seems to me that there is going to be a great danger of reverting to a 70 or 72 per cent. extraction flour for making what is called "beautiful white bread." I would ask my noble friend Lord Carrington to look at this paragraph very carefully. There are some things here which I cannot quite understand. In fact, I am much surprised at the wording of part of the paragraph. I am glad to see the statement that:
"a National flour of 30 per cent. extraction will continue to be produced and the subsidy on bread made from this flour will be continued …"
That, I think, is excellent. Then a line or two further down we find this statement:
"Bread made from whiter flour of lower extraction will not be subsidised, nor will it be subject to price control."
I am delighted to hear that there will be no subsidy on that bread. Further on in the paragraph we find these words:
"This whiter flour will, however, be fortified by the addition of nutrients equivalent to those lost in the further relining which it undergoes (so far as these can at present be identified)".
What is this thing which cannot be identified? What is this synthetic chemical—for such I imagine it to be—that the public are consuming or are going to consume in the future? I do not know whether I have misunderstood this matter, but it seems to me a very dangerous idea to establish—this idea that the whiter flour is to be fortified
"by the addition of nutrients equivalent to those lost in the further refining which undergoes (so far as these can at present be identified)".
That sounds to me a very dangerous sort of thing to allow.
I should like to ask my noble friend one or two questions. Naturally, the first thing I ask him is: will there be any restriction on the making of 100 per cent. extraction flour? Further, will there be any subsidy on the 100 per cent. extraction product? I am not clear from the White Paper whether or not there will be a subsidy. It looks to me as if we are slowly but surely going back, as I have said, to the period of 72 per cent. extraction, when the millers had the time of their lives. It is grand for them to be able to say, "We can have an extraction rate of 72 per cent., to make that beautiful white bread which people seem to like so

321
much, and at the same time continue to extract Bemax, wheat flakes and other things of that sort which are sold at very high prices." I told your Lordships before that I make my own 100 per cent. extraction bread. I have the Bemax and the wheat flakes in that. It is all there; the miller does not get any rake-off on that. With regard to this question of lower extraction to permit people to make this whiter bread, we know well that the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals carried out experiments on a hundred dogs, and it was definitely found, beyond all question, that those dogs suffered from hysteria, which stopped when the feeding of white bread to them was ended and they were given 100 per cent. extraction bread. Giving them bread made from 100 per cent. extraction flour cured them. There is absolutely no doubt whatever about their recovery. If the noble Lord who is to reply would like me to give him the reference I can put him in touch with the man who was in charge of that experiment, and he will tell the noble Lord exactly what took place.
At the present time there is difficulty in getting the type of flour that I should like to see made available for many more people in this country. It is rather extraordinary, and very satisfactory to me, that only this last week I had a letter from an old fellow who said that he would be celebrating his eightieth birthday in a few days' time. He wrote to thank me for having raised this question and said he noticed a recipe in the Daily Graphic for making this bread. He said that he had made it ever since. He used to suffer from certain ailments to do with his "tummy" but now they had all gone, and he felt as fit as possible. He was certain that he was going to live to a great age, and he attributed that entirely to the bread. I only wish that my noble friend Lord Webb-Johnson were here. I do not think there is any doubt that noble Lords in the medical profession realise that stomach troubles are very much on the increase. Duodenal ulcers, for example, are undoubtedly increasing.
We cannot get away from the fact that food which is fresh and which has not been interfered with produces better health. I most earnestly appeal to the Government to encourage the making of 100 per cent. extraction bread. I do not know whether bread is given to children
322
in school meals, but it is an easy way of helping to keep their teeth right and of increasing their bone. There is no question about that whatever. Your Lordships will find evidence of that all over the world. Look at rice in China; you never get white rice there, only brown rice. Look at sugar: white sugar is bad for the teeth, but children can eat brown sugar any time and they will be all right. I know something about that matter because I happened to be Chairman of an Inter-departmental Committee on Teeth and Dentistry, as some of your Lordships will know. There is no question that for the preservation of the teeth refined foods are the worst things one can possibly eat.
In my view, there is no question whatever that where people are the strongest and their physique is the finest, it is because they eat food that has not been tampered with and has not been processed in any way. I make the strongest possible appeal to the Government to do all they can to see that natural straightforward food, unprocessed as much as possible, goes on to the tables of our people.
4.23 p.m.
LORD HUNGARTON: My Lords, may I join with noble Lords in thanking my noble friend Lord Wise for bringing this important subject before the House? It is most important at the present time, because there are thousands of people, particularly small producers of pigs and poultry, who are wondering what is going to happen. I was interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Amherst of Hackney, say that many smaller men are delighted that controls are coming off. I hope they will not be disillusioned. I want to help the small man and it is for that reason I am hoping that the decontrol of feeding-stuffs will prove a success.
The Motion before the House divides itself into two parts, one with regard to cereals and the other with regard to feeding-stuffs. My noble friend Lord Wise has dealt with the first part extremely well and I do not propose to go into that any further, but there are one or two things about feeding-stuffs over which I am concerned, in particular, the timing of this change. Many farmers are wondering what will happen when the proposed decontrol of feeding-stuffs comes into operation on April 1. They are wondering, and rightly so, whether there will be sufficient food for the ever-increasing numbers of

323
pigs and poultry, which are increasing rapidly at the present time. They are concerned to know whether there will be sufficient feeding-stuffs to carry them through to the next harvest.
LORD HAWKE: On what date did the noble Lord say that the decontrol and derationing of feeding-stuffs comes into force?
LORD HUNGARTON: April 1.
LORD HAWKE: That is not correct.
LORD HUNGARTON: At any rate, it will become a free market. I think I am right in that.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, perhaps I may clear up this point now, because I think there was also some confusion in Lord Wise's mind on it. All that is happening on April 1 is that the subsidy will come off feeding-stuffs. We have also announced that we shall deration and decontrol at harvest time, but we have not yet announced the date.
LORD HUNGARTON: I thank the noble Lord. As I understand it, from April 1 the Government are giving up the purchasing of feeding-stuffs from abroad and are turning this over to private enterprise.
LORD CARRINGTON: I am sorry to have to repeat myself, but the only thing that is happening on April 1 is that the subsidy is coming off feeding-stuffs.
LORD HUNGARTON: At any rate, at the present time there is a great deal of worry at the back of farmers' minds about what is likely to happen. There is a good deal of lack of confidence. I make that statement as a statement of fact, having been about among farmers. I hope this debate will do something to dispel that lack of confidence. I am afraid that many farmers feel as I do. Anyone who has studied the White Paper on the decontrol of feeding-stuffs is bound to be disturbed. Paragraph 6 says:
"In these circumstances, it would clearly be unnecessary and undesirable to contemplate the creation of a reserve stock, …"
I take it that as from April 1 to the back end of the year the Government are not contemplating keeping a good reserve stock to deal with the pigs and poultry which will be in the country from April to September.
LORD CARRINGTON: I do not think the noble Lord quite understands what is happening. The rationing system is to continue until harvest time. There is no alteration whatever in the rationing system between April 1 and the time when derationing and decontrol takes place. Everything will go on exactly the same, except that the subsidy is coming off.
LORD HUNGARTON: I am grateful to the noble Lord for correcting me again, and I submit that, if I am wrong in my understanding of the White Paper, there must be many thousands of farmers in the country who will also be wrong in their reading of it. I was under the impression that feeding-stuffs would be purchased by private traders as from April 1, and I was perturbed whether, in that event, there would be sufficient feeding-stuffs in the country. I should like to ask the noble Lord whether, in view of the large increase of pigs and poultry in this country, there will be sufficient feeding-stuffs between now and the harvest to feed that increased stock. I hope that we shall have a satisfactory reply to that question.
LORD SILKEN: May I interrupt? Although the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, is right—decontrol does not take place on April 1, but at the harvest—does not my noble friend's point still remain? I think his point is that there is the danger of a shortage of feeding-stuffs whenever decontrol does take place. I take it that my noble friend is really asking what is to happen then.
LORD CARRINGTON: Perhaps I may intervene again. I appreciate the noble Lord's point, but I did not want thereto be any misapprehension as to what was happening. I am sure your Lordships will agree that I should be doing less than my duty if I allowed the noble Lord to retain the idea in his mind that derationing was to take place in April.
LORD HUNGARTON: Thank you very much. What was in my mind was that should we, by any mischance, have a dry summer, such as we have had in the past, if there were also a shortage of feeding-stuffs, then many millions of pigs and poultry in this country would have to be slaughtered. I trust that the Government will see to it that there is a sufficient supply of cereals in the country

325
to feed all the increased stock. As to the White Paper, I agree that farmers dislike controls. However, there is one thing which they would dislike more, and that is to be short of feeding-stuffs. I hope that that position will never arise. In my opinion, one thing is almost bound to happen—namely, that when the provisions outlined in the White Paper come into operation they will mean dearer food for the consumer. For that reason, I and many other of your Lordships will watch with interest to see what happens. I hope that the changes will not mean an increase in the cost of living in this country, because that is something which we must at all costs keep down.
4.33 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, two of the greater freedoms of our country which we have missed over the last twelve or thirteen years have been, first, to keep what livestock we wished, and secondly, the freedom of the consumers to buy all the eggs and bacon in the shops which they were able to afford. I welcome this particular policy of the Minister, because I believe it heralds the return to those freedoms. It will make honest men of tens of thousands of our fellow countrymen who in the eyes of the law are criminals, but who in their own eyes and those of their fellow men are as pure as driven snow. For the small man I think it will be particularly advantageous. That is not to say that people are not dubious and questioning; but, in the long run, I think it will be particularly advantageous for the small man, because he has been under a severe handicap during these last years. Grain growing on a small scale is a difficult, if not impossible, business. In spite of remonstrances to Ministers from both Parties, we have never yet succeeded in getting them to produce a scheme whereby the cereal feeding-stuffs allotted bore some relation to the other feeding-stuffs grown on small holdings.
After thirteen years under the anæthetic of controls, naturally the shock of awakening is rather stupendous. If one can imagine it, it is something like the shock experienced by an inmate of Dart moor who has done his thirteen years and is suddenly taken to the gate and told that he is free. Those are precisely the sentiments that must be passing
326
through the breasts of some of our farmers to-day. I congratulate the Minister in that he is prepared to make the farmers take the shock, so to speak, and I wish him well in the outcome of his policy.
But to disguise the fact that there are difficulties would not be serving the turn of friendship. The difficulty I see, first of all, is this question of the egg. It is thirteen years since the British public were free to buy the eggs they wanted, and many things have happened in the interval. I think it would be a bold man who would estimate to-day what is the potential market for eggs in this country, and at what price. Moreover, the potential source of imports outside the United States is also somewhat nebulous—there are the floods in Holland, and so on. I saw good quality Australian eggs in a shop the other day at 4d. each. But how many of these can we expect, when we are told that higher prices can be realised in Melbourne and Sydney? Therefore, the whole matter is rather nebulous. If my arithmetic is correct, we had four eggs per head per week in 1951, and of those half an egg was imported.
Let us assume that the price of a half-grown pullet is going to equal the price of her as a hen sold for the pot. The food for the intervening time costs to-day about £2. If the hen in the interval lays 120 eggs, that means that they cost in food 4d. each: 140 would be 3½d., and 160 would be 3d. If the consumer is willing to spend 6d. for a winter egg, and 5d. for an egg at other times of the year—and people tell me that that is the minimum—I believe that the small people in this country will tend to increase their poultry to a large extent. It means, roughly, 1 cwt. of feeding-stuffs for each bird for the year. Turning it round the other way, if we are to have one egg per head per week more, it means a figure of between one million and two million tons of extra feeding-stuffs. At harvest time, when this policy is to come into effect, the feeding-stuffs will be there, because they will have been grown in this country. But I can see the possibility that there may be a heavy run on the free market then, and stocks will get depleted, leading to the necessity for the Minister's action under another paragraph in his White Paper. Then, if imports are

327
inadequate, there are the seeds of a rise. If the rise leads to a greater supply, well and good, but if the rise tends to attract cereals to the free egg-producers and away from the still controlled pig-producers, I do not think it will be so good. The pig-producers, along with other farmers, are promised consideration at the Price Review, but nobody can take a very rosy view of their prospects when one considers that, as far as I can make out, the Danes are prepared to supply us with bacon at a rather lower price than our farmers supply the Ministry with the raw pig.
Pigs and hens, of course, react on each other in another way, too. For the caterer, the cheapest main course is undoubtedly butcher's meat, but we know that that is in short supply and the caterer has to resort to something else. His great line of defence is chickens and ducks. If it were possible to free the pig market, I think it would lead to a considerably lower consumption of chickens and ducks by the caterers, because roast pork is a much cheaper food than chicken to supply as a main course. I have always thought that the freeing of the pig market was more desirable than the freeing of the egg market, If the Minister frees the egg market without freeing the pig market at the same time, he may well run into trouble in the autumn. But I hope that by the autumn he will be able to announce a free pig market. I am told by experts with whom I have discussed this matter that it should be perfectly possible to have free pork in the shops, selling completely divorced from beef and mutton which could still remain rationed and price controlled.
I welcome the announcement about the extraction rate of flour, because I believe in the consumer's choice. Like my noble friend, I am sensible enough to eat the highest extraction bread I can possibly find; but whereas I like to feed my chickens on the chaff discarded by the people I regard as foolish, his compassion for the human race is such that he likes to convert everybody to his own point of view. I will say, lest anybody has fears that this extraction rate will lead to a rise in the consumption of wheat and thus to an increase in dollar requirements, that last time we had a debate on this subject on a Motion put down
328
by myself, that was the advice tendered by the then Minister who replied, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, but I have found in practice that the very speculative suggestion I made—which was that a lowering of the extraction rate would not lead to any increase in the supplies of wheat required—in fact proved to be correct. Whether the further fall from 81 to 72 per cent. extraction rate for some proportion of the population can be carried out again without any rise in the quantity of wheat, I do not know; but, of course, nobody yet knows who is going to have the 81 per cent. bread which is subsidised, and who is going to go for the white stuff, 72 per cent., which is unsubsidised.
The White Paper raises important long-term policies which have been pointed out by noble Lords opposite. One of the most important of these was dwelt on at great length by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and that is: what are to be the permanent methods of implementing the Act of 1947? I really do not know quite what methods he favours himself, but I would point out, for illustration, that the "farm support" programme in the United States operates quite successfully without any form of rationing or direct subsidy to the consumer. In the long term, I am convinced that the prosperity of British industry largely depends on the prosperity of the British countryside, and that it is vital to keep agriculture at a high rate of productivity and prosperity. But in the long term, we shall be faced with many temptations to step aside. Noble Lords opposite think that these things cannot be done without close controls and rationing, but I believe it will be possible to do so.
When I come to the policy of import, which is what one might call the underwriting of the whole policy, I personally do not regard paragraph 7 of the White Paper as very satisfactory. I have a strong suspicion that it was drafted in the Treasury and not in the Ministry of Agriculture. The last sentence in particular, which, to my mind, should be the strongest and least equivocal of all sentences, is the one which is full of the woolliest language in escape clauses. It says:
"For this reason, during the first year"—

329
is it only during the first year that this is going to happen?—
"… the Government will be prepared in the event of any critical shortage"—
what is a "critical shortage"?—
"… leading to a serious upward tendency of prices"—
what is a "serious upward tendency"?—
"to consider authorising"—
not "to authorise"—
"such additional imports as may be needed to maintain a livestock population which is expanding in conformity with the White Paper programme."
If the animals breed too fast, is the Minister to be refused the currency for importing the feeding-stuffs for them? That is a most unsatisfactory sentence. I should have liked to see the Government put something much stronger in that paragraph, to say to the world that they are going to see this thing through over a much longer period than is envisaged here. We are stepping into a nebulous world of considerable uncertainty, and we want to see in decisive language that the Government intend to take this thing through to the limit, and that they are going to import feeding-stuffs to the limit of the requirements of the animals in the country, even if by so doing they have to put restrictions on the imports of certain food in order to provide the foreign exchange in return.
4.49 p.m.
LORD BROCKET: My Lords, we are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Wise, for initiating this debate. In your Lordships' House, the debate does not always range merely within the limits which the speaker who starts the debate expects, and this afternoon we have had a very interesting discussion on a very wide subject. The noble Lord, Lord Wise, made several statements with which I should like to express my agreement. He said that there should be some control to see that the feeding-stuffs are up to a reasonable standard. I entirely agree. I have a good many pigs, both here and in Ireland, and I find that the compound feeding-stuffs which one buys from certain merchants are most unsatisfactory—so much so that I am glad to say I now grow sufficient of my own. I mix my own feeding-stuffs and I find that my pigs get to bacon size much more quickly than with the food I used to buy from merchants. One does not know what is in the feeding-stuffs sold by merchants.
330
The noble Lord said that the subsidy of £30 million should be returned to agriculture. Speaking as a farmer, I naturally agree with that opinion, but I should not like to suggest to Her Majesty's Government how that £30 million should be retained in agriculture. However, there are certain ways which must occur to many of your Lordships in which it could be done. The noble Lord, Lord Amherst of Hackney, mentioned the vacillating policy of the "then Government." Well, my Lords, so far as agriculture is concerned, and particularly with regard to the February Price Review, I must say that the term "vacillating policy" does not apply only to the "then Government." I think it applies to all Governments, not excluding the present Government—though the present Government is in a greater difficulty than the late Government was, in that it has inherited a policy of controls which was applied during the war. They have continued although circumstances have changed. I am glad to welcome the Government's policy of doing away with a great many of the controls. But this question of vacillation is inherent in all Governments because there are so many points of view. There are the points of view of the Treasury, the Ministry of Agriculture, the consumer and the Ministry of Food. It is, indeed, difficult for a Government not to be vacillating.
Speaking as a farmer. I believe that one thing that keeps farm production down is uncertainty. If you want eggs, either in this country or from Ireland (where I farm) or anywhere else, you must tell the farmer's wife sufficiently early what the "floor" price of the eggs is going to be during the next year. Perhaps I know more about eggs from Ireland than about eggs in this country. At any rate, I have given up keeping many hens in Ireland because the "floor" price has been 2s. 9d. a dozen—and no one is going to produce eggs at that price. I had hoped that the Ministry of Food here would have been able to assure farmers and their wives quite early that there would be a "floor" price for eggs after control goes in April here and in Ireland, because otherwise there may not be enough eggs after decontrol. It is no good telling the farmers and their wives in March what the "floor" price is going to be; they should be told now. They should be

331
told, in fact, before the end of one calendar year what the "floor" price for these products is going to be for the next year. It is no good having a July Price Review; I think the Price Review in future should be a February one—if not earlier.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, makes a great many statements from the Front Bench opposite with which I agree. He holds very similar views to my own on the iniquity and harmfulness of high taxation—and I am sure I am riot the only Peer on these Benches to agree with him in that. The noble Lord also says there should be a bipartisan policy for agriculture. That is a condition which I have been trying for twelve years to bring about. In 1941 I proposed in this House a Resolution to the effect that agriculture should be taken out of Party politics and put on along-term non-political basis. Well, my Lords, here we are in 1953 and I am still hoping. Lord Lucas will certainly have my support in that.
Lord Lucas also said that the present Government could not afford to let the industry down. I was very glad to hear him say so. No Government in this country can afford to let the industry down, and I hope the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, who is to reply to this debate, will make that plain. Even if a British Government were willing to let the industry down, the world food shortage is such that prices would remain reasonable, especially in view of the increasing population in the world. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will not get the worst of both worlds. If one leaves prices to find their own level they may go up one year and down the next. On the whole one can say that the economic law of supply and demand will probably operate and bring about firm and reasonable prices. It sometimes happens that politicians are not so good at controlling economics as economics are at controlling themselves; and sometimes mistakes may be made. But, whatever is done by Her Majesty's Government, I feel that they must, in the phrase of the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, underwrite the position. There must be "floor" prices, not only for eggs and pig products but also for cereals and products. In 1951, barley was at a very high price. The farmers just "followed their noses" and grew
332
barley because of the high price. They grew so much barley that there was a. glut the following year. The same thing happens in market gardening. I feel, therefore, that we must have "floor" prices.
The noble Lord, Lord Hawke, made some remarks, with which I entirely agree, about the extraordinary last sentence of paragraph 7 of the White Paper. Like him, I have never seen a woollier or more non-committal statement drafted by a Government Department—and that is saying a good deal. Instead of finishing with a statement Which would have given confidence to agriculture, this paragraph lets agriculture down. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, will do something to change the views of the farming community by pointing out that this represents a minimum and not a maximum. It is deplorable that the Government should "consider authorising" such additional imports of feeding-stuffs when there is not enough food for the present animals to live on. Between April 1, when rationing ends, and the next harvest, if small farmers go ahead with pigs and poultry production, there may be a shortage of feeding-stuffs. I hope Lord Carrington will be able to reassure the farmers that this woolly and hopeless sentence, does not really represent the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
I agree also with Lord Hawke on the subject of pigs. I feel that the decontrol of eggs and of pig meat should go together. It is rather interesting to note that although Germany was defeated in the last war, some years ago the Government of Western Germany announced that anyone who wished could keep a pig if he could feed it, and could eat it or share it with his friends, or sell it, if he desired, to the best advantage. The interesting thing is that that defeated country has had a far larger pig increase than we have in this winning country, largely because of the difficulties involved here. If anyone wants to start pig-keeping in this country, he must first, if he wishes to start at a farm, find out whether any pigs were kept on that farm in 1939. My own son started farming a little time ago, and I told him that I would give him a number of large white gilts with which to start pig-keeping. But he found out that the farm on which he started did not keep pigs in 1939. There

333
were all sorts of difficulties about these pigs, and though he was capable of feeding a few pigs, and I gave him a few pigs to start with, since then he has had largely to give up keeping pigs owing to the difficulties. This is surely ridiculous.
One noble Lord, whom I know well, also kept pigs, and his difficulties were quite amusing. He spent some time in London and asked his agent to get a licence to kill a pig—as he is entitled to do, twice a year. The agent applied for a licence and in due course, he got it, but unfortunately the pig was killed on the thirteenth day after the licence was obtained, and not on the fourteenth. I believe that an official from the Ministry of Food came along and said that the pig was killed one day sooner than it should have been, and that he would have to confiscate the pig. So my noble friend had no pig to eat and he was fined £10 for killing it on the wrong day. Those are the difficulties that pig-keepers are up against, and I suggest that if only pigs could be freed in the same way as they have been in Germany, we should have far more pigs, far more bacon and far more pork.
I should like to say a few words on the subject of pork. Pork should be pork, and not bad bacon. In other words, the housewife of this country often dislikes the pork she buys in the shops because it is rotten pork. It is produced from bacon pigs which have been discarded as being unfit for bacon, and they are therefore made into pork. I wish that Her Majesty's Government could emphasise that there is a pork trade and could produce a real, proper, pork pig, because they will not get the housewives of this country to wish to eat the amount of pork which they might otherwise eat unless it is decent pork when it is sold to them.
I do not want to detain your Lordships any longer, because we are all looking forward with interest to the clarification of the White Paper which we hope to get from the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. I should like once again, however, before I conclude, to say that this question of delay is hopeless, as farmers must look ahead. They are also conservative people—with a small "c." I was delighted to hear the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, say that they were Conservatives—with a big "C." Arising out of that, it would be a tragedy if the Conservative Government
334
(with a big "C") let down the farmers who, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, assures me, voted Conservative—also with a big "C." I feel that really agriculture should be a bi-partisan—or perhaps I ought to call it a "tri-partisan"—policy, because, although the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and myself happen to belong to the two largest Parties in the State, we must not ignore the third Party in the State, and also any Independents. I believe that agriculture should be taken out of Party politics altogether. It is not a good subject for Party politics. One reason is that by its nature it calls for a long-term policy; and a long-term policy, as we have seen lately, does not always apply, even to steel or transport! Occasionally, it may occur that Governments have different views on these subjects. But if it can be made clear to farmers that for agriculture there is an all-Party policy, then I feel that it will be possible to increase production very much more than has been done up to now, and that we shall be able to put our country on a much sounder financial basis.
5.5 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, my main reason for taking advantage of the opportunity given to us by my noble friend Lord Wise to discuss this important development in agricultural policy is that I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, one or two questions about these decisions to decontrol cereals and to stop the subsidy on feeding-stuffs. I apologise to the noble Lord in advance for not having given him notice of my questions. The reason is that I arrived back from the United States only on Thursday, and I spent the week-end studying the White Paper, and the comments and interpretations given by Ministers in another place. It was therefore not until the beginning of this week that I was ready with my questions. I had hoped that some of my noble friends who have an extensive knowledge of agriculture might have put the questions for me, because I should not then have had to trespass on your Lordships' time at all—but that was not so.
On my reading of the White Paper, it is evident that the Government stick firmly to the policy of guaranteed prices and an assured market, the policy of Part I of the 1947 Act. There, I think

335
we can join with the noble Lord, Lord Brocket, and everyone else in saying that the foundations of agricultural policy are bipartisan, and that nothing that has been done by the present Government or by their predecessors has taken away from the farming community the assurance given to them by Part I of the 1947 Act. That being so, what we are discussing this afternoon is various suggested alterations of method and system in the application of these guarantees to the farming community. In the first place, let me say that I consider it absolutely right and proper that any alternative method of implementing the price guarantee in the case of corn crops, which is the one that we are discussing this afternoon, should be worked out in consultation with the farmers, and that it would be inappropriate at this moment that any of us should ask for information about negotiations that are in progress at the present time.
There is one question that I should like to ask about the Government's general approach to this matter: that is, whether it is the Government's intention or desire that corn crops should be taken out of the Annual Price Review and that the prices of these crops should not be subject, like other farm prices, to review at special Price Reviews, to adjustment as heretofore. We all know the disadvantages of this piece of machinery, but we also know its advantages. I myself feel that it is extremely important as a method of correlating costs of production and the prices that farmers receive for their products, and, with all its drawbacks, I cannot see any alternative machinery that could achieve that purpose. So, unless the Government can say that they have hit on some substitute, something equivalent to the Price Review method, I hope very much that we shall hear that it is not the intention of the Government, after the Ministry of Food cease to be the purchasing agency for these cereal crops, to take them out of the Price Review. Whatever other system of marketing may obtain for these crops after this year, I cannot see how these two factors of production costs and prices can be adjusted without periodical reviews of this kind.
The second question that I should like to ask arises out of the removal of the
336
subsidy on feeding-stuffs on April 1. It is evidently the long-term policy of the Government that home-grown feeding-stuffs should take the place of imported feeding-stuffs in providing for the needs of our expanding livestock population. I believe that it is a very fair long-term objective, and I sincerely hope that it will be successful. But, as the Minister has pointed out in this White Paper, in the short term there is a serious risk that the increase in the number of our livestock may outrun the increase in the amount of home-grown feed for it. The removal of the subsidy, coupled with the limited supply of imported feeding-stuffs, may well have the effect in the coming year of causing a sharp rise in prices. The noble Lord, Lord Amherst, rather discounted that risk, but it is quite evident, from what the Government say in the White Paper, that they themselves regard this risk as at any rate a possibility. The noble Lord, Lord Hawke, whose speech I was unfortunate enough to miss, and also the noble Lord, Lord Brocket, uttered very serious warnings about what might happen if there were a shortage of animal feeding-stuffs in the near future.
We all know that if poultry-keepers and pig farmers find that they cannot afford the keep of their stock, they will tend to do what they can to keep down the numbers of their stock. If this happened it would be a serious setback to our whole livestock expansion programme; it would affect the amount of eggs we get, and it would affect the degree to which we may be able to increase the meat ration in the immediate future, because pig meat is obviously the only sort of meat that can be obtained in fairly large quantities without any long delay. I am just as worried as other noble Lords have been by the last sentence of paragraph 7 of the White Paper—namely:
"… the Government will be prepared, in the event of any critical shortage of supplies leading to a serious upward tendency of prices, to consider authorising such additional imports as may be needed to maintain a livestock population. …"
and so on. The whole point is the timing of this authorisation to obtain additional supplies of feeding-stuffs from overseas. Can we be certain that the Government will advise the necessary purchases (it may even be dollar currency purchases) before the livestock population has been affected by a rise in prices? That, I think,

337
is the sort of assurance that many farmers would like at the present time. They would like to feel that whatever action the Government propose will be taken before and not after the crisis occurs. I do not think that this White Paper contains any suggestion, certainly in the wording of this paragraph, that the authorisation will be given before the serious upward trend of prices has actually taken place and the consequences of that serious trend have affected agricultural producers.
My Lords, the only other comment I should like to make in a general way is this. I feel that the important decisions of policy embodied in this White Paper, and the important decisions of agricultural policy that will soon have to be taken as a result of the Price Review, and, of course, the recent flood disaster, do emphasis the fact that the Minister of Agriculture ought to be a member of the Cabinet. He has been a member during preceding Governments he was during the war, and I cannot help feeling that these vastly important decisions ought to have been taken by the Cabinet. when they had had full opportunity of hearing the point of view of the Minister of Agriculture and of comparing it with the points of view of other Cabinet Ministers. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, is the voice of agriculture in the Cabinet. We all deeply regret that the noble Lord has been ill for some time. We have missed him very much indeed. During the period of his absence, therefore, even the accredited voice of agriculture has been absent at Cabinet meetings.
Finally, may I say this? I may be mistaken—I have been away for some time and I hope that I shall be corrected if I am wrong but—I believe that this is the first debate on agriculture that has taken place since the flood disaster. That being so, I am sure we shall all wish to express our deep sympathy with the farmers and farm workers who have suffered material loss and great hardship as a result of this disaster. I sincerely hope that the noble Lord opposite will keep us informed of the facts of the disaster and also the intentions of the Government. As time passes we should like to know the extent of the damage, and we should like to know what the Government intend to do in order to help farmers to rehabilitate their land. We
338
shall not press for information immediately, because it is bound to be some time before firm decisions can be reached. That is all I have to add to the speeches that have gone before. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, will give us as much information as possible, because I think the great need is for a further clarification of the terms of the White Paper.
5.17 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, your Lordships will agree that the decisions which were announced in the White Paper, to which the noble Lord, Lord Wise, has drawn attention, are of the most far-reaching importance. I must confess that, on listening to the debate, it occurred to me that it was a great pity that the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, did not get back from the United States a little earlier, in order that he might have co-ordinated some of the views of noble Lords who sit on that side of the House. It seemed to me that some of them were confused and others rather contradictory. The noble Lord, Lord Wise, at the beginning of the debate talked of farmers going round hawking their corn because they were unable to sell it. The noble Lord, Lord Hungarton, on the other hand, seemed worried about a possible shortage of feeding-stuffs. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, told us categorically that farmers liked controls. The noble Lord, Lord Hungarton, stated roundly that the one thing that farmers hated was control. There we are. I hope that in the remarks that I have to make I shall answer at any rate some of the questions which have been put to me.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Just in the interests of historical accuracy, I think that what I said was that the farmers disliked freedom.
LORD HAWKE: It was Lord Wise who said that the farmers liked filling in forms.
LORD CARRINGTON: Well, my Lords, we can all read it to-morrow, but I think the sense of what I have said is more or less right. At any rate, the decision which the Government have taken marks a big step forward in the development of our agricultural policy, and perhaps the best way in which I can answer the interesting debate which we have had

339
this afternoon is to explain to your Lordships the reasons which lay behind our decisions to deration and decontrol feeding-stuffs and cereals.
First, I must emphasise, although I am sure it needs no emphasis, that this is no ill-considered step that the Government have taken. We have thought about it very carefully, and we had good reasons for deciding as we did. In the first place, we believe that the derationing of feeding-stuffs will help our expansion programme. We are not saying simply that we are dispensing with irk-some machinery. Still less are we saying that rationing must be abandoned because it is unworkable. We believe that decontrol will be a positive asset in reaching our livestock objectives, because it will allow the feeding-stuffs to reach the hands of those who can make the best use of them. To get the maximum output from agriculture we need to allow each man in the industry the greatest possible freedom to specialise in the forms of production to which his land and equipment are best suited. This cannot be done under rationing. Even if the present scheme were amended we could go only a little way towards it. Rationing means using some arbitrary point in time on which to base the quantities allocated. For example, as your Lordships know, and as has been quoted already this afternoon, rations for pigs and poultry are still largely based on 1939 conditions. This criterion of a producer's need of feeding-stuffs is now notoriously out of date, as I think everybody agrees. No doubt we could have improved the rationing system, but the very changes we might have made would have caused discontent amongst some people, and indeed some hardship. It seemed best, therefore, to make a clean sweep of the controls.
Another reason for our decision to decontrol was that we badly wanted to encourage farmers to grow more feeding-stuffs themselves. To achieve this in the most efficient way we need to draw our extra supplies from farmers who can grow more feed grains or protein crops, and make it possible for these to be passed on to the livestock producers who are in a position to increase their turnover. This, as I know your Lordships will agree, is extremely
340
difficult to achieve in the present strait-jacket of control, where the crop producer is restricted in the price he gets and in the way in which he disposes of his crops, and the stock-keeper is restricted by his rations. Furthermore, decontrol is in keeping with our general view that the business of importing and trading in food should be restored to the trade as and when circumstances permit.
The noble Lord, Lord Wise, asked me whether I had any figures to support the contention that private traders will do the job better than State traders. I think it is hardly a thing which can be proved by figures. It would be most misleading to start comparing the prices and margins of the pre-war trade with those of the war-time and post-war control. But the greater flexibility and the readier response to changes in demand and supply which characterise private trading are, I think, well-known; and the time appears to be ripe for returning to these advantages. The noble Lord also mentioned the question of prices charged by merchants to farmers. This is a highly competitive trade, with a large number of merchants, many of them in business in a very small way, and there are many varieties of feed, so the chances of exploitation are very slight. The trade is entitled to this opportunity of showing what it can do. When the war-time controls were imposed, the trades concerned were given pledges about their future, the least of which was that they would be consulted before any final decision was taken. After fourteen years of controls we are approaching the time when either the trades must be freed before it is too late to do so or some new form of permanent control must be imposed. The old skills have steadily been getting rustier, and there has been neither work nor prospects to induce younger men to enter these trades. Moreover, our present controls cannot last much longer: they are not schemes designed to fit modern conditions but war-time expedients with the minimum of adaptation.
So, given the desire to decontrol, the present seems to me to be a good time to do it. Supplies and stocks of both home-produced and imported feeding-stuffs are adequate for the expanding livestock

341
population, and are increasing. There are now 289,000 more acres under cereals in the United Kingdom than last year, and I do not understand why the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, laughed when my noble friend Lord Amherst of Hackney said that agricultural production was increasing. Agricultural production is increasing. Noble Lords have only to read the December Returns to see that that is so.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The noble Lord, Lord Amherst of Hackney, did not use the expression which Lord Carrington has just used. He said that for the first time it has started to expand. That was the expression he used, and that was what rather brought a smile to our faces.
LORD CARRINGTON: I accept the noble Lord's explanation. What the noble Lord, Lord Amherst of Hackney, said was that there had been a recession during the last two years of the Labour Government's term of office, and that since then agricultural production had started to expand. That is a statement of fact which I think is quite incontrovertible. There are now, as I say, 289,000 more acres under cereals in the United Kingdom than last year. The demand for seed and fertilisers augurs well for further expansion. Supplies and prices from overseas have also improved considerably, although, of course, we have a long way to go before we can talk of ample supplies. In fact, never since the war has there been a better position and prospect for decontrol of cereals and feeding-stuffs than today.
Those then are our reasons for decontrol. I now come to the actual act of decontrol and what it involves. I hope that I shall not weary your Lordships, but there seemed to be, if I may say so, some confusion on the Benches opposite about what the actual proposals of Her Majesty's Government are. The first stage will be the removal of the remaining subsidy on April 1. The Minister of Food will then make a new Maximum Prices Order controlling prices at new levels from April 1 until the harvest. After that, rationing will stop, and no more maximum prices will be fixed. The increase in price which will be necessary on April 1 to bring prices up to world levels will be about £2 10s. per ton over-
342
all. Her Majesty's Government gave a warning in the White Paper to which the noble Lord, Lord Wise, referred, and which was published after the Annual Review last year, that this step would not be long delayed. But it is now an essential step in this move to a freer economy. It is essential because if you inject a subsidy you must control the resale price. Otherwise, the subsidy could be nullified by market price movements and abused. But price control, without rationing and central control of purchasing, would not be practical in a trade such as that of feeding-stuffs, spaced over a great number of individuals and varieties of feed. Either the control is ignored or the popular kinds of feed vanish "under the counter." Therefore, we have concluded that these controls hang together and must go together. I should emphasise here, I think, that the figure of £2 10s. per ton is an average increase; some commodities which hitherto have been more heavily subsidised will rise by more than this; others by only a shilling or two. The result of this will be that, if world price levels remain about the same as at present, when we reach the point of decontrol we need not expect a further sudden change of prices to the farmer.
Decontrol, as I have said, will be thorough, although it is quite unavoidable that some provision must be made for control over the use of dollars and other non-sterling currency in buying cereals. But there will be nothing left of substance to obstruct the trade in its re-development as a great industry. To give the House some idea of the size of the business from which the Government are withdrawing, and which the trade will soon be handling, I may mention that wheat and flour account for 4,500,000 tons of our total imports of 17 million tons of food and feeding-stuffs. Feeding-stuffs, imported as such, account for a further 3,500,000 tons. Cereals and animal feeding-stuffs together account for £275 million of a total overseas expenditure on food of £1,308 million.
The immediate arrangements we are making for implementing the price and market guarantees under the Agriculture Act, 1947, are that for the 1953 crop the Ministry of Food will be ready to buy whatever grain is offered to them at prices fixed at the last Review; for barley and oats the maximum prices—the top limit—

343
will go but the bottom limit, the guaranteed minimum price, will remain; and for wheat the fixed price will become the minimum. The Ministry will continue this method until new long-term marketing arrangements have been agreed. We hope to have these ready in time for the 1954 harvest, and we have already had a preliminary exchange of views with representatives of the farmers. Livestock producers will be more concerned with the relationship between the price of feeding-stuffs and the price of their products. These producers have the assurance of my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture that the effect on costs of any increase in the price of feeding-stuffs will be taken into account at this year's Annual Review.
Her Majesty's Government claim that this is a necessary operation, and that it is being undertaken in favourable circumstances, with every reasonable precaution and with very good prospects of success. Success, however, will depend largely on two important factors—our ability to maintain and, if possible, increase supplies, and our ability to make efficient use of the supplies that are available to us. Perhaps I ought to give a warning here. We cannot afford a buying spree next autumn when controls are lifted. Every keeper of livestock should make the most economical use of all his feeding-stuffs, home grown or bought-in, and feed the right food to the right stock in the right quantities. Attention to this point is absolutely necessary if we are going to take full advantage of this new freedom. We shall certainly continue to import the same quantities of feeding-stuffs as at present, but it is possible, as the noble Lord has said, that our plans for increased livestock production may get a little out of step with the advance in production of home grown feeding-stuffs. If, as the White Paper says, "a serious upward tendency in prices" develops, the Government have said that they will be prepared in those circumstances to consider importing a limited amount of feeding-stuffs during the first year after decontrol, even if this means spending foreign exchange.
I thought my noble friends, Lord Hawke and Lord Brocket, have suspicious minds. I only hope we shall
344
do better than they seem to imagine we shall. I have explained that we must be prepared for an appreciable increase in price as a result of the removal of the feeding-stuffs subsidy. The best advice which farmers can be given at present is to plough more land for coarse grains wherever they can. The farmer who is planning to keep more livestock will safeguard himself against any possible difficulties if he grows his own feed. As your Lordships know, it costs much less to grow a ton of feeding-stuffs than to buy it. The farmer who grows grain for selling will be able to take advantage of any increased demands for feeding-stuffs the autumn may bring, and he will know that, whatever happens, he cannot get less than the fixed minimum price—and he may get more. If added encouragement is needed, it is already there in the £5 and £10 per acre ploughing grants.
The noble Lord, Lord Hungarton, brought into question the timing of this announcement. The time was carefully chosen so as to leave farmers time to adjust their ploughing and cropping plans. Unfortunately, as your Lordships know, the plans of many farmers along the East Coast have been badly upset by the disastrous floods, and agricultural production is bound to suffer as a result. I join with the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, in his expression of sympathy to farmers who have lost, some of them everything they had, in this disaster. Last week I visited some of the flooded areas and I was glad to see that the work of restoration is going on very well, with the help of numbers of volunteers, not least among them volunteers from the agricultural industry. But this disaster does mean that we shall need an additional effort by those farmers who have not suffered by these floods, to increase their coarse grain acreage.
Extra tillage may mean less grass-land, but need not mean less grass. Our farmers could get more out of their pastures by adopting intensive methods of management, like top-dressing and strip-grazing, and by conserving for winter keep as much high protein grass as possible in the form of silage, dried grass, or hay. More and better grass could be obtained in this way from a much smaller area of grass-land than at present, and the acreage saved could be turned over to cereals. Grass-lard is an important source of feeding-stuffs. We have not

345
forgotten the need for protein feed to balance the extra cereals which we hope we shall produce. Those concerned with pig and poultry production are especially interested in animal protein. This can be obtained from a large number of sources. It is difficult to give any useful prediction of what will be available in any given year, but I was glad to see that last year there was a welcome increase in the home production of fish meal. I hope this will continue. These considerations are important because we cannot expect that the decontrol of feeding-stuffs in itself will increase supplies, and as matters stand at present we cannot increase supplies by regularly importing more.
The noble Lord, Lord Wise, appears to be worried about the effect of these changes on the small producer. I assure him that we are watching that point carefully and the problems of the small producer will be given special consideration. But, on the face of it, it seems to me that small producers as a whole will welcome this opportunity to expand their production, after having been so restricted by rationing. The small farmer who can produce at a profit will be better placed to buy feed under decontrol than the big man who cannot. I think I may say that the doctrine of "fair shares" is well enough when applied in conditions of scarcity to the necessities of human life, but it is inappropriate to apply it to industrial raw materials—and that is what feeding-stuffs are—when the supply is in reasonable relation to the demand. There the nation cannot afford not to have regard to the most productive use, and open competition in the free market is the best way of ensuring this.
Furthermore, the noble Lord, Lord Wise, asked me whether we were doing anything to safeguard the quality of the feeding-stuffs that are going to be sold. As he will know, the Fertilisers and Feeding-stuffs Act, which is still in operation, will ensure that all feeding-stuffs in common use are sold with certain particulars of their composition. Moreover, at the moment we are also exploring the possibility of some voluntary arrangement to continue some of the standards of composition of meals and compound cakes which have become generally accepted. The noble Lord also asked me what I could tell him about strategic reserves. In another place recently the Minister of
346
Food was asked what difference the decision to decontrol feeding-stuffs would make to the Government's policy of strategic stockpiling, and he answered, "None." I do not think I can usefully add anything to that answer.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, asked me whether we were still paying meat distributors for not distributing meat. I have now been a Member of your Lordships' House for something like eight years, and though I know our rules of order are very lax, I think it would be most improper for me to be drawn into a discussion of the wholesale meat industry when we are talking about the derationing of feeding-stuffs.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Not "drawn into a discussion"; all I want the noble Lord to say is "Yes" or "No."
LORD CARRINGTON: If the noble Lord wants this information, perhaps he will put down a specific Question on that specific point. The noble Lord also asked me about the milling subsidy. He made some criticism of the way that had been explained. As he will see from the White Paper, the milling subsidy disappears as a result of the decontrol and derationing of feeding-stuffs. I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, that on first reading the draft of the White Paper, it occurred to me that paragraph 2 would be meat and drink to the noble Lord, if not, perhaps, bread. We all know the noble Lord's views on bread and we respect them. On several occasions we have had full debates on the question of bread and the extraction rate, and I shall not say anything more about that matter. But the noble Lord asked me two questions I can answer. The first question was: will there be any restriction on the sale of 100 per cent. extraction flour? The answer to that is "No." There will be no restriction on bread at all. The noble Lord then asked me: will there be any subsidy on the 100 per cent. flour? The answer to that is, "No." The only flour which will be subsidised will be national flour used in bread—80 per cent. extraction flour.
The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, asked me whether corn crops would now come out of the Price Review. They will come out of the Price Review in so far I as the maximum price is settled, but of

347
course the means of implementing the guarantees of the 1947 Act remain to be settled. That will have to be settled in exactly the same way as now, whether it is by means of a support price or a standard price, or whatever form it may take. He also asked me whether Price Reviews are to continue. I can assure him that they are to continue, as the Minister said when the White Paper on derationing was issued. The noble Lord, Lord Wise, expressed some doubt about the way in which these prices and market guarantees would be implemented in future, and particularly asked about the prices for 1954. I take it he means the livestock prices for 1954, or is it the cereal prices?
LORD WISE: The prices which were not fixed by the last Review.
LORD CARRINGTON: The prices of livestock are fixed as from April this year to April of next year. But the other day, in another place, my right honourable friend the Minister, referring to the prices for the 1954 crop, said that they would be fixed
"in exactly the same way as in previous years, that is, by reference to economic conditions in the industry as indicated in the statistical data which we normally use."
It is clear that the methods of assuring stability for these commodities will have to be adapted, hut the Minister has given the clearest possible assurance that the new arrangements will continue to fulfil the Government's obligations under the Agriculture Act, 1947. We propose to continue using the system of Price Reviews to ensure realistic and economic price guarantees designed to encourage the required production as laid down in that Act. I do not think it does any good to talk a lot about Governments letting down the farmers. We have given the specific assurance which I have just read and, furthermore, the principles of the Act must and can be maintained in conditions of less rigid control. The details of their practical application may vary for different commodities, but Her Majesty's Government propose to work out, in consultation with the farmers' unions of the United Kingdom, appropriate methods for dealing with each commodity, with the aim of reaching ultimate agreement.
348
Here I come to what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, was saying. In suitable cases, as the Minister said, the Marketing Acts of 1931 and 1949 may provide effective means for operating these guarantees. The noble Lord, Lord Wise, also asked what we propose. As I have said, we have already had a preliminary exchange of views with the farmers' representatives. It would therefore be quite improper for me to say more than I have done. It would be just as pointless to enter these discussions with no proposals as to enter them with cut and dried plans which could only he accepted or rejected as a whole. The Government believe that decontrol can be carried through in a smooth and orderly fashion, and we are consulting with all the interests involved. We believe that there is a growing acceptance of the need for, and the timeliness of, this decision to restore a large measure of freedom both to farmers and traders. It is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to establish greater freedom for agriculture. We believe that with freedom comes greater efficiency and a quicker response to the needs of the consumer. The consumer will make his wishes known through a free market, although most certainly the producers will be given the necessary measure of stability through the price and market guarantees of the Agriculture Act, 1947. I believe that this derationing and decontrol of feeding-stuffs and cereals is timely and that it is a step in the right direction, and one which will be widely welcomed by the farmers of this country.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Before the noble Lord finally sits down, I should like to ask him this. He said that all the interests will be consulted, and that the Agricultural Marketing Acts may be used. As Parliament is the representative of the interests of the consumers, I take it that Parliament will be consulted before the Government commit themselves to the National Farmers' Union, or any other producers' organisation.
LORD CARRINGTON: I think the noble Lord had better see what happens. We have only just started on these negotiations, and I think that question might wait a little longer.
5.45 p.m.
LORD WISE: My Lords, I feel that we can rightly thank the noble Lord, Lord

349
Carrington, for the full statement that he has made. The object of the Motion was to obtain from the Government further information as to the position which was likely to arise as a result of the White Paper, and I believe that the discussion has produced what we desired. I am sure the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, will be read with great interest throughout the whole of the agricultural community, and that they will appreciate the fact that we have been able to obtain from the Government a fuller statement than that made in the other place. The noble Lord is full of optimism. I sincerely hope that he will be proved right. I do indeed thank him for the fact that he did not suggest there were any suspicious minds on these Benches; I thought that was very good of him. I can assure him that, just as the Government want the industry to expand more and more, so also do we on this side of the House. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

GREAT OUSE RIVER BOARD (REVIVAL OF POWERS, &c.) BILL [H.L.]
NEWBURY CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
RUNCORN-WIDNES BRIDGE BILL [H.L.]
WARKWORTH HARBOUR BILL [H.L.]
Committed.
BERKSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
CHESHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
DUDLEY EXTENSION BILL [H.L.]
GATESHEAD EXTENSION BILL [H.L.]
HUDDERSFIELD CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Committed: the Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.