Skip to main content

Commons Chamber

Volume 424: debated on Tuesday 18 June 1946

House of Commons

Tuesday, June 18, 1946

The Houseafter the Adjournment on 7th June, 1946, for the Whitsuntide Recessmet at Half past Two o'clock.

Prayers

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair ]

Private Business

High Wycombe Corporation Bill

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

MID AND SOUTH EAST CHESHIRE WATER BOARD BILL [Lords]

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Dundee Corporation Order Confirmation Bill

Read the Third time, and passed.

Glasgow Corporation Order Confirmation Bill

Read the Third time, and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions

Fuel and Power

Taxiplanes and Taxicabs (Petrol)

asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what allocation of petrol is granted monthly for a taxiaeroplane and what allocation for a taxicab.

The allowance of civil aviation fuel for charter or taxiflights is limited to the amount required to provide a maximum of 60 flying hours for each aircraft per month. Consumption varies considerably according to the type and size of machine. The petrol allowance for provincial taxicabs varies between 66 gallons and 106 gallons per month according to the horse power of the vehicle, and a monthly allowance for a metropolitan taxicab is 120 gallons. The approximate monthly issue of aviation fuel for May for charter aircraft was 61,000 gallons compared with the monthly allowance for taxicabs of nearly 1,800,000 gallons.

Will the Minister tell me whether it is a fact that the allocation of petrol for taxiplanes is considerably more than for taxicabs? As a result of the fact that taxicab interests at the present time cannot absorb all the men coming out of the Forces because of the lack of petrol, will the Minister either cut down the amount of petrol allocated to planes or increase the taxicab petrol allowance to make it more equitable?

As my hon. and gallant Friend will see, the allowance for taxiflights is very much less than the allowance for taxicabs, but I must point out that it is very desirable that we should encourage the development of taxiflights.

Will the Minister bear in mind the immediate needs of taxicabs serving widespread country areas where holiday visitors have to be taken to and from farms and hotels in remote places?

I am aware of the needs of the areas to which the hon Member refers, and if such cases are brought to my attention, I will do all I possibly can to help.

Petrol Coupons

asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he will now make an announcement regarding L petrol coupons.

As I stated in reply to a Question on 2nd April by my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Robens), both the "L" unit coupons and the "N" unit coupons would, until further notice, be valid for the supply of motor spirit on the basis of one unit equals one gallon. No change is contemplated at present in this arrangement.

Having regard to the fact that the Minister told us some time ago that supplies had to be considered in relation to the requirements of the Empire as a whole, can he tell us how our basic ration in this country at the moment compares with the basic ration in other parts of the Empire?

I shall be very willing to comply with the hon. Member's request if he puts a Question on the Order Paper.

Petrol Imports

asked the Minister of Fuel and Power how many tankers loaded with petrol for Great Britain were in harbour or on the high seas during the month of May.

There were 28 tankers loaded with full cargoes of petrol for Great Britain, and 14 tankers with part cargoes, in harbour or on the high seas during the month of May.

As it is estimated that one tanker holds enough petrol to run a 12-horse-power car for 80,000,000 miles, and in view of what the right hon. Gentleman has told us, is it not time that he revised his decision to increase the present miserable ration of petrol?

No, Sir, I was justifying my appeal to the Minister to increase the present miserable ration of petrol by giving him the reasons.

The hon. and gallant Member's arithmetic may be unimpeachable, but, like "the flowers that bloom in the spring," it has "nothing to do with the case."

asked the Minister of Fuel and Power how many tons of petrol were imported into Great Britain during the first three months of 1945 and 1946, respectively; and how many tons of these quantities came from the dollar and sterling areas, respectively.

The tonnage of motor spirit imported into the United Kingdom during the first three months of 1946, according to the Trade and Navigation Accounts, was 1,489,000 tons. The corresponding figure for the first three months of 1945 was 1,493,000 tons. During the first three months of 1946 approximately 40 per cent. of these supplies were purchased with dollar exchange. A comparison with the first three months of 1945 would be misleading, owing to the existence of Lend-Lease and other wartime shipping arrangements.

In view of that very full reply, how can the Minister justify the statement made by his late Parliamentary Secretary in this House only a short time ago to the effect that dollars were the chief reason why we should not have an increased petrol ration, and he himself has now stated that 60 per cent. of our petrol comes from a non-dollar area?

But obviously it would occur to the hon. and gallant Member that there must be other reasons.

But, Mr. Speaker, the late Parliamentary Secretary gave this one reason.

As the hon. and gallant Member has pointed out, that was given as one of the reasons.

As one of the reasons. I give it as one of the reasons; it is not the only reason.

Petrol Rationing (Staff)

asked the Minister of Fuel and Power how many permanent civil servants are employed in the administration of petrol rationing.

Would the Minister say how long he expects to have to continue to employ these officials on this entirely non-productive job?

Is it not a fact that, although there may be only 29 permanent civil servants, there are hundreds, even thousands, of temporary civil servants?

The hon. Member is quite right, and as soon as I can dispense with their services, the sooner I shall be happy.

Coal Industry

Polish Mineworkers

asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what progress has been made in the negotiations with the National Union of Mineworkers for the employment in the mines of Polish ex-Servicemen.

Discussions with the National Union of Mineworkers on this and other matters are still in progress.

Would the Minister consider manning the whole of one mine with Polish miners if enough are available?

Would it not be very much better to send Polish miners back to Poland to get coal?

Knowes Colliery, Fauldhouse (Displaced Workers)

asked the Minister of Fuel and Power how many of the men affected by the closing of Knowes Colliery, Fauldhouse, have been re-employed in collieries within reach of their homes; how many remain unemployed; and what are the prospects of employment in the district for those still available for work.

Of the 331 men affected by closure 218 have been placed in other employment, of whom 199 were placed in collieries within reach of their homes. Of the 113 who remain unemployed about a quarter of them are likely to be placed in coalmining employment in the near future. The bulk of the remainder are unfit for other than light work in coalmines which is not available.

In view of the effect on the district, and if it was the Minister's intention to teach a lesson by the closing of this pit, can we take it that the lesson should now have been learned and that there is some prospect of the pit being reopened in the near future?

Far from the lesson having been learned, I have had to take action in connection with other collieries, but it does not seem to me likely that this colliery will be opened soon.

I would like to ask my right hon. Friend whether the production of coal is not still a predominant issue, and whether it should be sacrificed to a policy of cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.

The hon. Member is misinformed about the effect on total output. In fact, the placing of these men in other pits has led to an increase of 300 tons per week.

Employment

Trade Disputes

asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the fact that during April 160,000 working days were lost through trade disputes, he will, by broadcast and in the Press, appeal to the nation to put their duty before their rights and refrain from stoppages until the food crisis is over.

Whilst all stoppages of work owing to trade disputes are to be deprecated, the situation disclosed by the latest official returns does not call for special action. On the contrary it is, in my view, a matter for satisfaction that organised industry, through the employers' associations and the trade unions, have been so successful in settling by agreement so many large and important industrial issues that were bound to arise in the immediate postwar period.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take the opportunity, over the wireless and through the Press, to warn the nation against the mortal danger of Communist activity through shop stewards? Has he noticed in the evening paper today that there is a further strike of food distributors at Smithfield?

Perhaps it would be wise if I were to warn the nation against the mistakes which the hon. Member makes in his questions.

Can my right hon. Friend say how the figures which he has just communicated to the House compare with the corresponding figures in the unrestricted private enterprise of capitalist U.S.A.?

I think it would be unwise to make any comparison between ourselves and another nation—

—but I can say this, that in no other country in the world are the relations so good and effective as in ours.

Trade Union Membership

10 and 11.

asked the Minister of Labour (1), whether he is aware that in an industry scheduled under the Essential Work Order, particulars of which have been sent to him, members of a particular trade union were refused, by the employing body, permission to start work on the ground that members of another union would not work with them; and if the members of the former union have the right to appeal to the appropriate tribunal;

(2) whether the permission of the National Service officer was obtained before the employing body, of which he has been informed, in an industry covered by the Essential Work Order, refused to allow men to start work on the ground that they are not members of a particular union.

I am aware of the situation to which the hon. Member refers. I am informed that the men in question have not been discharged but are continuing on pay. In these circumstances no question at present arises under the Essential Work Orders.

Is it not highly ridiculous that men should be refused permission to start work but should be given pay for being idle because one union claims to exercise a virtual monopoly of membership? Is the right hon. Gentleman, as Minister of Labour, satisfied with that situation, which may spread throughout the whole of the London traffic organisation?

As to the first part of the question, I am not responsible for the payment. As to the second part of the question, one of the finest ways to create mischief and disturbance in the industries of this country is to sponsor break-away organisations.

Are we to understand from that reply, Mr. Speaker, that totalitarianism is now to be the rule for trade unionism in this country? If so, the decent trade unionists will have something to say about it.

I am not quite sure about the reference to totalitarianism, but I do know that trade unionists will have something to say about it if people with no interest in an industry barge in and interfere.

Training Centres (Travelling Facilities)

asked the Minister of Labour if he is now in a position to announce any change in travelling facilities for persons undergoing training in Government training centres.

Yes, Sir. It has been decided that persons in training at Government training centres shall be allowed one free travel warrant during a six months' course to enable them to travel home for a holiday at any time when they are entitled to holiday leave.

Wool Industry Operatives

asked the Minister of Labour the number of operatives in the wool sorting, top making and wool spinning industries in April, 1935, and April, 1946, respectively.

As indicated in the reply to a similar Question by the hon. Member on 4th June, this information is not available.

Is the Minister aware of the very large drop in numbers which has taken place in this industry recently owing to the relaxing of the Essential Work Order, and how grave the effect of that is on the clothing industry?

I can only restrict myself at the moment to question and answer. This industry does not split up into figures in the way in which the cotton industry does. Therefore, I could not give the figures, as I am not aware of them.

Is the Minister aware of the great shortage of yarn in the clothing and woollen industries and that if yarn is not forthcoming, there will be unemployment in the autumn? Cannot he speed it up?

That does not come within the Ministry of Labour, but I can assure the hon. Member that attention has been directed to the matter. I understand that the Board of Trade will deal with it as quickly as they can.

Demobilisation

Students

asked the Minister of Labour whether in view of the recently announced release of students from the Services, he will arrange that those students in Groups 48 and 49 shall be released in time to commence their college term, thus avoiding a waiting period of nine months.

Under the scheme I announced in the House on 30th April, it is open to universities to apply for the release from the Forces in Class B of scholars and highly promising students in age and service groups 1 to 55. Arrangements have been made to enable those students who are released under this scheme to be made available as far as possible shortly before the beginning of the academic year. University students who are not eligible for release in Class B under the scheme will, of course, have to await their normal turn for release in Class A.

The Minister makes reference to releases and for applications for entry into the universities shortly before the beginning of the academic year. Is he aware that in Edinburgh University, for example, applications have to be made by the middle of this month for entry at the beginning of the term in October? Has he taken that into account?

I shall be glad if my hon. Friend will communicate with me. We are anxious to see that the scheme works.

Could not the Minister consider some relaxation for releases under Class A, say, in October of one year? It is extremely hard on them to have to wait until the next October.

Whilst we realise that it may be hard on them, if we start monkeying about with the scheme, even at this late hour, it would lead to much dissatisfaction elsewhere.

Agricultural Workers

asked the Minister of Labour how many men were released under Class B for agriculture in April and May, respectively.

The number of men released under the Class B block release scheme for agriculture during April was 5,552, and during May, 2,876.

Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that the terms of the offer of block release for agricultural workers have been brought to the notice of units in all three Services, because it appears that until quite recently many units had not received the offer?

I have no authority to give a definite answer, but assuming that on these figures we aimed at a target of 18,000 and got 18,338, it does seem pretty generally known.

National Service

Students

asked the Minister of Labour whether he will defer the call-up of young men now gaining practical experience on farms whilst awaiting entry to agricultural colleges and thus enable them to complete their normal college course.

Such young men are already deferred under existing arrangements. As to their admission to agricultural colleges, the same priorities will be observed as for entrance to universities.

Deferment

asked the Minister of Labour how many medically fit young men, reaching the age of 18 during the last six months, have been reserved and deferred, respectively, because of employment otherwise than in the Merchant Navy, railways, agriculture, mining, building, or as apprentices and students; and because of what employment.

In the last six months it is estimated that out of the fit young men attaining 18 years of age the numbers reserved or deferred otherwise than on account of the employments mentioned by the hon. Member, were as follows: Metal manufacture, engineering, vehicles and miscellaneous metal goods, 2,800; shipbuilding, 1,400; food industries, 500; gas, water and electricity, 200; other industries, 1,100; total, 6,000. These cases will be subject to further review and a considerable number of the young men concerned will be called up.

May I ask the Minister whether the reservation or deferment for any other employment is contemplated?

Is not this deferment partly the reason why officers and men are not being released under the Bevin scheme, because there are not sufficient men being brought into the Forces?

That is the position we get into. When we give deferments we are told that this results in not getting enough people out. But these deferments are all subject to review and 4,000 of them will be reviewed for calling up at six months or shorter periods.

Cadets

asked the Minister of Labour whether he will take steps to enable efficient service with the Sea Cadets, the Army Cadet Force and the A.T.C. to count towards the proposed period of two years' compulsory service with the Forces.

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. and gallant Member for Eastern Dorset (Colonel Wheatley) on 5th June, a copy of which I am sending him.

Scotland

Brick Shortage, Angus

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that the housing programme in Angus is being held up through the insufficient supply of bricks; and whether he will increase the supply from 2,000 to 10,000 per week.

On the special measures which the Government is taking to expand brick production, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply which I gave on 28th May to the hon. Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Willis). I am aware of the position in Angus, but, while I regret that I cannot make any definite promise of an immediate increase in deliveries of the order suggested, I hope that the special measures to which I have referred will make it easier for contractors for the county council to obtain supplies. Everything possible is being done to enable local authorities, including the County Council of Angus, to make better progress with the houses for which they have contracted, and I hope to be in a position shortly to announce further steps to improve the position.

May I ask the hon: Gentleman how he reconciles what he has said with the statement made by the Minister of Health on 24th May last, to the effect that there was no shortage of bricks?

I am dealing with the position in Scotland. We have had 20 million bricks imported from England to help the Scottish situation. Roughly speaking, about 1,000,000 will go to Dundee. We hope that the Dundee intake will relieve, to some extent, the anxiety in Angus.

May I ask the Minister why all these English bricks should go to Scotland?

The answer is a simple one. The hon. Gentleman has been a colleague of mine for a long time. The English are a simple, kindly, generous people.

Girvan Harbour

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has considered representations from the Royal National Lifeboat Institution about the condition of Girvan Harbour; and if he will make arrangements to ensure that the lifeboat stationed there will be able to leave the harbour with a minimum of delay.

I have received a letter from the Royal National Lifeboat Institution supporting an application by Girvan town council for the use of a dredger at the harbour. The application is being considered in relation to the existing commitments of my Department's dredgers and the needs of other harbours and I shall certainly keep in mind the views expressed by the Institution.

Will the Minister tell us whether it is possible, owing to the great demand for dredgers, to get into touch with the Admiralty and obtain their assistance at the earliest opportunity?

That suggestion was made to me in a letter from the town council. I am making inquiries of the Admiralty to see whether it is possible to get the use of one of their dredgers.

Fish Landings, Aberdeen

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of the total tonnage of fish in April, 1946, at Aberdeen fish market was landed from British vessels and foreign vessels, respectively.

Of the total quantity of fish landed at Aberdeen in April last, 57 per cent. was brought in by British fishing vessels, 37 per cent. by foreign fishing vessels, and 6 per cent. by foreign carriers.

Can the Minister give an indication of what the general policy is to be regarding the landing of fish by foreign vessels?

Tractor Wheel Rims

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware of the shortage of spare tractor Wheel rims which enable spudded iron wheels to be converted for use with rubber tyres; and what steps he proposes to take to rectify this shortage.

I am aware that owing to the increased number of tractor tyres now available the supply of steel rims and centres for the conversion of tractor wheels is insufficient to meet the demand. Substantially increased quantities of materials specially earmarked for tractor wheel production have been issued to tractor wheel manufacturers but it has not so far been possible to arrange sufficient foundry labour to increase output proportionally. The hon. and gallant Member may rest assured that everything possible will be done to improve the supply of these tractor wheels.

Can the Minister give any indication as to when these supplies will be available?

I cannot. As I have already indicated, there is a shortage of labour, but we are doing everything possible to meet what we realise is an urgent need.

British Army

R.A.S.C., Egypt and Middle East

asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that R.A.S.C. personnel, including officers whose release has been deferred on grounds of military necessity, are engaged, in supervising the construction of a golf course at Fayid in the Suez Canal zone, an operation expected to last some two years; and if, in view of the impending withdrawal of British Forces from Egypt, he will stop this misemployment.

I have called for a report from the Command concerned and will write my hon. Friend when the information has been received.

asked the Secretary of State for War if he has considered the summary of R.A.S.C. establishments in B.T.E. Command, M.E.F., submitted to him by the hon. Member for Maldon; and if he will order a special investigation of the present functions of these establishments with a view to their reduction, so that the present period of deferment of release of R.A.S.C. officers may be shortened.

The establishments in question, in common with other headquarter establishments in Egypt, have been under continual review during the past year, both by the Commander-in-Chief, Middle East, and by the War Office. Considerable reductions have already been made and all possible economies are being effected, as circumstances permit. The November, 1945, reorganisation, to which my hon. Friend referred, resulted in a reduction in the number of headquarters and officers—not an increase. Further, one supply unit has been abolished since last November and two others will be abolished this month. I can assure my hon. Friend that the check on establishments receives constant and careful attention.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that of 215 R.A.S.C. officers deferred throughout the whole world, over 200 are in Middle East Command alone? Can he not even up the distribution a little?

Demobilisation

asked the Secretary of State for War why he refuses to inquire into a delayed Class B release, of which particulars have been sent to him, when this release was authorised by his Department in October, 1945, and the soldier concerned, a bricklayer now serving in the Middle East, has not received the offer.

Owing to a mistake about this soldier's location which led to a delay which I very much regret, the original offer of release did not reach him. As the mistake had only recently been corrected, by sending the authority to the Middle East, it was thought to be premature to make further inquiries at the time. A hastener has now been sent to the Middle East.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the Parliamentary Private Secretary to his hon. Friend the Financial Secretary replied to me that in this sort of case he did not think it worth while making inquiries, and will he give the House an assurance that when Members ask for inquiries to be made they will be made, and that that sort of answer will not be given again?

Yes, Sir. In this particular case there was a mistake in the records, the inquiry being sent to the wrong part of the world. That was during last autumn, and I think that the House understands what the pressure on the various record offices was at that time.

asked the Secretary of State for War how many reinforcements of British troops have arrived in Greece since men in Group 25 left for release; and how many men in Groups 26 and over have left Greece for release.

I regret that the reply to neither part of my hon. Friend's Question could readily be given. Greece is not an independent theatre, and is not normally fed with reinforcements direct from the United Kingdom; records are only kept of the age and service groups coming from a theatre as a whole.

asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that the civilian employers of Major W. J. Jackson, No. 343838, R.A.O.C, 223 B.O.D., S.E.A.C, have notified him that his Class B release was approved by his Department last February; and if he will investigate the delay in the release of this officer and of other officers and other ranks whose Class B release offers have been, or should have been, transmitted to them through H.Q., A.L.F.S.E.A.

The authority for release was sent, in this particular case, to India, where the officer was recorded as serving. Delay occurred in its transmission to A.L.F.S.E.A. There has been a progressive reduction in the number of release cases outstanding with A.L.F.S.E.A.

India is a very great difficulty, not only to myself, but to other Departments. I have done my best in the matter, like other Ministers, and I am sorry I cannot say more.

Release Deferment

asked the Secretary of State for War how many officers or men who have already voluntarily deferred their release are being compulsorily required further to serve after the proper determination of this extended period of service; and whether he will give particulars, including the numbers affected and the maximum period of further deferment.

Individuals who have voluntarily deferred their release for any of the approved periods are not liable for compulsory retention beyond the date when their voluntary deferment expires, unless they are required to stand trial or attend a court-martial as essential witnesses. In that event they can be kept back for the minimum essential period, under Paragraph 320, Release Regulations. There are not likely to be many such cases.

asked the Secretary of State for War the number of officers in each release Group from 27 to 34 serving in M.E.F. whose release has been deferred or who have been warned for deferment; and the percentage which these figures represents of the total number of officers in each of these release groups serving in M.E.F. or who were serving there prior to release.

As the answer consists almost entirely of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Could the right hon. Gentleman in that answer deny that all infantry officers in Groups 30 to 34 in the Middle East have had their release deferred, and does he regard that as being in accordance with the pledges given by his predecessor?

I could not say without investigation. One thing is certain. As I told the House before, I am not satisfied with the position in the Middle East, but I am taking steps about it with the Command.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say what those steps are?

Following is the answer:

The deferments in Groups 27 and 28 are as reported at 31st May: the deferments in Groups 29 onwards are as reported at 15th May. Application has been made for the later figures in Groups 29 onwards: I will write to the hon. Member when these are received.

B.A.O.R. (Wives and Families)

asked the Secretary of State for War what progress he has now to report in the arrangements to accommodate in Germany the wives and families of officers and men serving in the B.A.O.R.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is yet able to announce the arrangements for wives of Servicemen to join their husbands in B.A.O.R.

asked the Secretary of State for War if he is now in a position to say when wives of officers and other ranks serving in B.A.O.R. will be able to join their husbands.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will make a further statement on arrangements for Servicemen in B.A.O.R. to be joined by their families.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will now make an announcement regarding the scheme for wives of Service personnel in Germany to join their husbands.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether the plan for sending to Germany wives and children of Servicemen in Germany has now been approved by His Majesty's Government; and on what date the plan will be put into operation.

asked the Secretary of State for War what are the latest developments in sending wives of B.A.O.R. personnel to join their husbands; and if he will cause information of the position to be published in B.A.O.R. Orders.

Leave

asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that officers and other ranks of the B.A.O.R., returning to the United Kingdom for 12 days' leave, frequently lose one day's leave owing to the docking times of boats at Hull; and if he will make provision to ensure that the commencement of leave in all cases is dated from the actual time of disembarkation in the United Kingdom.

The period of leave allowed is 12 days, including the day of disembarkation and the day of reporting back. The intention is that all men should have 10 nights at home. Arrangements at Hull are made accordingly, and I am not aware of any instance where a day's leave has been lost owing to the docking times of boats at that port.

asked the Secretary of State for War how many regular officers now serving in Greece have had Python, or end of war, leave since 1st April.

No officers who have had leave under Python should now be serving in Greece, unless they have volunteered for service in that country. I have no record of the numbers who have volunteered. Figures relating to end of war leave are not readily available: I have called for particulars and will write to my hon. Friend.

S.E.A.C. (Mail)

asked the Secretary of State for War what is the average length of time taken by the Forces' mail from S.E.A.C. to this country during the last two months; and what steps are being taken to accelerate delivery.

The average transit time for air mail from the Base Army Post Office at Singapore to London was 6.5 days during April and 5.4 days in May. The improvement during May was due to the introduction of a through air service. The quality of the postal service is constantly under notice, but little improvement on the present performance is practicable. The length of time taken for the mails to reach the Base Post Office must of course depend on the location of the unit and its accessibility

Territorial Army

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is yet able to make a statement about the future of the Territorial Army.

asked the Secretary of State for War if he has any announcement to make about the future of the Territorial Army.

asked the Secretary of State for War now that plans for compulsory military service have been published, if he will state the future plans for the Territorial Army.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has now any statement to make on the future of the Territorial Army.

I repeat "active consideration," but I regret that I am not yet in a position to make a statement I fully understand and sympathise with the desire for an early announcement and I hope, before Very long, to be able to give some general indication of our plans.

Does the Minister realise that every day that passes without some definite pronouncement being made, will make the task of re-forming the Territorial Army much harder, if and when that is decided upon?

Yes, Sir, and because I realise that I have been giving considerable attention to this question. The House will remember that I was very clear and definite upon this subject when I spoke on the Army Estimates. I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that the matter is receiving my attention.

Surely, the right hon. Gentleman can give us some date when he expects to be able to make a statement on this important matter?

I cannot give a date, but I will give a promise that I shall be able to make a statement on the matter shortly.

asked the Secretary of State for War if he has any statement to make about the future of the Territorial Association.

As I stated in the Debate on the Army Estimates, it is intended to make full use of Territorial Army Associations in the future. Their functions, organisation, composition, etc., are at present under active examination.

Marriage (Foreign Women)

asked the Secretary of State for War whether His Majesty's Government have now decided to remove the restrictions on a British serving man's freedom to choose his own bride, whatsoever her nationality; whether the forthcoming marriage of Colonel J. M. D. Wood with an Austrian lady, who has arrived in this country for that purpose, is a consequence of such a decision; or on what principle is marriage permitted to this officer and refused to his fellow officers and other ranks.

I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to a number of hon. Members on 4th June and the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department to my hon. Friend the Member for Bilston (Mr. Nally) on 6th June.

Seeing that the reply to which my right hon. Friend refers explains that the reason for Colonel Wood's marriage was that he was exempted from the ban solely because he had returned to this country, and was no longer in the Occupation Forces, can we understand from that clearly that the same applies to any officer or man once he has returned home? If that is so, what will be the facilities available for a man's fiancée to join him?

As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary pointed out, it applies to officers, other ranks or civilians as far as bringing a woman to this country to be married is concerned.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say what is the ultimate principle determining this rule? Is it in the interests of the Service, to prevent people from becoming British citizens, or in the interests of the man, and who is the ultimate authority who decides whether a particular marriage is suitable? Can a man go to his brigadier, and ultimately to the right hon. Gentleman himself?

No, Sir. As I told the House previously, I am making inquiries concerning certain aspects as they applied to Colonel Wood. On the general question, the Home Secretary was very clear that when a British subject resident in this country wishes to marry a foreign woman, it has been the settled practice not to refuse her admission to the United Kingdom.

On a point of Order. Might I ask my right hon. Friend to answer the first part of my Question?

I have now called the next Question. We spent a lot of time on the previous one.

Requisitioned Property, Malaya

asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that reconstruction in Malaya is impeded because houses belonging to the European business community are still under military requisition; and whether he will overcome this difficulty by the erection of permanent military camps.

I can assure my hon. Friend that all concerned are fully alive to the need for the return of requisitioned properties in Malaya to their normal use as speedily as possible. The construction of War Department camps is already in hand, the completion of which will enable further requisitioned properties to be relinquished. But it would be uneconomical to build camps to house the whole of the existing garrison for the comparatively short period while it is being reduced to its normal post-war strength.

asked the Secretary of State for War how many private houses and office buildings are still held under requisition in Singapore and Kuala Lumpur, respectively, and how these numbers compare with 1st February, 1946.

On 30th April, the three Services and affiliated organisations held under requisition 65 offices and 1,343 private houses in Singapore, and 100 offices and 1,753 private houses in Malaya. The figures for Kuala Lumpur are included in the Malaya total. The corresponding totals on 1st February were reported at the time as 38 offices and 1,627 private houses in Singapore, and 74 offices and 1,462 private houses in Malaya. But it is now understood that those returns were incomplete, owing to a number of occupations which had occurred under operational conditions without being recorded. They do not, therefore, provide a reliable comparison. During the early part of this year, combined accommodation boards were set up in Singapore, Malaya and Hong Kong, with the object of preserving a fair balance between Services and civilian requirements. These boards report periodically to London, and, at the present time, the whole question of the Services' requirements in those areas is receiving the most active consideration.

Re-enlistment (References)

asked the Secretary of State for War why it is necessary for those desirous of re-enlisting with the Forces to submit a reference from a responsible tradesman, householder or shopkeeper, as in the case, particulars of which have been sent to him by the hon. Member for Ladywood.

A civilian reference is not usually required on re-enlistment, except where the man has been away from the Army for a considerable time. I have only just received the particulars referred to by my hon. Friend; I am having inquiries made and will let him know the result.

M.E.F. Canteens (Writing Pads)

asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware of the shortage of writing pads in M.E.F. canteens; and what steps he intends to take to remedy this defect.

I am not aware of any shortage of writing paper in the Middle East. During the past three months, 468,000 pads and 14,000,000 envelopes were shipped to that theatre. A report in April indicated that adequate supplies were available. If my hon. Friend will give details of any complaint which he may have received, I will call for investigations to be made.

Regular Officers (Retirement)

asked the Secretary of State for War when Regular officers are to be allowed to retire from active service.

Retirement is already allowed, but, because of the acute shortage of officers, it is restricted to certain types of cases. Permission is given at present only to those who have passed the age limit for reserve liability, to those for whom no further employment can be found suitable to their rank, and those in a low medical category. Other officers may apply to retire on compassionate or other grounds, and retirement is generally permitted if the grounds are such as would justify indefinite Class C release. The whole matter is kept constantly under review, and the restrictions will be waived as soon as the situation allows.

Has the right hon. Gentleman made inquiries regarding the number of those officers who wish to continue to serve and those who wish to retire?

I have no idea of the numbers, but I think that the statement, as I have made it, gives due allowance for difficulties and compassionate circumstances in respect of individual officers.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he did promise to look into this matter some months ago?

Recruiting Campaign

asked the Secretary of State for War what are the arrangements for the advance publicity of visits of Army recruiting demonstration columns; and why the Blackheath demonstration on 6th June was a failure.

When the column is to be on show for more than two days, large posters are displayed in advance, over a raidus of 10 miles, and a loud speaker van carries out advance publicity. On the day before the arrival of the column, a military band gives performances in the town. Larger banners for public display, and slides for use in local cinemas, have also been prepared to assist in advertising its arrival. It was not originally intended to give a display at Blackheath on 6th June. The column was held up there because of the London traffic restrictions during Victory week, and it was decided to show it, although it was realised that a normal attendance could not be expected. It is the only instance of poor attendance so far recorded. The prearranged display at Blackheath on Whit-Monday was quite successful.

May I ask my right hon. Friend if he is aware that, since I put my Question down, there has been a whole spate of attendant publicity, and that I am very grateful for it?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, on that particular day, there was a display give by P.T. instructors and other units in the demonstration column, that there was no audience at all and that no publicity had been given? Furthermore, is the Minister aware that the Blackheath day had been scheduled long before there could be any question of congestion in connection with the celebrations?

I am sorry that this particular incident has occurred, as we certainly wish this recruiting campaign to go with a swing, as it has done up to the present time. In this particular instance, it was purely accidental that there was no publicity, but I think my hon. Friend who saw the display will agree that it was well worth a good crowd.

Surveyors (Training)

asked the Secretary of State for War how many surveyors have been trained at the School of Survey since 1st January; and if he will cause surveyors to be sent to the Third Survey Regiment to make unnecessary the proposed deferment of surveyors, instead of to the First Observation Regiment now being formed.

Thirty R.A. and Battery Surveyors have been trained at the School of Survey since 1st January. The priority of posting at present given to the 1st Observation Regiment is in connection with reorganisation. The bulk deferment of surveyors is not contemplated, and I am not aware that any survey officers of the Third Survey Regiment have so far been individually deferred.

May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will make further inquiries, as, according to my information, the great majority have been deferred? Can he also say whether he is satisfied with the numbers trained since 1st January?

I cannot say that I am satisfied with the numbers trained, but, so far as the answer I have given is concerned, I have given the information which was supplied, and I have made very close investigations and should be surprised if there was any flaw in it.

Surplus Motor Transport, Singapore

asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware of the pools of surplus army motor transport which is deteriorating in Singapore; and why this has not been released for urgent civilian needs.

It is not yet known whether these vehicles will be required for the future maintenance of the Army. The War Office is now calculating how many vehicles must be retained for this purpose. The calculations should be completed by the end of the month, when any surpluses will be released, both in Singapore and elsewhere.

Is the Minister aware that there are literally hundreds of new vehicles which have never been used at all, rotting, up to their axles in mud, in pools all over the place, and cannot he expedite the matter?

No, Sir. I am not aware of it, and I did not have that information before, but I will certainly make investigations on the strength of what the hon. Member has said.

Is the Minister aware that rubber and other vital materials in the Far East have been continually held up because of lack of transport, which is clearly not needed by the military?

Questions

Palestine (Government's Policy)

asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a further statement on the Government's proposals in relation to Palestine.

I regret I am not in a position to make a further statement on this subject.

When he is making that statement, will my right hon. Friend say what steps he has taken to facilitate the immigration of Jews into Palestine in accordance with the terms of the mandate?

In view of the very grave events in Palestine in the last 24 hours, would not the Prime Minister agree that it is becoming very urgent that the Government should announce their decision and give this House an opportunity to consider it?

My right hon. Friend knows quite well that this matter is one in which we are in close contact with the Government of the United States of America, and I cannot make a statement at the moment.

Does my right hon. Friend realise that of all the parties to this conflict, dispute, or problem, the only ones who have so far not indicated their attitude to the Commission's Report are His Majesty's Government? Will he bear in mind that there really is a limit to human endurance?

I think my hon. Friend will agree that this is a matter of very great importance. It is much better to discuss this matter instead of coming to a hasty conclusion.

Will my right hon. Friend say when a decision is likely to be reached? Will it be a matter of days or weeks, or how long will it be?

On the Prime Minister's last remark about discussion before we come to a conclusion, can he assure the House that there will be full opportunity for Parliamentary discussion before the Government make their unalterable decision?

That is a matter which should be put to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.

French Volunteers (British Nationality)

asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that Frenchmen, who volunteered to fight in the French force raised by General de Gaulle, are being refused British nationality; and what steps he is taking to implement the terms of the agreement of 7th August, 1940, between His Majesty's Government and General De Gaulle, whereby the Government expressed itself as willing to afford special facilities to such volunteers to acquire British nationality.

So far as I know most of the French nationals who served in the force raised by General de Gaulle have been anxious to retain their French nationality, and have no desire to acquire British nationality. If, however, there are some who are anxious to acquire British nationality my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will be glad to have such cases looked into if the hon. and gallant Member will send him particulars.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any arrangement has been come to between His Majesty's Government and the French Government whereby the French Government will recognise these special cases for naturalisation?

War Decorations and Medals

asked the Prime Minister whether he will state the position with regard to the design of the Defence Medal; and when it is proposed to distribute these medals.

The design is under active consideration. Striking of the medal will begin as soon as circumstances permit.

Can the Prime Minister give any indication as to when this activity will produce some results as it has been going on for a very long time?

asked the Prime Minister whether in accordance with traditional practice, it is proposed to issue clasps to the campaign stars of the late war; and by whom the Government is being advised upon this matter.

As may be seen in the White Papers on this subject published in May last year and this month, the award of a number of clasps to the Campaign Stars has already been approved. The designs are under consideration. It is not proposed to recommend the institution of further clasps. The Committee on the grant of Honours, Decorations and Medals advise on these matters.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will recommend that the qualifications required for the War Medal 1939–45 should be amended so as to make members of the Home Guard eligible for the award of this medal.

asked the Prime Minister if he will recommend that the War Medal 1939–1945 should be extended to the Home Guard.

It is not proposed to recommend the extension of the War Medal to part time military service though this was, without doubt, of extraordinary value. The grant of the War Medal to the Home Guard would cause great difficulties in relation to the Civil Defence organisation, which was already in being in September, 1939. Subject to specified conditions, service in both these bodies is recognised by the award of the Defence Medal.

Is not the Prime Minister aware that there is a good deal of feeling among former members of the Home Guard on this matter, and will he give it further consideration?

I am aware of the feeling, but every extension brings other extensions. If everybody is to have a medal, the medal ceases to be of any particular value.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Home Guard had one great difference compared with the Civil Defence Services in that they were armed; and also that the late Secretary of State for War gave a solemn undertaking that there would be a medal specially for the Home Guard, and this was regarded as the one?

I am not aware of any pledge. I do not know which Secretary of State for War gave that pledge. I am, of course, aware of these considerations. The matter is considered with the various claims, and hon. Members must really recognise that there must be a limit in the giving of medals if the whole thing is not to become a complete absurdity.

Does the Prime Minister realise there are many ex-Service men and women returning from service abroad, that they have served a long time overseas away from their families, and that they take a very poor view of the 1939–1945 Star being given to those who have not served overseas?

That just illustrates the difficulty. If we please someone we offend somebody else.

Germany

Public Relations Staff (Newspapers)

asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what newspapers are at present being published by our public relations staff in Germany; what is their circulation; and if he will have specimen copies placed in the Library.

We publish four newspapers in German; "Die Welt," a zonal newspaper with a circulation of 250,000, and three provincial newspapers — "Neuer Hannoverscher Kurier," "Osnabruecker Rundschau," and "Neue Westfalische Zeitung"—with a combined circulation of over 800,000. These are in addition to the 31 newspapers produced under licence by the Germans themselves. There are also two publications in English, "The Fortnightly British Zone Review," and a daily news-sheet, "The Control Commission Gazette." "The British Zone Review" is already placed regularly in the Library. Specimen copies of the other British-produced publications will be made available.

Is the Minister aware that there has been a great deal of criticism concerning the efficiency of the work of our public relations officers and that this will give the opportunity to hon. Members to see whether that criticism is justified or not?

Control Commission (British Wives)

asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether the commissioners in the British zone in Germany are to be allowed to have their wives with them; and how many employees of the Control Commission in the British zone are British women.

I am not yet in a position to make a statement on Control Service families. Some 3,000 British women serve on the civilian staff of the Commission.

Would the Minister say whether it is not a fact that at least one of the Control Commissioners is already to be joined by his wife?

This Question obviously is being coordinated with the Questions which are being dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War. His statement on Thursday certainly will include the Control Commission.

Questions

Austria (Oil Resources)

asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to what extent the mineral oil resources of Niederdonau in Austria in the Russian zone of occupation are being made available to the British zone of occupation.

The oil requirements of the Austrian civilian economy are not assessed in terms of zones of occupation but are determined in total for Austria as a whole by the Austrian Government in conjunction with U.N.R.R.A. The output of the Niederdonau fields is made available to meet these requirements with the exception of certain quantities of motor spirit and fuel oil which are used locally by the Russian authorities or earmarked for export under bilateral trade agreements.

National Finance

Pound Sterling (Purchasing Power)

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, taking the purchasing power of the £ in 1900 as 100, he will state the corresponding figure in 1914 and at the latest available date, respectively; the figure calculated for the whole field of personal expenditure; and separate figures which will include the £335,000,000 cost-of-living subsidy.

The figure for 1st May last is 45 on the cost of living basis. For the rest, I would refer the hon. Member to my replies to him on the 3rd April and to the hon. and gallant Member for South Paddington (Vice-Admiral Taylor) on 30th May.

Is it the policy of the Government to take over all the real wealth of the country—

—and give in exchange pieces of paper, and then allow inflation to run riot and to wipe out—

Cost-of-Living Index (Advisory Committee)

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it is the Government's policy to continue and increase the consumer subsidies at present being made; and whether, in this connection, he will consider a modern method of arriving at the cost-of-living index figure since the existing basis is no longer related to the present conditions of living.

On the first point, I have nothing to add to my Budget speech; on the second, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour proposes to refer the question to an Advisory Committee.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the present cost-of-living index figure is absolutely unrelated to anything at all today, and that it is really impossible to buy as much for £1 today as it was for 10s. before the war and before this Government started muddling about?

Cable and Wireless, Limited (Pensioned Employees)

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the financial position of former employees of Cable and Wireless, Limited, who are now in pensioned retirement; and if he will give an assurance that the existing pensions will be continued when Cable and Wireless, Limited, passes into State ownership.

Questions

German Assets, Switzerland

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how the negotiations are progressing with Switzerland concerning German assets.

Subject to the approval of their Parliament, the Swiss Government have agreed to hand over to the Allies 50 per cent. of the German assets in Switzerland, and to pay the Allies 250 million Swiss francs for the gold looted by the Germans and transferred to Switzerland.

New Member Sworn

John Evans, esquire, for the County of Glamorgan (Ogmore Division).

Orders of the Day

Supply

[11TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee.

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

Civil Estimates, 1946

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That a further sum, not exceeding £60, be granted to His Majesty, towards defraying the charges for the following services relating to Food Production for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1947, namely:

—[ Mr. Glenvil Hall. ]

Food Production

3.34 p.m.

We, on this side of the Committee, thought it well to put down for discussion today the Votes of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries and also those relating to the office of the Secretary of State for Scotland, in so far as the latter is responsible for food production. I ought, perhaps, to have started by welcoming the substitute for a white sheet in which the Minister of Agriculture appears before the Committee. I hope that, when the right hon. Gentleman replies, we shall not hear anything from him in the way of excuses on the ground that the Ministry of Supply did not supply fertilisers, that the Ministry of Labour did not provide labour or the Ministry of Food the necessary feeding stuffs. The housewife of this country looks to the farmer to provide her with food, and the farmer, in present circumstances, looks to the Minister of Agriculture to provide him with the necessary equipment in order to provide that food. The job of the Minister of Agriculture, as we see it—and I do not suppose he would deny it—is to make his colleagues see the situation, and to ensure that they place at his disposal, or at the farmer's disposal through him, the necessary means. Finally, of course, there is the Cabinet responsibility for the action which has been taken during the last ten months, a responsibility which the Minister must share and which I do not suppose he wishes to evade.

I would remind hon. Members opposite that in their Election pamphlet they said that agriculture is not only a job for farmers, but is also the way of feeding the people. I shall have something to say on that later. The farmer is perfectly prepared to do his job of trying to feed the people—the history of the war is proof of that, if proof were needed—but if he is going to accomplish that task he needs, I suggest, three things. First, he needs a definite lead from the responsible Minister; second, he needs adequate supplies; and, third and most important, or, at all events, as important as either of the others, he needs a consistent policy. Let us look for a few moments at the record of this Government over the last ten months as far as policy is concerned. On 15th October, the Minister of Agriculture stated, in answer to a question, that the food shortage applied less to wheat than to other foodstuffs. On 5th December the Minister of Food stated that the ration for pigs and poultry would be increased as from 1st May from one-quarter to one-third of the 1939 supplies. On 10th December the Under-Secretary of State for India made his famous statement that there was no cause for apprehension of famine, whether in Bengal or elsewhere in India. On 10th December the Minister of Food said there was no need for us to raise our extraction rate of flour above 80 per cent. Could anyone, whether farmer or the public, reading those statements last autumn, feel any real sense of urgency?

Now I should like the Committee to listen for a moment to what the Minister of Food said. Speaking in the Debate earlier this year, he claimed that the first thing he did when he assumed office was to make a general survey of the world food situation, and he said—these are the important words—that he found, for the first time, there was a considerable danger of an actual shortage of wheat. That was when he took office. In the White Paper that was issued for the Debate this spring, the Government took credit for having inspired a Press notice in this country on 4th September emphasising that the world supplies of wheat were unlikely to equal the world demand for wheat. Where was the coordination between the Minister of Food and the Minister of Agriculture? If the Minister of Food felt that for the first time there was a serious shortage of wheat and if, on 4th September, he emphasised that the world demands for wheat were likely to be considerably greater than the world supply, how came it that the Minister of Agriculture on 15th October stated that the food shortage applied less to wheat than to other foodstuffs? Who was right—the Minister of Food or the Minister of Agriculture? Clearly, the Minister of Food, and what the Minister of Agriculture should have done, either in September or October, or even, if necessary, as late as November—because we had an open autumn—was to have asked from the farmers, and, if necessary, to have demanded from them, an additional 500,000 acres of wheat. He could have got it. It might have involved him in some extra cost; it would probably have involved him in restoring the £4 per acre payment, but think how the country today would regard that expenditure. Would it not regard this extra 600,000 tons of wheat in the "kitty" this autumn as cheap at the price? Of course, it would.

Now let me give a few more dates to show how the Minister of Agriculture failed in his duty to the British farmer and, therefore, to the British housewife. On his return from America on 25th January the late Minister of Food said that he hoped Britain's rations would remain, "at least, where they are today." Then on 5th February, less than a fortnight later, he came down to this House and said that the flour extraction rate would have to be raised to 85 per cent., with the consequent loss of 300,000 tons of animal feeding stuffs. On 2nd May the extraction rate was raised to 90 per cent., with the consequence of a further additional loss of 300,000 tons of animal feeding stuffs. On 5th February the Minister of Agriculture announced that pig and poultry rations, instead of being increased to one-third of what they were in 1939, as the Minister of Food promised only two months previously, would be cut to one-sixth. On 4th May the death-blow to large numbers of pigs and poultry was announced, when the Minister of Agriculture said that the feeding stuffs would be cut to one-twelfth instead of being raised to one-third. Finally, on 4th June the Minister of Agriculture announced cuts all round affecting not only dairy cows, pigs and poultry but the domestic keepers of pigs and poultry and, incidentally, breaking a pledge that had been given as late as March of this year to the domestic poultry keepers—for whom the right hon. Gentleman had a particular care because he was in charge of the development of the movement during the war years—and their friends who in March were asked to surrender, and did surrender, their shell egg coupons for a whole year—that is to March next year—in return for a promise of balancer meal. Hon. Members may think that the backyard keepers of hens are not very numerous. There are about 1,700,000 of them, but their friends who help to produce the food and share the eggs number not just over 1,500,000, but 6,000,000.

What I suggest is that the history and the dates of the announcements and actions of the Government show, in fact, that no consistent agricultural policy was pursued unless, indeed, it was a policy of steadily cutting down. What I want to know from the right hon. Gentleman is this: Why did he wait until 4th June to announce these cuts? What was he doing between 5th April and 4th June? It must have been obvious to him with the figures at his disposal—they should have been at his disposal, for they were at the disposal of his colleague the Minister of Food—that the situation was getting critical. Indeed, from published figures, knowing nothing about the inside details which he must have had, I myself ventured to predict in the Debate earlier this year that rations would be insufficient to maintain milk supplies. If I, as a member of the public, were able to know that from outside, he must have known it and he should have taken action away back in February. He should have taken the farmers into his confidence. If he had told them in February they might have been able then to take more effective steps than were possible when they were told in June. That is proof, if proof were needed, of what I said some time ago, that the Government are responsible for having done too little and done it too late. They claim to be the great planning Government, the Government who co-ordinate all activities. What a travesty of planning. They are in this position. Hon. Members may pick whichever of these alternatives they prefer. Either they had a good plan originally and it is being very inefficiently carried out, or else they had a very bad plan, or else—which is most likely, and which I believe to be the case—they had no plan at all.

Let us look at the results of the Government's policy. The results are threefold: first, the short term effect on agriculture; second, the long term effect; and third, the effect on the consumer. Let us start with milk. We shall be very glad to hear what the right hon. Gentleman's estimates are. I have been at considerable pains during the last 10 days to inquire from various sources, and the most optimistic forecast that I have been able to find is that there will be a drop of some 60 million gallons in production during the seven winter months. That optimistic production forecast is based on everything going well. It is based on our having a good harvest, and on the farmer, somehow or other, being able to make himself more self-sufficient this year than he has been in the past, and somehow to make good from his own resources a substantial proportion of the cuts. Hon. Members who have been on holiday in various parts of the country will realise that the season has been singularly unpropitious, and instead of prospects of good hay this winter, the probability is that we shall have very little hay, and what we do have will be of very low quality. [An HON. MEMBER: "Blame the Government for that."] If the hon. Gentleman says "Blame the Government for that," the answer is very clear. I am grateful for the interruption. During the war we had a succession of good harvests. Anyone who takes the trouble to look through the meteorological records of the last 20 years will know that we cannot go on hoping for very good harvests every year. Sooner or later we are bound to come across a bad one. A really good planning Government would have planned ahead and would not have gambled upon another good harvest. They would have endeavoured to make sure, whether the harvest was good or bad. My own guess is that there will be a drop of 100 million gallons, because I do not believe that the farmers can make themselves very much more self-supporting. It is true the larger farmers may be able to do something, but we must face the fact that the vast majority of milk producers are small farmers, and many of them are producer-retailers.

Let us take the case of the producer-retailers, who number 55,000. Although he produces only 20 per cent. of the milk, the producer-retailer fulfils a very important function by providing milk in the smaller towns and on the fringes of the larger towns, as well as in the country districts. He has been pushed to the limit during the last five years by the county war agricultural committees. They made him plough up to the limit. Many producer-retailer representatives said during the war that we made them plough up beyond the limit. There is simply nothing more that they can do. They are absolutely dependent for maintaining last year's supply of milk on the maintenance of imported feeding stuffs, and if they are to be cut two results will follow. First, there will be a substantial drop in milk production, and second, they will not be able to make good that drop in their production by buying the surplus milk from the Milk Marketing Board, because ex hypothesi the Milk Marketing Board will have none to spare. Therefore, the position so far as producer-retailers are concerned will, in many cases, be desperate. For the most part they were high cost producers; they kept their heads above water, not by the profits they made from producing milk but by the profits they made from distributing milk. As there will be a very much smaller amount of milk to distribute it follows that their costs will rise, their overheads will have to be spread over a much smaller amount. In addition to that, great numbers of these men were also producers of pigs, poultry and eggs. They are going to have no rations at all for the pigs and poultry.

I do not know whether the Committee realise what the effect of these cuts will be. To take a typical case, of a farm of 100 acres with 500 hens before the war, which is a common case, up till now that man has received rations for 100 hens; under the existing new scales he would receive rations for 62½ hens; then comes in the new acreage reduction, the net result of which is that he will get no rations at all. Ex hypothesi already he cannot make himself more self-supporting; therefore he will have to go out of pigs and poultry altogether. The last condition of the unfortunate producer-retailer will be desperate. Many are already on the margin, and I am afraid that many are going to sink. The same thing is true, to a lesser extent, of the small wholesaler. In his case, as indeed in the case of the producer-retailer—I apologise to the Committee for going into details, but I think it will make the position clearer—the small wholesaler, for the purpose of rations, has to count, not only his cows that are producing milk but also his dry cows. As far as I can make out, unless taking his dry cows and his cows in milk together, the average for the whole lot is at least 1¼ gallons a day, which is setting it fairly high, he will get no rations at all, and he cannot go on.

Let us look at what is to happen to the consumer, and see how the shortage of milk affects him. As far as I can make out from the best advice I can get, the decrease at the beginning of the winter will be small, but the drop will increase throughout the winter, especially as the worst of the winter comes on us, and will attain the peak somewhere in February and March. The result will be, not merely a drop in winter milk, but in the spring the cows will come out in a poorer condition, having drawn on their bodily reserves in order to keep up the milk. The result will be they will take much longer to recover when the grass does come in the spring. We will see not only a drop in milk this winter, but also a substantial drop in the five summer months next year.

What makes this peculiarly tragic is the fact that it should come at this particular moment, when the farmers have been doing their best to carry out the policy which was laid down by the Government during the war, of developing winter milk. It was no easy matter for the farmers in this country to switch over from a policy of spring calving to a policy of autumn calving. The first result, coupled with the sudden drop in feeding stuffs, and the fact that they had to plough and did not get going at first, was that in the winter 1941–42 there was a considerable drop in milk production. From 1942 onwards, as the Committee will see in a moment from the figures I will give, the position steadily improved. The average production in each of the six winter months in 1941–42 was 77 million gallons; 1942–43, 80 million gallons; 1943–44, 88 million gallons; 1944–45, 89 million gallons, and 1945–46, last winter, 96 million gallons. There is every reason to anticipate that if these cuts had not been made the farmers would have succeeded in topping the 100 million gallons mark. It could have gone very close to that this winter, and if they had carried on the process it could have been still more in the winter of 1947, producing enough milk to enable us to dispense with the rationing of milk in the winter. I suggest that would have been a very real achievement on the part of the farmers, and a source of real satisfaction to the housewives. Instead of that the figures are bound to drop.

What will be the effect on the individual? At present the milk is distributed between priority and non-priority customers, each class getting about half the whole production. If we assume the priority rationing is not going to be diminished—and I think we have to assume that, because it provides for nursing mothers, expectant mothers and babies—it means the whole of the drop has to be taken by the non-priority consumers. Three factors enter into the calculation which makes the non-priority consumers' position increasingly bad. In the first place there has been a considerable increase in the birth rate last year and this year. Therefore, for that reason alone, the priority class will be more this year than last. The second point is that the Minister of Education has announced a substantial extension of the milk in schools scheme, to start in August. That means still more priority consumers. The third point is that during the last two winters experience has shown that, as the supplies of non-priority milk go down so does the tendency of doctors to give certificates for priority milk increase. The net result of that will be that the unfortunate non-priority consumers will be hit still further. It is unsafe to prophesy, but personally I shall be very surprised indeed if this winter the non-priority customer gets more than about 1½ pints of milk a week. I do not know to what extent the housewife will like that. Nor indeed do I think, at the risk of being called to Order, that the recent announcement of the Minister of Food, to the effect that he would provide tinned milk, will be regarded by the housewife as carrying out his promise to provide more variety in our diet.

I now turn to eggs. Last year, taking everything together, including the priority and non-priority consumers and the domestic poultry keepers and their friends, I understand that the population of this country had six eggs a month per head. This winter that figure will fall to four, at the best, and probably three eggs per month, spread over the whole population, priority and non-priority together. With regard to bacon, again taking all classes into account, including the pig keepers, the average individual had eight ounces of home-produced bacon per month; this winter that is bound to fall to six ounces, and will probably fall to four ounces a month. That is a pretty grim prospect for the housewife, and will, no doubt, help her to appreciate the advantages and delights of Socialist planning.

The real tragedy about the whole situation is that, relatively speaking, such tiny amounts are involved. What is actually involved? What is it that has brought about and is going to bring about this tragic situation for our agriculture and our consumers? Only 600,000 tons of wheat, and some 300,000 tons or so of high quality imported feeding stuffs. I have shown already that we could have got the 600,000 tons of wheat if we had asked the farmers last autumn to plant the extra acres, and I personally am perfectly certain that the Minister of Agriculture, if he had insisted sufficiently hard, could have secured through Government channels the extra supplies of high-class imported feeding stuffs. It may well be that India refused to carry out her promise of 650,000 tons of ground nuts, but the Argentine was always open. At his Press conference on 4th June the right hon. Gentleman said, or is reported to have said: am told that the real fact of the matter is that the Treasury refused to allow the goods to be bought because the price was too high. It is quite true that prices have gone up; they are double or treble what they were last year, but look what the Treasury have done. They have agreed to buy 70,000 tons of dried milk from the United States. They have to provide dollars for that. The equivalent in fresh milk of 70,000 tons of dried milk is 33 million gallons. The dollars required to buy 70,000 tons of dried milk could, in the Argentine, have bought sufficient maize to provide 66 million gallons of milk in this country. That is very nearly enough to have averted the cut altogether, on the most optimistic assumptions. What folly to buy the tinned article from the United States when they could have imported the raw material for producing the fresh article at home. I cannot absolve the Minister of Agriculture from blame for this. He should have insisted to his colleagues that the necessary supplies should be forthcoming, and he should have insisted to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the necessary finance being provided.

I turn now to the long-term results in agriculture. It will take at least five years to repair the damage that will be done in the next short six months, and all for so little. The Leader of the House, when he came back from Washington, is reported to have said that he was well satisfied with his visit. He may have been, but the farmers and the housewives of this country, when they begin to realise, as they will this winter, some of the results of his visit, will not be satisfied. The question I should like to put to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture is, Did he realise when his right hon. Friend went to Washington what the results of those cuts would in fact be? Did he brief the Leader of the House with a full account of the results of those, cuts for British agriculture? If the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House had really put this story across to the United States, I do not believe he would have come back with the results he did. I do not believe that the United States Government, the United States authorities, the Secretary for Agriculture, or the American farming industry want to see this country's agriculture brought down as it will be this winter. I do not believe they had any idea what would happen, and if they had had such an idea, I am certain that if the right hon. Gentleman had put the case properly some means would have been found for helping us out of this tragic situation. The bitter pill—the farmer feels it to be a bitter pill—is to realise what is happening in other countries. What is happening abroad? The Russians announce that they are bringing bread rationing to an end at the very moment when we are proposing, owing to a shortage of grain, to impose it. It is reported in the Press that the Czechoslovaks are importing day-old chicks by air from the United States at the moment when the British hatcheries are being put out of business because there is no demand for the chicks and those that they have already reared are having to be slaughtered. We hear that in South America farmers and other people are eating better than they ever did before. I want to ask what the Minister of Agriculture himself is doing about it. What is he doing about agriculture in Germany?

Me? It is the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to whom the right hon. Gentleman should put that question.

The right hon. Gentleman is not responsible for that question, which comes under another Ministry.

I rather anticipated that you would raise that objection, Major Milner, but I think you will realise in one moment that it is part of the right hon. Gentleman's job, and I will explain why. It is no use the right hon. Gentleman saying that it is the job of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. He is not a farmer. The first thing that I did after the German war ended, was to send my agricultural adviser out to Germany to make sure that the best possible advice was given to the authorities there to get German agriculture going again. I went there myself. When I came back, I took steps to see that the recommendations of my agricultural adviser were stiffened up. I want to know whether the right hon. Gentleman has followed that up. I understand that in fact a gentleman has been appointed to run the food—

Surely the right hon. Gentleman is carrying on with a story which has no basis in fact? When the right hon. Gentleman was Minister of Agriculture, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster had not been made responsible for the government of our control area in Germany. That is why the right hon. Gentleman was able to roam the world at large, in or out of his proper Department.

When I went to Germany the Chancellor of the Duchy was not responsible, but the Secretary of State for War was, and I felt it my duty, and I suggest to the Committee—

This question cannot possibly be discussed under any of the Votes now before the Committee. We cannot discuss what happened in the right hon. Gentleman's days, when the question might or might not have come under the same Vote.

We will leave Germany then for the moment, and come to other foreign countries, which are definitely within the Vote. I would like to know what steps the Minister of Agriculture is taking to satisfy himself that, when the British farmer, and through him the British housewife, is asked to make heavy sacrifices in feedingstuffs, machinery and so forth—which could more usefully be employed here—for the sake of people abroad, that policy is justified. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that when he and I were together, we appointed an agricultural attaché—paid from Ministry funds, I may point out, Major Milnef—to the United States. We had it in mind to extend that experiment. In particular we wanted to send an agricultural attaché to. Russia, to find out what was being done there and what lessons we could learn in agriculture, in research, in the breeding experiments of animals, wheat, potatoes and so forth. In fact, the Russians refused to allow us to send an agricultural attaché. We then had it in mind to extend this system of agricultural attachés to the Dominions, and, also, to South American and other countries which themselves for long years have had agricultural attachés in London, such as Sweden and Holland, for example. All that is within the province of the Minister of Agriculture and I suggest, quite seriously, that it is the duty of the Minister of Agriculture in this country to satisfy himself through his own servants, through men on whom he can rely for their technical knowledge, that other countries are making as great efforts as we are before we are called on in this country to make sacrifices.

The next question I want to deal with is that of finance. The Minister of Agriculture is responsible for fixing prices for farm produce. A revision is due shortly owing to the increase in wages which is to take place in July. I believe that a further increase in prices will be essential in order to meet the results of these cuts. The small man and the producer-retailer simply will not be able to continue to employ men at these increased wages, if the increase does not clearly cover these increased wages, because he will have much less stuff to sell, less eggs, less poultry, less milk. His overheads will be the same, and he will, therefore, require and, I believe, he is entitled to, a considerable additional increase in the prices he is going to receive. I believe that when the time comes the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to rue the day when the Minister of Agriculture failed to insist on increased wheat last autumn, and failed to insist on steps being taken to avoid these cuts.

Let me say a word about fish. Fish is one great source of high quality protein which could be used, and which a prudent Government would employ to the full, to make good the deficiencies which are otherwise bound to arise in our diet. The story of fish during the last 10 months is again one of muddle. No adequate steps have been taken by the Departments concerned to arrange for satisfactory distribution of the herring catches that could be caught if all the herring fleets fished to the full instead of remaining, as they are, half in port every day. The right hon. Gentleman has at the present moment a strike of fishermen on his hands. Fishermen are complaining that the trouble that they are up against is a drop in the price that they can get for their fish, and that it is due to imports of foreign fish. I do not believe that that is by any means the main reason.

The main reason why the fish that British trawlers are landing in such large quantities today is not fetching a sufficient price—I am told that cod is fetching only 1d. a lb.—[ Interruption ]. The long distance cod brought in by the trawlers from Bear Island is of poor quality compared with the good quality fish landed by the foreign fishermen. Even before the war, the great bulk of this low quality cod was taken up by the fried fish trade; the reason why it is not at present being used by the fried fish trade, but is being used for fertiliser when it is perfectly good food, is because of the cut in fats. The fish friers' fat has been cut to 65 per cent. of prewar. You will see, Major Milner, the ingenuity with which I am trying to keep within the rules of Order since the Minister of Agriculture is directly responsible for fish. When, as we suppose and imagine, a further cut in the housewives' fat ration comes about shortly, that will have a further effect on fish, because the housewife will be able to fry even less fish than she is able to fry today. There will be still more trouble ahead for the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Food, and still smaller supplies of good food. [An HON. MEMBER: "There are other ways of cooking fish."] I am grateful for the interruption. If that is so it is the greatest condemnation of the hon. Member's own Front Bench that there could be. If the hon. Member knows about that, why do not the Government know about it, and why have they not adopted those other methods of making use of this fish?

I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman is again out of Order. The question of fats is one for the Ministry of Food.

I am grateful to you, Major Milner, for allowing me to make the rejoinder.

Let me sum up. I would say that the Government, who have boasted about their plan for industry, their proposals for planning industry, are facing a grave breakdown in their plans—if any existed—for feeding the people. The housewife this winter faces a drop in home-produced shell eggs, home-produced bacon, home-produced milk. The farmer faces substantial losses, not only in money but, what is even more important and more difficult to replace, in the capital of his business, namely, livestock. Many of them, and especially the small ones, are going to find their very livelihood and existence imperilled. The third thing is that the country sees the prospect of a restoration of balanced agriculture in this country postponed for many years. All these things should have been and could have been prevented. The amount required to prevent them, whether in wheat or in feeding stuffs or in money, is pitifully small compared with the damage that their lack is going to involve. A little more foresight at home, a little more energy abroad on the part of the different Departments of the Government, were all that was needed. Indeed, the country as a whole is going to pay heavily for the failure of the Minister of Agriculture to stand up to his colleagues.

Finally, may I say that I have it in my heart to be sorry for the right hon. Gentleman, for I believe that he has the interest of agriculture truly at heart? He helped during five critical years to raise agriculture to the highest peak it has ever attained in our lifetime. It must be galling for him in the extreme to realise, as realise he must, that, due to the ineptitudes of his colleagues, his is the hand that is going to strike what he rightly described as a tragic, indeed a disastrous, blow to the industry.

4.19 p.m.

Criticism of the Government's agricultural policy seems to be in the air at the moment. Perhaps, it may be the weather; or possibly my right hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) has spent too much time on his farm during Whitsuntide. It has, however, infected apparently more than one party. But after listening to my right hon. Friend's speech I must say that it seems just as difficult today as it ever was, to bring him down to earth, because such criticism as has been offered is absolutely vague. One thing I want to make plain at the commencement is that the Government's agricultural policy is perfectly clear. It is well-known to every farmer in this country. It is based on guaranteed prices, assured markets for his principal products, and provides just those conditions which will enable farmers to plan ahead on a firm basis. In short, it provides a sound economic foundation for agriculture, on which they can build a prosperous and healthy industry such as they were not able to build under a Tory Government.

Ultimately the policy will provide both farmer and farm worker with better living conditions. If hon. Members, including the right hon. Gentleman, will even hint at that part of the Government's agricultural policy which they think might be changed, we shall be very happy to listen to it. When the announcement was made on 15th November, 1945, it was welcomed by the agricultural community in all parts of the country. It was regarded by some of our leading agriculturists as a real agricultural charter. We heard no criticism then, and I would remind the Committee that we have heard no criticism from the right hon. Gentleman today, about that agricultural policy of the Government. I can only assume, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman, acting for his party, has been trying today to provide a scapegoat in the present situation, in which the world food crisis has reacted upon British agriculture. It was, I think, in the early years of this century that someone described the job of the Minister of Agriculture as

Not unnaturally, every hon. Member is keenly disturbed at the misfortune which has overtaken British agriculture as a result of the recent announcement I had to make. It certainly interferes with their long-term planning It is probably more serious than anything which happened to them during the war. The Opposition, for political purposes—and I say political purposes advisedly—are quite entitled to blame the Government for this crisis, and I make no complaint of that. The right hon. Gentleman enjoyed himself immensely when he was prophesying the disasters and misery which would overtake the people of this country; I never heard a more happy and cheery prophet of misery in my life. If the Conservative Party as a whole seriously assert, as the right hon. Gentleman appears to do, and as the Motion of which several hon. Members opposite have given notice, appears to do, that the main cause of the feeding-stuffs shortages is the Government's lack of foresight, I can only say that they are taking a fantastically narrow view of the position of British agriculture in our national economy. Quite clearly, the feeding-stuffs shortage in Britain, as hon. Members must know, and as the right hon. Gentleman in particular should know, is part of a world food shortage from which there is no escape. I invite hon. Members and the right hon. Gentleman to take a look both forward and backward, to see exactly where lies the blame, if blame there is, for the position in this country.

Fourteen months ago the right hon. Gentleman believed that the prospects in regard to feeding stuffs were such—I do not blame him—that he actually promised farmers in this country a progressive increase in rations for pigs and poultry for 1945 and 1946. I can only gasp with astonishment now at his flexibility and versatility, and at his tactics this afternoon, when he tries to accuse the Government of a lack of foresight which has brought about this misfortune in this country at the present moment. Let us examine the argument that we should have grown more wheat for 1946, for that is really the basis of the right hon. Gentleman's argument. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the cropping plan for the following year is normally made in the previous February when prices for the ensuing year are being fixed. It was, in fact—and this is important to the argument—in February, 1945, that cropping plans for 1946 were discussed by the right hon. Gentleman with the National Farmers' Unions. It was announced that if it proved unnecessary to issue compulsory directions for the sowing of wheat, the acreage payment of £4 would be reduced to £2. Now the right hon. Gentleman knows too that cropping targets are normally given to county committees in May and June, and that on that basis, district officers discuss cropping plans with farmers, and county committees then issue individual directions to farmers.

Last year the right hon. Gentleman delayed his decision on wheat beyond May, or June, to July before making his final conclusion. When Lord Llewellin, the then Minister of Food, went to Washington in April, 1945—and the right hon. Gentleman presumably waited for his return and acted on his report—he said that the problem was one of movement rather than of supply. The right hon. Gentleman obviously waited for the latest information before making his announcement of what our wheat policy should be for 1946. He made that decision in July. It was entirely his own decision. What was that decision? The right hon. Gentleman decided that he could afford to relax pressure on growing wheat in this country. He abolished directions and reduced the acreage payment from £4 to £2. Remember that that was for this year's harvest, the harvest which has not yet been gathered home. That action of the right hon. Gentleman, rightly or wrongly—I will not argue the point at the moment, but will leave it to him to decide whether he was a good or a bad prophet—definitely fixed our wheat acreage for 1946. His decision was only taken in July, and nothing which any subsequent Government did could alter it.

I am not complaining about his decision. It may have been right at the time, but the right hon. Gentleman apparently had no knowledge of what was going to happen in 1946. He could not provide himself with a plan, or, if he did, what a plan it was, for it completely broke down in the light of 1946 circumstances. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that, having decided there was no necessity further to issue directions for the production of wheat, it is utterly unjustifiable for him to suggest at this moment that we should produce half a million more acres this year.

What are the facts? On 4th September the International Wheat Council issued a notice, after a careful examination of the whole position. This was part of the notice: arrested—and that was, after all, beyond my responsibility—it was reasonable to expect that there would be ample supplies for human beings and that animal feeding stuffs would not be seriously affected.

As the right hon. Gentleman has seen fit to quote that, perhaps he will quote a little more fully and give the other two main sentences, both of which he has left out.

I have. It is stated:

"After reviewing the present and prospective world position, the Council concluded that the present estimates of import requirements substantially exceeded the estimated available supplies."

So it was clear, in September, that they knew that there was insufficient. As well as the two quotations as to what they advised should be done, the right hon. Gentleman omitted the recommendation which equally applied, and could have been applied here, namely, that all countries should be urged to proceed with the maximum production of bread grains for the 1946 harvest. If that was the estimate on 5th, September, and that recommendation had been carried out, they could have got extra bread grains.

I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has improved his case. Only about five weeks before this announcement, the right hon. Gentleman said, in effect, to the farmers of this, country: Wheat is not going to be imported in 1946. Really that was the case, and there is no escaping that fact. Even with the addition of the quotation which the right hon. Gentleman has just made, what does it amount to? The International Wheat Council said:

"If the feeding of wheat to livestock can be rigidly controlled, and wartime extraction rates maintained, there should be enough wheat to go round."

It was, therefore, as the then Minister of Food said in this House on 14th February, only after the drought situation in India was known that the large gaps in supplies and requirements actually developed; and since that time demands have increased all over the world, and supplies from exporting countries have decreased. What I want to emphasise is that this is not a Great Britain problem. It is a world problem from which we cannot isolate ourselves, whatever the right hon. Gentleman may say or think.

At what time of the year did the drought conditions in India become apparent? Is it not a fact that it is known early in August whether the monsoon has failed or otherwise?

If the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggests that the failure of the Indian monsoon occurred last August, he must have information which was not available to anyone else in any other part of the world, including the Indians themselves, because, so far as I am aware, no demand for one ton of wheat was made from India in the year 1945. It was only in January, 1946, that this fact was made known, and further demands were added to those of Europe and other parts of the world. Therefore, when certain parts of the world are in danger of starvation, and when it is a question of keeping people alive, animals certainly have to be relegated to second place, at least in importing countries. There is no possible escape from that particular dilemma. We have already reason to know that the exporting nations will not export for animals, while they fear that millions of human beings are in danger of starvation.

How has this crisis affected the British feedingstuffs position? There are three main factors in operation and all of them are known pretty well to the right hon. Gentleman. First, to conserve wheat for human beings, in common with all other countries, we have had to adopt special measures. I need only mention one—the raising of the rate of extraction from 80 per cent. to 90 per cent. That has lost us 600,000 tons of offal a year, and every reduction in the consumption of bread, biscuits and flour means a further loss of offal. We have now reached a stage, which the right hon. Gentleman refuses to acknowledge, that whereas in the years preceding the war, we received 1,600,000 tons of millers' offal, at this moment, with a 90 per cent. rate of extraction for our flour, we are receiving only 484,000 tons. What the right hon. Gentleman thinks I ought to do in order to snatch back that million tons of offal, I have no means of telling. He did not even offer a suggestion this afternoon. The second major factor is the diversion to human beings of all coarse grains entering into international trade. It does not seem to matter whether one sends some one to South America or Timbuctoo—you may be able to buy, but you cannot ship because of the Combined Food Board allocations. It is all right for the right hon. Gentleman to shake his head, but he knows that is the case.

Let the right hon. Gentleman proceed to South America if he will. If he can both buy and ship large doses of maize, barley, or anything else, outside the allocations of the Combined Food Board, we shall be very happy to receive them. The right hon. Gentleman knows that that is a physical impossibility. Since he has referred to someone from Russia having been sent to South America to buy maize and barley, and something else, can he tell us of any shipments? Is he aware of any shipments that have been made from the Argentine, South America or Russia. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I think that the right hon. Gentleman has got to admit that all coarse grains at present entering into international trade are diverted for human consumption. At this moment we are receiving less than one-twelfth of our prewar quantities of maize and other coarse grains, and only one-third the quantity of oil cake or oil cake equivalent. The third factor is the loss of ground nuts from India, which amounted to 200,000 or 300,000 tons for animal feeding. The supplies have been entirely cut off for this year, and no one can say what is going to happen next year with regard to India.

The right hon. Gentleman has his own sources of information; I am dependent on the Press for mine. I will quote from "The Times"—the most expensive Labour paper nowadays—a report from Buenos Aires stating that two ships with 7,000 tons of linseed oil left on 11th June. Not a bad start.

I have no means of justifying or denying the statement quoted by the right hon. Gentleman, but if I recollect aright what he said during his speech it was that Russia sent a mission to the Argentine to buy maize, and if they could buy maize he asked why could not we do the same? My question was whether he had any knowledge of maize being shipped from the Argentine to Russia. The right hon. Gentleman in the House of Commons on 31st May said that the main difficulty in Europe today was the existence of the "iron curtain." That implies that we do not know what is happening beyond the iron curtain, but today the right hon. Gentleman suggests that things are happening behind it, of which he only is aware. I think if the right hon. Gentleman is making suggestions about matters of which he is aware, with regard to the Argentine and a Russian mission buying maize there, he ought to give us chapter and verse for it.

Those then, are the three adverse factors, and I suggest to the Committee in all humility that they are three factors over which we have absolutely no control. We have sent missions to Canada, to Washington, the Argentine, Singapore, Siam, Burma, West Africa, East Africa and Egypt. We have missions in all the main exporting countries, but we cannot compel the people to sell to us. We can only do our best to pursuade them, and if the right hon. Gentleman thinks we have any dictatorial powers to compel them to sell to us what we want, regardless of the rest of the world, he is paying us a compliment to which we are not entitled. That is the broad picture. It is unpleasant but it is undeniable, and nothing that the right hon. Gentleman says can dispose of the simple facts. It is just sheer nonsense for him to suggest that we have done too little too late, and that we have lacked foresight, insight, backsight or any other sight or failed to do anything that could be done in this country to compensate for the loss in regard to our imports of food. When the right hon. Gentleman talks of lack of foresight, he has to bear in mind what he did in July, 1945, with regard to wheat. The right hon. Gentleman said I ought to have given the farmers of this country longer notice. It is just blatant misrepresentation to suggest that I could have given any more warning or notice than was given. [ Interruption. ] If hon. Members opposite would be patient and listen to the sort of warnings that were given from time to time, I think it would be better. In this House on 5th February I said:

Not only did I issue warning after warning, but immediately after 6th February, I sent an urgent letter to the chairman of every county committee in this country saying that the reductions in the tillage acreage, which had been agreed to by the right hon. Member for Southport—and quite properly in the circumstances—for 1946, 1947 and 1948 must be postponed and that all farmers must in 1946 put under tillage crops at least the same acreage as in 1945. I also said in that letter that the compulsory ploughing of seeds and grassland must be ordered if necessary. I further said: in this country responded reasonably well to the appeals that were made. I recognise that it is a very grim and melancholy situation. I also recognise that there was nothing I could do to obviate this melancholy situation.

If the hon. and gallant Member knew in October what was going to happen in April, he might have been good enough to give somebody the hint, because even Ministers of Agriculture are not regarded as persons with a prophetic instinct. Certainly, I had no prophetic instinct in October as to what was going to happen in April. Therefore, faced with these melancholy facts I had to call upon the experts to make the most meticulous inquiry into the feedingstuffs position, both present and prospective, and their inquiries disclosed a shortage for next winter of something like 40 per cent. of what had been required during last winter to maintain the same ration. I had two alternatives. I could have withheld the information from the farmers and hoped for the best; or I could have taken them into my confidence and invited them to prepare for the worst. I believe I did the right thing. They had at least four months' warning, and they could do the best that was possible to help themselves in the meantime with regard to self sufficiency. The cuts have been arranged in such a way as to bring about the least disturbance and the minimum amount of ill effect upon the people of this country.

I need not explain the scheme. All hon. Members well know that throughout the course of the war milk, bread and potatoes always remained Priority No. 1, and all our rationing schemes were operated on that basis, so that in times of plenty we could revalue and in times of shortage devalue the coupons for pigs, poultry or anything else. I want to say this—it is to the eternal credit of the dairy farmers of this country that notwithstanding the persistent reduction in the import of animal feedingstuffs from eight and three-quarter million tons to one and a half million tons, liquid milk supplies have continued to increase. That is surely due to the ingenuity and adaptability of the farmers in this country. While milk has been Priority No. 1 throughout all that time, unfortunately the time has now arrived, when the pigs and poultry can no longer bear the strain without being completely wiped out. Dairy farmers will have to provide feedingstuff for the first gallon of milk sold, and additional cereal for the next quarter gallon so far as is possible. We can no longer make supplementary allowances without limitation, but only within the limits of the discretionary reserves held by the county agricultural executive committees. This will mean a fall in milk supply; it is unavoidable.

What the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Southport said was that if there had been plenty of oils and fats in the world, and no shortage of wheat and feedingstuffs, there need not have been any shortage of milk. That is a simple proposition for him to put, but the shortages are there. Unfortunately for us, they are there in every country in Europe, and all except the exporting countries are suffering from that shortage. Reference has been made to Russia. If there is an "iron curtain" around Russia perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will surmount it, and come back and tell us all about it. Anyhow, the extent of the fall is problematical. It depends on the ability of the farmers to make them selves more self-sufficient, which depends largely on the weather, the yield and quality of root crops, and what discretionary reserves may be made available to them. It would be foolish to forecast the extent of the fall in milk production, but I do not expect it to be catastrophic, although there must be some reduction. The cuts in the commercial pig and poultry rations will bring them back to the hardest period they had to suffer during the war—in 1943. There will be much less available from discretionary reserves in future and, as I have said, they will go back to where they were in 1943—

I do not agree. They will go back to the hardest days of the war—1943.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that conditions will not be worse for farmers than they were in 1943?

I am not prepared to give hard and fast rules as to what may happen for months ahead. I am not in charge of the world resources, either of human or animal foods. But I contemplate that they will go back to their hardest days of 1943, because certain help will have to be given to dairy cows for farmers who are unable to produce any of their own feedingstuff. Dairy farmers will have to divert more home grown feedingstuffs to cows, which otherwise might go to pigs and poultry. There will be a loss of pig meat and eggs. As regards eggs, we shall lose the increase gained over the last 12 months. After the late autumn, when the slaughtering of pigs might be a little in excess of normal, I fear that home pig meat supplies will be reduced to the lowest level of wartime. We have sought to minimise the effect on breeding stock, and there will be no reduction in the allowance for pedigree pigs. Hitherto, there has been no fixed limit to the numbers of accredited poultry qualifying for the special ration, but we are now compelled to make some reduction there. There will be a cut in the chick rearing allowance which was, as most Members will agree, on the generous side.

I was most reluctant to do anything in regard to domestic pigs and poultry in the development of which, as the right hon. Gentleman opposite knows, I played some little part. One and a half million people will be affected, but I have to inform the Committee that for every head of poultry for which balancer meal is provided, domestic poultry keepers are keeping two heads of poultry. That clearly indicates that they will not be unready to play their part in the sacrifices that must be made. I felt that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Southport could not resist scoring a political and debating point on the domestic poultry issue. If we were to reinstate the cut in domestic pig producers' rations that would mean a loss of 96,000 tons of feedingstuffs, which would have to come out of the rations to dairy cattle, or commercial pigs or poultry. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that I ought to have made a further slashing cut in pig and poultry rations, or in the dairy cows' rations? It had to be done one or the other of those two ways, since the food is not there.

The right hon. Gentleman has been making all sorts of suggestions and giving himself answers for about three-quarters of an hour.

May I press this point? I think the Minister did not sufficiently warn everybody. I think that is clear from the evidence which accumulated in October, November and December, when the former Minister of Food went to Washington and—

The right hon. Gentleman is making a speech.

May I be allowed to put this point, Mr. Beaumont? Was not the Minister aware, or could he not have been aware, in the late months of last year of the situation as regards wheat sufficiently to have made it desirable and possible for him to begin then, the action which he only began to take in February?

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman is not aware that my first warning was issued on 5th December, but in case he should not happen to know, may I say that the wheat sown in this country is largely sown two months before that date, and it was too late for me to give instructions or directions in December for further winter wheat. But what I did, was to try to secure as much spring wheat as we could. I understand that the Small Pigkeepers' Council may wish to make some suggestions regarding an alternative method of dealing with their case. Should that be so, I shall be glad to hear what they have to say, and to listen sympathetically to their suggestions. Certainly, there is no escaping the general facts of the world situation, and the necessity that these unfortunate cuts must take place. The right hon. Gentleman opposite said we could have done more. I can see no conceivable increase in home produced feeding stuffs that could have filled the gap of 40 per cent. cereals and 50 per cent. protein of which we were short. Assuming that we performed a miracle late last year, or early this year, that we had got the 500,000 acres the right hon. Gentleman talked about, it is true that it would have been a net increase in food for the world, but it would not have been a net increase in Britain's supplies. It is obvious that the Combined Food Board would have reduced our allocation according to the required allocations of bread grain to us and to those areas for which we are responsible.

To return to what I have said, the cuts in the livestock feedingstuffs are essentially due to facts over which we have no control. We are in no better position than any other importing country to lay our hands on more than our fair share of world grain supplies. In every speech he makes in this House, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Southport finds a different excuse for the shortage of feedingstuffs in the world. On 4th April, he said that it was not my fault, nor the fault of the Minister of Food, nor of the British Government, but that Gentleman cannot seek to initiate a worldwide scramble and then condemn anyone for failure to plan. We can only persuade the export countries to sell; we cannot compel them to do so. Persuasion has not utterly failed. The United States Government have taken steps to adjust the proportion between grain and livestock prices. They have raised their extraction rate to 80 per cent. They have limited the quantites of wheat fed to livestock or used in mixed feeds, and in 1946–47 the feeding of wheat to animals is expected to be only half of what it was in each of the last two years. In Europe extraction rates are either as high as or higher than they are in this country. In many countries, coarse grains have been incorporated in the loaf. Most Western European countries already have bread rationing, which is not operating in this country yet. It is, indeed, estimated that a 50 per cent. fall in the total supplies of concentrated feedingstuffs in Northwestern Europe has happened since before the war, as against a reduction of 40 per cent. in this country. The right hon. Gentleman referred to countries in Europe. Denmark now relies almost entirely on homegrown feedingstuffs. Their import of oil cake this year is 95,000 tons as against 840,000 tons in a normal prewar year. Their reduction in total supplies is proportionately as great as it is in this country. In Belgium and the Netherlands, I understand it is considerably greater. In Denmark and Norway the pig population is less than half what it was before the war, or approximately the same proportion as in this country. In poultry the numbers in Western Europe, taking a whole range of countries, is anywhere from one-third to two-thirds of the prewar numbers, compared with 80 per cent. in this country.

Mutual recrimination will not help the feeding stuffs position. I suggest that at least we are concentrating on helping the farmers of this country to meet the present situation. The continuance of war-time cropping obviously means a high level of requirements in labour, machinery and fertilisers. There has been, as most farmers appreciate, a steady return of agricultural labour under Class A. In Class B block releases, the target of 18,000 was actually exceeded a month ago, and most hon. Members will appreciate that the stream from the Army under Class B will now be much slower. The Women's Land Army recruiting campaign is achieving reasonable results. Nearly 6,000 new recruits have been enrolled since 1st April and the markedly higher level of recruitment continues at this moment. As fast as Italian prisoners depart, they are being replaced by Germans, and we anticipate that long before the harvest there will be something like 200,000 prisoners available.

We are again organising voluntary harvest and school camps. The call-up of agricultural workers has been suspended until after the harvest, which means that they will be suspended throughout 1946, and the Government's plan for the call-up after 1946 gives special treatment to agriculture. Deferment on the existing basis will, of course, continue as is necessary. The Government intend to maintain the Women's Land Army for a minimum of two years, and I have every reason to believe that the latest increase in the minimum wage of women workers to 60s. will encourage the present rate of recruitment. I hope we shall be able to sustain the numbers of prisoners throughout 1947, although it is too much to expect that this will go on for ever. I can assure hon. Members that the question of labour is ever present in the Government's mind. We recognise our full responsibility to see that ample labour is available when harvest time comes.

On the subject of labour, what is the right hon. Gentleman doing about domestic service on the farms, which is perhaps the most urgent problem of all?

That is a question for the Minister of Labour and not for the Minister of Agriculture. The Minister of Agriculture is not responsible for domestic labour.

With regard to Class A men coming out of the Army, is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that many men who formerly worked on the land, and who have come out of the Army under Class A, are going back to agriculture?

I have no figures to indicate whether they go back to agriculture or not, but I suggest to the hon. and gallant Member that if they go back, they will do so because the present agricul- tural policy of the Government is calculated to give better prospects than they ever had before they joined up. If they fail to go back, it is because their memory lingers on the days between 1921 and 1939. With regard to agricultural machinery, all I need say is that the Government have done all they could to help manufacturers not merely to produce more machines, but better machines. A very generous allocation of materials has been made for that purpose. Every hon. Member will know that in the matter of machinery there are limiting factors, the chief of them being labour, but so far as a Government Department, with the assistance of other Departments, the Ministry of Labour and others concerned, can help agricultural machinery makers to get on with the job, we are doing the best we possibly can. We know that the maintenance of existing machines is of vital importance. Our county machinery instructors are helping all they can by advising on maintenance, and for this purpose we need the full cooperation of farmers and farm workers. The county committees are continuing to operate their machinery service, which is of very special value to the smaller farmers of this country.

What steps is the right hon. Gentleman taking with regard to spare parts?

I can only say that orders were given for spare parts in large quantities 18 months ago, and they have been repeated time and again since. Dollars are made available for the purchase of machine parts. We have our agents in America and Canada on the spot, and but for industrial troubles, I think the service would have been far better than it has been up to now. I can only assure hon. Members, therefore, that so far as we can buy crawler tractors or provide ourselves with spare parts for the machines already available in this country, every step in that direction will be taken. The difficulty, as the hon. Member must know, is that tens of thousands of different parts, all of intricate pattern and made specially to American specification, are required for this purpose. There is a trickle of these new spare parts and as fast as they arrive we are making them available to farmers in different parts of the country.

The Minister has not mentioned home-produced parts. We are very short of parts for grass cutters and binders.

I have already informed the Committee that raw materials are available to manufacturers who, as fast as they can obtain foundry workers and get their machinery moving, will be able to supply not only the needs of this country but, I hope, those of the export trade too.

I want to say one word about fertilisers. We anticipate that during the forthcoming cropping season there will be adequate supplies of nitrogenous and phosphatic fertilisers, although there may be technical difficulties in securing our full allocation of potassic fertilisers from overseas. There may not be an abundance of, say, quicklime or hydrated lime, owing to the keen demand of the building trade, but farmers ought to make full use of ground limestone wherever the others are not available. These are very practical steps that are being taken not only for today but also for tomorrow. When the right hon. Gentleman talks of a four-year plan and of this Government's plan breaking down, I would say to the Committee that what happened between his decision in July, 1945, and June, 1946, indicates the futility of a rigid plan in existing world circumstances. It is not so much a four-year plan that is required at this moment as flexibility; not a straitjacket but something in which we can work according to the circumstances of the time.

The Government have no desire to control every farmer's activities in general. They will, of course, advise ahead so far as they can see reasonably clearly. Farmers are at least always advised one year ahead during the February price review as to what is expected of them in the year following. That provides them with a framework within which plans can be made according to the nature of the farming and the potentialities of their particular land. This is the best we can do and it is far more than any Conservative Government in this country ever tried to do. In addition to the plan itself, when it can be carried out in its long-term implications, we are doing all we can to try to provide the farmers with the tools for the job. Finally, I would say that despite the right hon. Gentleman's prophecy of misery this afternoon, I challenge either the right hon. Gentleman or any hon. Member sitting on the benches opposite, to tell the Government exactly what alteration they would like to make in the Government's agricultural policy. I challenge them also to tell us exactly what more we can do at this moment in the face of the world food position.

5.14 p.m.

I hope the Minister has satisfied himself and his supporters that he has been really foreseeing and energetic during his time of administration at the Ministry of Agriculture. It has been a time that has needed a great deal of foresight and a great deal of energy. He has told the Committee that he has done his best, but we on this side, I think, must say that it seems to us a poor best. I will take up the Minister's challenge and I will suggest to him ways in which he can make his best a good deal better than it has yet proved. [HON. MEMBERS: "How?"] I am coming to that in a moment.

I want to deal in a sentence or two with the Minister's outlook on these problems. He spoke of the inscrutable working of Providence. If my right hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson)—who was one of the most successful Ministers of Agriculture this country has ever had—had waited on the inscrutable workings of Providence during the war, what a mess this country and our Allies would have been in. On the food front our affairs were extraordinarily well managed—much better than in the 1914–18 war—very much thanks to my right hon. Friend and Lord Woolton. Neither Parliament nor the administration of food affairs can wait on the inscrutable working of Providence. It makes it difficult to help the right hon. Gentleman the Minister as we should like to do if he is going just to take things as they come and never be one step ahead of events—and events are moving fast in food production and in the distribution of food. We have to be one step ahead in thought and in action, one step ahead of the other countries of the world because we are in a very vulnerable position as regards food. We all know how dependent we are normally on food and this can be judged from the severe knocks which now have to be suffered by the livestock industry. We must not be content with just watching the inscrutable workings of Providence; our Minister of Agriculture and our Ministry of Agriculture have to be active and to be thinking ahead of events, not just waiting on Providence.

Let me just clear up this point about the wheat. The Minister says that because my right hon. Friend settled last July what the wheat acreage should be and decided that it would not be necessary to apply compulsory directions on farmers to grow wheat, and because the wheat acreage payment was reduced from £4 to £2, it would have been quite futile for his successor, the present Minister, to have decided in September or October to require farmers to grow more wheat. It would have been too late and could not have been done. As a practical man I say that that is just nonsense. The chief factor that has militated against getting a full acreage of wheat this harvest has been the cut from £4 down to £2 in the acreage payment. Farmers are simple minded people and say, "Well, if the Government are cutting this £4 to £2 they cannot very much want our wheat. Therefore, we will turn to extending our livestock."

Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that when the right hon. Gentleman cut the £4 to £2 in July I should have restored it in September, and does he regard that as good planning?

Yes, certainly, in the light of the facts which then became known to the Minister. Not only should it have been restored to £4, but compulsory directions should have been served and could perfectly well have been carried out. It was a beautifully fine autumn and we could have had a lot more wheat planted then and a lot more spring wheat could have been planted in February, March, or even in April. But the acreage payment was not restored to £4, and when the Minister appealed for more spring wheat the farmers said, "It is still only £2 an acre: they cannot really want wheat." I know that some neighbours of mine, when I planted spring wheat in response to the right hon. Gentleman's appeal, said, "You want your head seen to. Why don't you put in barley as you intended?" I was one of the foolish ones, but there were very few foolish ones. I wish more farmers had put in spring wheat in response to the Minister's appeal, but farmers are simple people. [ Laughter. ] Well, they are simple people and they take Government statements at their face value.

The farmers took it at its face value. I am satisfied that we could have got 250,000 tons of extra grain for the present harvest in spring wheat, and to some extent in spring oats and barley.

The Minister has fallen down on the task which the Government and the nation have put into his hands, to the extent that he has failed to provide the means by which farmers can make full use of their land and livestock in order to feed the people of this country. In my estimation there will be a drop of 10 per cent. in the food output for the present year, as compared with 1944. We are growing less wheat and our tillage acreage is down. We are not standing squarely either on one foot or the other. In 1944 we went all out for grain and potatoes. Now we are on the switch-over to livestock but, by faulty planning, we have abandoned the emphasis on the one policy without being able to carry out the development of the other. The drop in food production to which I have referred is a very serious matter, especially the failure of supplies for our dairy cows, pigs and poultry.

I am personally more concerned about the poultry. The Minister has said that the poultry rations will be going back to the hardest days of 1943. I say they are going back to worse than that. Take my own farm as an instance. In the past 12 months, my flock, totalling 1,600 birds, has produced 15,000 dozen eggs. All those eggs have—I hope the Minister will just be good enough to listen to this example of mine, because it gives point to what I am trying to say. My own mixed farm of 500 acres has carried that flock of 1,600 birds, and produced those 15,000 dozen eggs. All the eggs have gone to a Ministry of Food packing station to help to provide consumers' egg rations. That was done on 34 tons of official feedingstuffs rations, backed by tail corn and some concentrated kitchen waste. This last is what we call "Bristol pudding," because it comes from Bristol. It is a rather expensive food which sometimes contains inedible matter like razor blades and the metal tops of milk bottles, but on the whole it is a food that the hens pick over and from which they are able to obtain some sustenance.

So far as I can work it out, I shall get no official rations next winter for my hens at all, because of the acreage reduction which is coming into effect. It will take all the ingenuity of my poultryman to keep 500 birds in production, instead of 1,600. He will be a very clever manager indeed if he is able to do it. That will mean 10,000 dozen fewer eggs from one farm alone next year and will set us back in production for several years to come. That will be quite a heavy loss to me. I shall have to ring the necks of many of my birds, at a loss of about 10s. apiece. I am honest enough not to sell them in the black market. I am sure that hon. Members will be glad to give me credit for that. It means the loss of a good deal of food production which was just beginning to take shape for the forthcoming winter. The Minister of Food will be very hard pressed to give eggs to the housewives during the coming winter.

I wonder whether the Government realise what they are doing by this haphazard handling of home food production. I am a simple farmer. I had planned to extend my poultry operations. I have told the Committee what my position is now. Not only are the Government losing on the short run but they are losing the prospect of getting agriculture on to a proper, balanced economic basis on which it could have gone ahead step by step and year after year. This serious setback is putting us back not only for the coming winter but for three or four years to come. It is also likely to have its effect upon the fortunes of the Labour Party. Many people, like the farmers, are rather simpleminded. I put down upon the Order Paper a Motion, which I do not suppose will come up for consideration, but which has certainly brought me a large number of letters, including some from townspeople who have read the Motion in their local newspapers. I would like to read to the Committee a letter which has come to me from Birmingham. It is signed on behalf of 250 wives, husbands, mothers and fathers. Happily, they have not put all their names. The letter is as follows:

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was quoting that letter with approval or disapproval, but will he answer a question? There are people starving across the water. Does he say that grain stuff should go to those people who are starving, or to animals and chickens in England? Has he an alternative?

The earlier course of this Debate has left in my mind no doubt whatever that if the Government had acted in time and with foresight—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I am answering the question which the hon. Gentleman has put to me. If the Government had informed not only the farmers of this country but the farmers of the world, including American and Canadian farmers, what the true position was, there need not have been starvation in Europe.

Does the hon. Gentleman really regard that as a satisfactory answer to my question? What is his alternative now? Does the hon. Gentleman approve of the letter he quoted?

The Government are a Labour Government, and it is for the Labour Minister of Agriculture himself to answer his supporter's question. As to the letter, I am not a Labour voter. I would not have written a letter like that.

Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House what reply he made to that letter?

Yes, I said that we should be having a full Debate about all this in the House on Tuesday and that I would send them a copy of HANSARD.

Here I want to take up the challenge the Minister threw down. I believe that even now we can do quite a lot to retrieve the mess into which we have got ourselves. The Russians, as my right hon. Friend mentioned, are not scrupling to buy all they can, no doubt paying a satisfactory price either in money or in goods. I would like to see the Minister of Agriculture, who is a full member of the Cabinet, adopt the policy that Lord Woolton did during the war, and that is to send really competent businessmen over to South America to see whether they can be as successful as the Russians and other sets of business people in buying maize, oil seeds and grain for Britain. I believe they could.

Looking closer home, our dairy farmers will have to do without oilcake to a large extent this winter. What can the Minister do to help the small dairy farmers in this country to provide themselves with more protein feeding stuff, because that is the vital thing in getting extra milk?. The dairy farmers can provide the ordinary maintenance ration but if their cows are going to milk to the full, they must have a high protein content feed. The more progressive farmers make high quality silage. But the small farmer lacks equipment for that and it is a laborious job without the equipment, and they are thus reluctant to take it up. Will the Minister do this—which I am sure is the right thing to do—will he put this into the hands of the war agricultural executive committees? Many of them have the machinery for making silage. Will the Minister send out straight away teams with cut-lift machinery and qualified instructors to make silage on contract for small farmers? The first flush of young grass for silage has already passed, but there will be the aftermath. If it goes on raining like this there will be more aftermath than hay this time. All that aftermath must be made into the best possible silage. In that way the Minister can get many thousands of tons of high grade feeding stuffs and housewives will get many thousands of extra quarts and gallons of milk next winter. But the small farmer, left to himself, cannot tackle this because he lacks machinery and technical advice.

Is the Minister doing all that can be done to conserve grass now being wasted on road verges and airfields? It sounds a small thing but there is a lot going to waste. The Government have grain drying plants, put up at considerable expense during the war. and these could be converted for drying grass. Will the Minister try to organise that in order to save all this young herbage while it is at its most nutritious stage? This can go on all through the summer. Will the Minister, with his full Cabinet authority, insist that local authorities collect every scrap of kitchen waste in every town and concentrate it into pig and poultry feed? A lot more can be done in that way. I am one of the fortunate ones and get "Bristol pudding," and it is very useful, but thousands of tons of potato peeling and pea pods and the outsides of this and that, which could make pig and poultry feed, are not being collected and processed. That would all produce more eggs and pigs. This is now a vital source of food for pigs and poultry.

Is the Minister taking any steps to encourage the growing of oil seeds in this country? Last week the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. McAllister) took the chair at a meeting called by the National Farmers' Union to discuss the possibilities of growing oil seeds—that is rape, mustard, linseed—in this country. I am told that it was a successful conference. It would be too late for this year but it will help next year, for the world will still be short of oil seeds next year. Sweden is doing it. I spent a week with the Minister at the Centenary Agricultural Show in Sweden last week and saw something of the progress being made by Sweden—oil for margarine, and oil cake, which is the residue, for the cattle. Can we do that? If so, what can be our target acreage for next year? How far can we provide ourselves with oil cake from these seed crops? What plans has the Minister of Agriculture, who is also the Minister of Fisheries, for providing farmers with a regular supply of fish meal? That is important, especially if we are thrown back on potatoes for stock feeding, for there must be something to balance it. Fish meal has been difficult to get lately, but I hope the Minister will see that this is put right. That is a bit of planning ahead for next winter. If he can conserve the surplus fish being caught now so that we may use it next winter, it will be a Godsend not only to the farmers but to the consumers of this country.

What is the Minister doing to help the makers of farm machinery keep pace with the demand for spare parts? The Minister was asked that from these benches earlier, and he said that he was doing what he could and that it was a matter of labour and so on. But this is getting extremely serious. I was on a farm in Berkshire yesterday. I saw there two mowing machines, both out of commission. I asked, "Why can't you get them welded?" The farmer replied, "Those parts have both been welded three times and I have been told that they cannot be welded any more and that I shall have to have wooden parts." Are we going back to the days of Noah and the Ark? We cannot run our machinery in this patched-up way with wooden parts. When I was in Sweden with the Minister, I inquired how Sweden, who buys machinery from America as we do, managed for spare parts, and I was told that they got licences from the Americans and were making their spare parts. Spare parts were in quite plentiful supply, so plentiful that I suggest to the Minister that we should ask the Swedish Government to help us out with spare parts for American machinery. We must take this seriously for we cannot have grass mowers and other machinery standing idle. It is a disgraceful thing, whoever is the responsible Ministry—the Ministry of Agriculture or the Ministry of Supply. It is the Ministry of Agriculture's job to provide the tools so that the farmers can do the job, and the Minister must see that these machines are put back into commission.

Many of us on this side of the House know the Minister of Agriculture well. Some of us worked with him during the war and we know that he was a good member of a team. We want to see him succeed with this job, because the job is much more vital than the fortunes of any man or any party. The job is to enable British agriculture to pull its full weight in feeding the people of this country properly, and that will be a job not only of months but of years. This country no longer dominates the export trade of the world and no longer enjoys great foreign credits. If we want to feed decently we must very largely feed ourselves, particularly with the protective foods. If there is anything we can do on this side of the House to strengthen the Minister's hand and to give him more backbone—if he will allow me to say so—we shall be only too delighted to do it because his is a very vital job for the country. So far we think his best, which he told us about this afternoon, is a disappointing best, and we want to see him do better.

5.40 p.m.

I find this Debate very interesting because, in the spring of last year, I was asked by the Ministry of Information as a farmer to undertake a tour through the workshops of Lancashire in order to obtain labour for the harvest. We were provided with notes on the lectures we had to deliver, notes which were prepared by the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Information. Those notes, seen from the Debate today, are very interesting, because we had to inform the people that 1945 to 1946 would be the worst winter of the whole of the war, and would be followed by worse conditions. I have often wondered, as I have listened to hon. Members and right hon. Members opposite, speaking about the foresight of the present Government, why the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson), when he was Minister of Agriculture, could be authorising notes like those for lectures and, at the same time, increasing rations and giving farmers to understand that there was no further requirement for wheat to be grown to such an extent in this country. We have to recognise that there is something very inconsistent about the whole affair—to inform people on the notes prepared by the two Departments, that this last winter would be the worst winter of the whole war and that worse would follow it, and then to find that they themselves were recommending an increase to pigs and poultry and what was, in effect, a recommendation for a decrease in the wheat acreage of this country.

I place a great deal of the blame for the position in this country upon the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South- port. It was in the spring of last year that he indicated to our farmers that they could relax their wheat growing. He was the one who reduced the wheat acreage payment from £4 to £2, and the cumulative effect of the whole of these decisions upon the farmers gave them the impression that we were returning to the times of full importation of cheap food from abroad. The result was that a large number of farmers swung back to their old methods, instead of carrying on with wheat growing. I would like to say here to the farmers of this country that they hold the key in their own hands. The finest way to encourage the importation of cheap foodstuffs into this country is to decrease their acreage of cereals. If they want to go back to the old ways, let them continue to decrease; if they want to keep cheap foodstuffs out, let them grow to the fullest possible capacity, and so prevent the demand from arising. I speak as a farmer, and I am surprised that the farmers of this country allowed the wheat acreage to fall in the way that it has done.

I want to deal also with the rationing of foodstuffs to cattle. All through the war we adopted a system of universal rationing throughout these Islands. If you had a herd of cattle in the finest part and another herd of cattle on marginal land, you obtained coupons of the same value in those areas. Yet every one knows that the cattle in the fertile districts did not require the food which those coupons produced. If the food had been allocated more to the marginal lands, say to East Lancashire where this blow will be felt more acutely than in any other part of the country, there would have been a greater increase in milk and in livestock than we have had.

It is not too late for the Minister now to save some of these cuts to those farmers who cannot afford them by removing the coupons from those farmers who do not require them. Only last week I was speaking to a farmer in one of the very rich parts of Yorkshire, and he told me that he could produce quite as much milk from his cattle now on the grass which he is growing as he could when he fed provender to them. Yet he was taking the provender allowed by his coupons, or had done until the end of April. There is a complete waste of foodstuffs, I submit, and if a different system is introduced for the coming winter whereby those farmers who have rich land are debarred from obtaining foodstuffs, and those foodstuffs are transferred to farmers on the marginal lands who require it, there will not be the tremendous loss of milk which is anticipated here today. That is something which can definitely be looked into.

Hon. Members opposite thoroughly enjoyed today the attack made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Southport, who also thoroughly enjoyed himself. It is very interesting for a farmer to sit here and listen to the solicitude coming from the benches opposite, after going through the period from 1921 to 1939. Circumstances were not forced upon the country in those days and there was deliberate, calculated pressure brought to bear by the Government then in power to keep farmers down by the importation of foodstuffs against which it was impossible for us to compete. Now we get this wonderful solicitude from hon. Members opposite.

Could the hon. Gentleman tell me how many Socialist Members voted with the Conservatives for stopping the importation of meat into this country by putting a duty on meat imports in 1932?

But the hon. Member was referring to what happened in those years, and what action was taken with regard to foodstuffs.

Everyone knows that the manner in which the Government of that day imported foodstuffs into this country at the expense of our farmers was deplorable. I would urge one thing on the Minister which I think would somewhat minimise this cut in poultry feeding stuffs. A large number of poultry keepers have acres of land which they do not use for poultry, as their poultry has been diminished. I urge the advisability of permitting those poultry keepers to grow a certain acreage of cereals for use with their birds. At present, if one grows wheat, one has to turn it over, but it is possible for a large number of these poultry keepers to grow acreages of wheat, oats and barley, and utilise what they grow for their own birds.

One subject which has not been dealt with so far is sheep. I urge the Minister to give some encouragement to an increase in sheep breeding. This is one of the failures of the war. Our sheep stocks have fallen during the war, in my opinion unnecessarily. During the war we did not utilise the marginal land as we ought to have done. There are thousands of acres of land in Lancashire which carry only one sheep to 10 acres. I know the right hon. Member for Southport when Minister of Agriculture came up to Rossendale and looked round. I think the sight of the land frightened him, but we got nothing for it. Yet, there we have excellent sheep land—some of the finest sheep land in Lancashire—absolutely wasted. If the Minister will look into various aspects of sheep farming he will find ways and means of increasing the sheep population of this country; and we require no foodstuffs for hill sheep. They live on the grass, and winter on the grass. There is a great reserve of foodstuff for the country. We could minimise to a great extent what has been suggested in this Debate as being inevitable—these tremendous cuts.

The circumstances which have been considered a disaster are with us, but we have not yet come to the end of this year, and I recommend the suggestions of the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd), who spoke about silage. A tremendous amount of silage can still be made but, unfortunately, 20 per cent. of the milk producers of this country are producer-retailers. The large majority of them are in a very small way, and have no silos. They have not the machinery for silos, and even if one takes into account cut-lifts and tractors, the frames are too small. One can only go round half a dozen times and then one is finished and has to go to another farm and waste time. It boils down to what I said a week or two ago, that the whole of these farms want reorganising. We must have bigger units. So many of them are small and, as the right hon. Member for Southport pointed out, these producer-retailers could not pay the extra money for labour. There is only one way of doing it, and that is by increasing the size of the farms, and making them more economical in their output. We could definitely increase the silage production, and that would minimise to a great extent the cut in foodstuffs.

I feel sure that if the Minister will take vigorous steps to overcome these difficulties, the outlook will not be so bad as it has been painted. There are many ways in which this foodstuff difficulty can be overcome. I am sure that by taking vigorous action and enabling farmers, especially poultry and pig farmers, to obtain foodstuffs in the ways which have been suggested—by a greater collection of waste and so forth—much of this difficulty can be overcome.

5.56 p.m.

I want to refer to some of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Kenyon) about 1945. The right hon. Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) took the decision which has been criticised under conditions which were quite different from those of today. He had to consider the fertility of the soil. Farmers had produced corn crops year after year on the same ground, and the Minister wanted a let-up, if that were at all possible; otherwise that ground was going back in its fertility. Another factor in the situation was the existence of Lend-Lease. It may be a sombre fact, but had the war continued, we would have been in a far better position today. The combination of the then Prime Minister and President Roosevelt in America had guaranteed us a supply of feedingstuffs which we have not now got. That may have altered the situation to a very large extent and on these factors the decision, or ruling, of the former Minister of Agriculture was probably the best that could be taken.

Perhaps the hardest-hit community in farming are the backyard poultry keepers and small pig club members. They have done a great job in the war, and there are a great many of them. We have been told today that there are 1½ million backyard poultry keepers on whom a great many more millions depend for a certain amount of their food supply, their shell egg rations. These 1½ million, with their 12 backyard hens each, have made a considerable contribution to keeping a large number of people off the ordinary shell egg ration. That was only done by organisation and hard work. They had to collect remnants of refuse from neighbours wherever they could and often work for farmers at harvest time, in order to get a bushel or two of tailings after threshing, in order to keep those 12 hens in a laying condition.

The 5 lbs. per ration book, plus the leavings of potatoes from neighbours and the bushel or two they were able to get, enabled them not only to provide the egg ration for themselves, but for a good many other people who consented to cancel their egg ration coupons and rely on these backyard producers to supply their need. Now, this 5 lbs. per ration book is to be reduced to 2 lbs. That will knock these backyard hens completely off their laying condition. I have to deal with the livestock and not so much with their product, and therefore I put it in that way. It is a fact that producers can no longer keep these 12 hens in laying condition, and that a large section of the community will suffer in consequence.

Another consequence is that a good many people will find themselves not only eggless and henless, but couponless as well, because they have given up their coupons for the year on the understanding that they were to be supplied by a backyard producer. It is quite reasonable that these people should ask, "Was this situation really inevitable?" I feel we are bound to say that it was not. Reviewing the statements made by the Ministers concerned throughout the reign of this Government, we are not convinced that this situation should necessarily have arisen. The other section of the community, a large one, to which I wish to refer is that of the small pig keepers. These are people who combine to fatten a pig, and it should be remembered that half of every pig that is fattened goes to the Ministry of Food. By and large, it is a most profitable arrangement for the Ministry of Food. It is possible only because certain people, members of pig clubs, are prepared to go to great lengths in trouble and work to collect food to fatten a pig. The basis of this pig club scheme was that four cottages would produce refuse sufficient, with the addition of the meal allowance which they were given, to fatten a pig, half of which would go to the people in the cottages concerned. That scheme grew to large proportions. Today there are something like 150,000 pigs being kept by members of pig clubs. The clubs numbered something over 5,000 in 1945, and consisted of about 140,000 members. All these people work hard and take a great deal of trouble to organise the supply of food to fatten these pigs.

The question now arises, What are they to do? It seems inevitable that something has to be done to put a great proportion of the litter of the sows out of commission. Sucking pigs will have to be reduced in numbers. They cannot all be brought up now in the way they otherwise would have been. This will require instructions from the Minister as to what people are allowed to do under present conditions. It cannot be helped that some reduction is bound to occur, but there is a psychological aspect of this calamity which has befallen these people, which should not be ignored. During the war this was an important source of supply for our livestock numbers, and the members of the pig clubs were told that they were doing a grand job of work. It is work which cannot be done by sitting back and working things on paper, as I well know. Plans have to be made and a good deal of fetching and carrying has to be done. These people have lost that attitude of mind which one gets from doing a good job of work well, especially in war. The result is that their morale has fallen considerably, and they now feel, to a far greater extent, the privations they have to undergo and the collapse of the work they have been carrying on with so much interest and intelligence throughout the war.

Does the Minister realise—I think he must after what has been said today—the situation which will arise in February and March next year, when dairy milk will be at its lowest and the yield will have fallen a great deal? The hon. Member for Chorley was optimistic in saying he did not think it would fall. I am told that every farmer will have to reduce his herd of cows considerably, probably by 10 or 15 per cent., perhaps 20 per cent, because he has not got enough feeding stuffs to keep up the numbers of the herds. If that is the case, a big drop in the milk yield will occur in February and March. The cattle which would have been culled and gone to the market to be graded out, will all have been killed and eaten by then. I feel that at that period of the year every pig, chicken or egg will be worth far more than its weight in gold. It will be difficult for the "back yarder" to keep even two fowls going. The Minister said that twice as many had been kept as the number for which rations were provided. That was only possible by the collection of the scraps from a number of houses. These scraps were crusts of bread, crumbs, bacon-rind and things of that sort. These will not be available any more. When bread is rationed, every scrap will be utilised in some form or other, and it will be much harder to collect from neighbours something with which to feed these backyard poultry.

All these people are asking the same question, "Was it inevitable we should be reduced to this situation?" It is very difficult to answer truthfully that it was. I feel that perhaps if this Government had not flouted the assistance of the Americans as they have done, had they been more responsive to some of the suggestions from across the Atlantic, they could have had more favourable treatment from that side of the ocean than they are having today. I beg the Minister and the Government to consider most carefully, even sympathetically, any suggestions which are put forward by the poultry or the pig club people to try to avoid the extinction of very valuable livestock.

6.10 p.m.

I am glad to be able to intervene in the Debate at this stage. First, I want to refer to the dissimilarity of the first two speeches from the Opposition. I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) did a great disservice to the agricultural industry by his speech today. I do not think the farming classes of this country will thank him for making the suggestion in the House of Commons that we were about to lose our capital, and once again to get into the non-profit stage. With all due respect, I think that the trouble in which we find ourselves can be laid to a large extent at the door of the right hon. Gentleman. As long ago as 1943 the British Government were advised by the Conference at Hot Springs that directly the war was over we, the people of the world, should turn our attention to cereal production. Obviously the need after the war would be for cereals and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Southport had that information. He did not act upon it. He turned to the farming industry, and switched us back to livestock once again.

One resolution of the Hot Springs Conference recommends the return to a balanced system of mixed rotation farming.

The Conference advised us to continue with cereal production—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—but told us that in a few years' time we could go back to livestock. It was said the long-term policy would take us back to livestock. The outcome of the policy of the British Government at that time was to decrease our wheat production by no fewer than one million acres. A million tons of corn were lost to this country between 1944 and 1945. That is the position with which we are faced now. That is the trouble into which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Southport led us during the last few months of his membership of the British Cabinet.

I want the present Minister of Agriculture to turn his attention to wheat production. We have heard a lot about pigs, poultry, eggs and milk. This country wants bread and in the future we and the whole world will want bread. We in the British farming community can assist in the production of bread grains which will be wanted throughout the entire world. In my view the Minister has not been sufficiently ambitious in his estimates. We want 3 million acres of wheat next year and we want the British Government to give us the opportunity and the means of producing it. The wheat can be obtained. It has been said during this Debate that the Minister switched to livestock from the policy which we were pursuing because of the condition of our soil, the fertility of which had been lost during the war years.

During the war we ploughed 7 million acres of grassland. There still remain over 11 million acres of permanent grassland which we could tackle now. There are still a million acres of land under barley and over a million acres still under oats more than there were before the war. I hope the Minister will be bold. The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd) agreed that it might be necessary to introduce compulsory direction. If it is necessary, I ask the Minister to take immediate action to obtain this extra million acres of wheat. The records as to the cultivation of the fields are in the war agricultural committees offices, and details are there of suitable grasslands which can come under the plough. There is nothing better for British agriculture than for the farmer to take the plough round the farm. Already grassland which before the war was producing, say, a ton of hay per acre and which was ploughed up and has been put down once again, is producing a ton and half of hay per acre. If we take the plough round the farm, if we decide upon ploughing up one-twentieth of the permanent grassland, we can produce the wheat acreage which we need for the next harvest.

There is time to get this work done next autumn. In a short speech I made a few days ago I said that we might be late. The hay harvest will be late. The harvest itself may be late, and I want the Government to realise that next autumn is important. If we can obtain the means to plough up the grassland of this country and if we can plough in the turf satisfactorily, we can produce next autumn hundreds of thousands of acres more of wheat. I think by that means we shall stave off the difficulties which are ahead. I would also like to impress upon the Minister that next autumn, the farming community will be confronted with difficulties so far as threshing operations are concerned. We have heard from the other side today about the question of repairs to farm implements. I hope that the Government will put at the disposal of the farming industry additional machines, so that we can get to the consuming public the wheat crops which we shall harvest this year. By coming to our assistance in that way the Government will make it possible for us to put in the wheat acreage which we shall require.

There are other things of which I hope the Government will take stock. Difficulties are already being experienced in regard to labour. The prisoners, some good and many bad, do not fill the bill. I want British labour on British land. I want to attract back into our industry the men who have not come back from the Services. I want to attract the women into our industry. I want to make the Women's Land Army a permanent institution, so that we shall have a reserve of labour and not a scarcity. In those circumstances, I think, British farming can play, not a small, but a great part in producing the foodstuffs which this nation requires, not only this year or next year, but also what we may require even in the harvest of 1948. I hope the Minister will not adopt some of the Conservative methods of the past. One of my hon. Friends has referred already to the period following 1921. I was farming in that period, and I know what difficulties we encountered. I want boldness in our plans, and direction of the industry if it is necessary. As far as possible, I want a great campaign initiated at this stage to impress, not only the farmers, but also the workers, with the fact that we are all in this emergency, that we have to produce the food and that we can only produce the food we require by a three-fold effort—by effort on the part of the Government, by effort on the part of the farmers and by effort on the part of the men. If we can do that, we shall ensure that British land will be able, not only to increase our wheat production, but, in the years which are ahead of us, to make us almost self-supporting in regard to other food commodities.

6.24 p.m.

I regard this sudden and unexpected shortage of foodstuffs as a very melancholy story and the result of a great lack of foresight on this problem. We have seen that, last June, it was considered unnecessary to give directions for the growing of wheat. On 15th October last, when it was suggested that the £4 subsidy on the wheat acreage should be maintained, the Minister told this House: human food and cattle food in this country. It is inconceivable to me that the right hon. Gentleman, with all the information which he had available, did not see the tide changing sooner, so that he could alter his plans early enough to increase the wheat acreage last autumn. There were indications in the markets of the world that there was going to be a shortage, and the Minister, with all the information available, should, I believe, have had sufficient foresight to see that. It was not until the second announcement of the shortage of cattle food on 4th June that the real bombshell fell, causing the situation which faces farming today.

I should like to deal very briefly with the question of dairy cows, because it is vital to the wellbeing of milk production and to a very large number of people in this country, especially women and children. It is estimated that the cut in feeding stuffs to dairy cows will be about 40 per cent. It will be remembered that, last year, the farmer had to produce his own food for maintenance and the first half-gallon of milk. This year, it is for the first gallon, as regards proteins, and the first gallon and a quarter as regards home-produced cereal foodstuffs. All those people who tried to maintain dairy herds last winter, know how difficult it was to produce milk on the small rations then available. It will be infinitely more difficult now, as I think only the farmers themselves know, to meet the situation with this present cut of 40 per cent. It has been worked out by the Milk Marketing Board that the average production per cow in this country in December is one gallon, but, if the farmer has to produce the food for the first gallon of milk, it will mean there will be comparatively few cows above the average and very little milk. It has been suggested that something between 60 million and 100 million gallons may be affected, because of this great decline in the rations for dairy farmers, which are based on the actual milk production of the two months' previous figures. Unless they can show satisfactory past results, they cannot get anything for the future. I feel that the reduction in the quantity of milk may be very substantial indeed.

There are two kinds of dairy herds, broadly speaking, in this country. There are those known as flying herds, that is, of course, herds where the farmers buy the cows at calving, and sell them as soon as they are dry. In other words, they have practically no dry cows in their herds. They seldom, if ever, rear any young stock, and their average milk production per cow is relatively high, and so they can claim far more feeding stuffs than the farmer who is self-supporting. Then there are the self-supporting or revolving herds, where farmers rear their own young stock, keep their cows from one calving to the next, and always have a number of dry cows on their hands. It will be remembered that the feeding stuff is based on the total number of cows, and not only on the producing cows. I would suggest to the Minister that, in present conditions, it is much harder on the self-contained herd than on the flying herd. I believe it is the policy of the Government to try to improve the cattle of this country by means of encouraging the self-contained herds, but the practice of giving coupons is undoubtedly an advantage to flying herds and prejudicial to self-contained herds.

I wish to make a special plea for the small man. We know that there is a vast number of farmers in this country producing milk who have less than 10 cows each. In prewar days, they had a very small acreage of land and they purchased a large amount of food for their cattle. During the war, and since, those people have had a very much more difficult time than the large farmer. They have tried to maintain their head of cattle and have found it virtually impossible to do so. Unfortunately, many of them did not realise the difficulty and found themselves with starved cattle on their hands. In view of the cuts, the small cattle keeper is in a much worse position than the large farmer, and I would ask the Minister to see if there is anything he can do to help the small farmers who exist in large numbers in Lancashire and Cheshire and very often, in marginal land country.

With regard to the rearing of young stock, the amount of food available for young calves will, unfortunately, be reduced. Whereas some food has been available for heifers between six months and one year in the recent past, I understand that, in the future, none will be available. I regard that as very serious because the future herds of the country depend upon the young stock of today and tomorrow. We have all seen young stock badly reared during the war, and it will take years to improve the stock of this country again if young stock are allowed to become small and undernourished. This, perhaps, is an opportunity for the Minister to encourage the keeping of better cattle and the selling of the worst. I refer, particularly, to dairy cows. I have often maintained in the past that, if the number of dairy cows had been reduced by 10 per cent. and the available food given to the remaining 90 per cent., we should have got more milk than we did. I believe that for the various reasons with which we are only too familiar, there will have to be a very considerable reduction in the number of dairy cows at the present time, and I would urge the Minister to encourage farmers to get rid of their worst cattle this autumn. In order to implement that, I would suggest to him that he should increase the cow beef price for the months of September, October and November, when cows very often accumulate fat owing to the condition of the grass in the summer, and that that may be a good opportunity to help farmers out of their very real difficulty at the present time.

I wish, also, to deal briefly with the question of poultry and how the reduction of feeding stuff will affect them. I understand that, before the war, the average acreage of an accredited poultry breeder in this country with 1,200 head of adult poultry was some 80 acres. Most people will be familiar with the small rations for poultry in the years 1944 and 1945. It amounted to about one-eighth of what would have been required for 1939 stocks, less a certain reduction of 1½ head of poultry per acre. In prewar days, as I have said, there would have been 1,200 adult poultry on an average acreage. In 1944–45 there would have been 604 poultry. The amount was based on the basic number of poultry, plus the accredited allowance. That number was gradually increased from 604 poultry, two years ago, to 968 at the present time. The ration allowable is at the rate of 5.3 ounces per bird per day, which is the proper amount a laying bird should be fed. When the new cuts come into operation next winter, the present figure of 968 will be reduced almost by half to 485 accredited birds. Accredited birds are the choice breeding stock of this country and were very carefully kept in order to build up poultry stocks on a better basis after the war. They were carefully selected, blood tested, pedigree poultry. The unfortunate farmer will have to reduce his stocks by, approximately, 50 per cent. At the present time, that will involve him in a loss of some £700 which he can very ill afford. In view of this very serious cut, through no fault of the farmer, I would suggest that the Minister might well consider the removal of controlled prices on poultry until the end of September. It is no use blinking one's eyes to the fact that there is a flourishing black market in poultry and that it is no use putting a premium on dishonesty and almost forcing a man to sell in the black market and not at the controlled prices. If controlled prices for poultry were removed until the end of September, it would be beneficial to farmers generally and to consumers as well.

Reference has already been made to domestic poultry keepers, but I would like to emphasise the fact that they did very useful work during the war and are being very shabbily treated at the present time. It is the small men who suffer all along and who bear the brunt of these cuts—the small poultry keepers and the ex-Servicemen who have gone into poultry farming, the men who a year ago were giving their all for us and from whom, in some cases, we are taking their all today. They are the people who are suffering today.

In conclusion, I wish to emphasise the fact that the British people have suffered great hardships throughout the last six years, especially from the shortage of food. During the war, this was largely due to the fact that sufficient ships were not available, but that difficulty has now been largely overcome. But the people of this country are now called upon to suffer even greater hardships, and the substitution of dried eggs, dried and condensed milk for fresh eggs and fresh milk. Bread is likely to be rationed—in fact, the food position is in many ways much worse now than it was during the war. This Government may achieve great notoriety as the "bread rationing Government." People, very rightly, are becoming extremely critical of this increasing austerity, and I should like to know why the Minister cannot budget further ahead.

I cannot believe that world crop conditions changed as rapidly as he suggested. This so-called planning is, to my mind, sheer bad management. It will take the dairy and poultry industries years to recover from such a blow because farming necessarily requires a long-term policy, and many a small man will never recover at all. I have the honour to represent a large agricultural division, as do many of my hon. Friends on this bench. We all feel that the Government are seriously mishandling the whole food position, and animal foodstuffs in particular. If this is a sample of planning about which we have heard so much, then Heaven help the industries which are likely to experience similar treatment. The farmers are very worried by this reversal of policy, and the people will feel very critical and disgruntled when the full effects of this deplorable course of action comes to be felt in every home in the country.

6.42 p.m.

I am very glad to have had the opportunity of catching your eye just at this moment, Major Milner, because I would like to deal a little with what the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Sir J. Barlow) has said. When he speaks with so much pathos about the little man and the deplorable decision of the Government, I would like to ask him what is the alternative. That is the question which hon. Members opposite must face. What is the alternative now? [HON. MEMBERS: "Another Government."] A new Government the same as the one we had before, the one that made the decisions which are now being complained of by the Opposition? Will a new Government suddenly fill the larders of the world before a harvest? The situation today is this: We are responsible for 20 million people in Germany. Those people are on rations not substantially larger than the rations in Belsen. There is not enough grain to go round. Is that grain going to men or to pigs and chickens? That is the question. Does any Member opposite dare to say that that food should go to pigs and chickens when men are starving?

Yes, whisky. That being the situation, the attitude which has been taken by hon. Members opposite does them very little credit indeed. It is an attempt to make political capital out of a decision which they know is necessary and which not one of them dare say is wrong, save the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby).

On a point of Order. The hon. Gentleman having just referred to me, said it was dishonest and indecent—

I said the hon. Gentleman was the only Member who dared to say that he preferred feeding pigs to men.

It is dishonest and indecent to try to exploit a situation of world famine in order to gain a political advantage.

On a point of Order. Surely the hon. Gentleman by imputation is accusing the rest of the Committee of dishonesty?

I think the hon. Member was referring merely to political dishonesty and not making any personal reflection in the ordinary sense.

That is the situation. What they are trying to do, in view of this situation of famine, is to exploit the sacrifices which must be made by the people of this country in order that other people may live. They are attempting to appeal to the very lowest sentiments and emotions of the electors—to greed, cruelty and ignorance. I think they will find, as they did last July, that they are mistaken and that the electors are more intelligent and more decent than they give them credit for. I do not think that this indecent attempt by the Opposition to exploit a situation of great suffering for millions of people in order to gain a political advantage, instead of doing the decent thing and explaining frankly to the people why these sacrifices must be made in order that other people may live, is doing credit to themselves or to their party. So much for the question of what we ought to do now.

We have to make grain available for human beings who are starving, and on that we are substantially agreed.

The next question is, What ought we to have done in the past? I am sorry the right hon. Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) is not here, because it is his decisions which are the matters for real criticism. It was the right hon. Gentleman who decided, in spite of Hot Springs, to revert to a mixed farming animal policy. It was he who decided to remove the wheat subsidy and who decided to advise farmers to switch over to grass. He made those decisions as late as July, 1945. It is his policy which has proved one of the sources of this disaster. Then in September, for the first time, there came a little warning—the statement of the Food Council that there might be a grain shortage. What did the right hon. Member for Southport do then? Not one thing. Surely it was he, the man who had taken the decision, who should have come and stated that the decision was wrong.

May I point out that, first of all, the right hon. Gentleman was not in office then, and secondly, that the House was not sitting?

In any event, is the House the only means of drawing attention to this statement? Could not the right hon. Gentleman, with all the past experience that he had gained during his years of office, write to "The Times" and say, "I now realise that the decision which I took was disastrous. It must be reversed. I bring it to the attention of my successor. He must reverse this policy"? He did nothing, and this is really rather pathetic. Can any Opposition be so bankrupt that the best they can do to attack a Government is to say, "You did not reverse our policy quickly enough"? That is what they are saying. I am not saying the right hon. Gentleman was wrong in that; I do not say that it would have been right to reverse the policy in September; I do not think it would. If one knows farming, one appreciates that there are farmers who are constantly changing their plans. They are the ones who go bankrupt. There are also the farmers who stick to their plans, and they are the ones who pull through and do well. The cropping plans are made in February. The dung is got out to the farms and stacked, and, indeed, in a great many instances by September it is spread in the area in which, it is required. If at that date, in September, plans are going to be changed suddenly, there will be created a great deal of confusion, in addition to which the farmer's confidence in planning will be shaken; his confidence in the policy which is to be pursued will be shaken.

Irksome as hon. Members opposite find it, the farmers have great confidence in this Government's activities. If one goes right into the country, as the Minister does, it will be found that he receives great welcomes. Farmers may be simple people, but they do know enough to understand when they have got a thundering good policy, and they have got that here. After September it was too late to alter this policy, and it would not have noticeably or substantially affected the amount of wheat. I think the long-term effects of the cuts have been grossly exaggerated. Poultry and pigs are animals which breed so quickly that the numbers can be brought up to the required amount within a year, at any time that is required. With regard to cattle, there may be a loss of milk, there may be a certain amount of culling necessary in many instances, but I do not believe for one moment that heifer calves will be slaughtered. The potential supply of dairy cattle will not be affected by this cut at all. Finally, I would say to hon. Members opposite that they really should try to find something to do by way of opposition other than attempting to inflame the feelings of the electorate against a policy which they fully recognise to be necessary at present, and from attacking the Government because the present necessity has, to some extent, been caused by the Government's failure to reverse the policy of hon. Members opposite soon enough or decisively enough.

6.55 p.m.

I do not agree with the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) that this policy was ever necessary. I do not believe that the policy now being recommended by the Government to the Committee, the farmers, and the country is necessary. I will deal with the speech of the hon. Member in a minute or two. Before doing so I would like to refer to the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for King's Lynn (Major Wise). I agree with him when he says that the plough must be taken round the farms in this country. I disagree with him when he advocates, as a long-term policy, that we should turn ourselves primarily into a wheat producing country. We are not a wheat producing country, and we should never go in for wheat production on the scale on which that is done in many other countries far better suited for it than this country. I believe the best long-term policy for world agriculture lies in each country producing those commodities which it is best fitted by nature to produce.

I am sorry if I led the hon. Member to believe that I was advocating what he has just said. What I was advocating was an immediate policy for wheat during the next two or three years. Then we can get on to a better basis.

In my view it is a tragedy that at this moment, when the fertility of our soil has greatly deteriorated through the over-production of cereals during the past six years, we should now be proposing a reduction in the average feeding stuffs ration to 40 per cent. below that of last winter. Nobody denies that livestock production will now fall below the wartime level; a 10 per cent. cut in milk production is anticipated this winter; a 40 per cent. reduction of cattle; and a 50 per cent. reduction of pigs. I have seen responsible estimates which have been given. There was a letter in "The Times" only the day before yesterday; and I have seen similar estimates in agricultural newspapers up and down the country. Surely the Minister will not deny that he anticipates a heavy reduction in livestock production as a result of this policy. It cannot be denied for a moment. I say it is a tragedy for British agriculture that this should happen at the present time. It is a disaster, to put it mildly. The right hon. Gentleman must admit that the whole vital process of turning from cereal production to livestock production, with which he and my right hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) were associated—and a very wise decision it was, in the circumstances—is not only to be checked but reversed. The rebuilding of our high quality herds, so promisingly begun, is to be brought to a full stop. Perhaps the most serious aspect, from the nutritional point of view, is in regard to milk production. We may disagree about the percentage; but we cannot disagree about the fact that the reduction this winter will be most serious.

I say quite frankly to the Committee that I am opposed to the whole business. I am opposed to the rise in the extraction rate of flour, with the disastrous effect it will have both on the stomachs of the people of this country, and upon the amount of animal feedingstuffs available. As I told the hon. Member for Northampton, I am opposed to the further diversion of feedingstuffs by this country to Europe, because it will do damage to British agriculture, which will take years to repair. I do not think this should ever have been necessary. In my view the Government have given way far too much in Washington during recent months, and in all the negotiations that they have conducted with the great food producing countries. In my submission, they have not fought hard enough for Britain; they have not represented the British cause forcibly enough, either in Washington or at Buenos Aires. When the Government asked for cereals, they were told that Europe had a prior claim, and they at once admitted it. When they asked for fats they were told to go whaling to see if they could catch some fats in the Arctic Ocean; and unfortunately they did not succeed in catching the fats which they set out to catch. I want to know what the food situation really is in Europe today. We ought to know a great deal more about it. Admittedly, there are some bad spots—some very bad spots—in the towns, particularly in Austria and the Rhineland; but in most of the country districts of Western Europe I believe people are better fed than they are here.

The hon. Gentleman is not in Order in discussing the food situation in Europe. We are discussing food production in this country.

I will leave that topic at once; but I would like to point out that one of the main causes of this cut in our animal feedingstuffs is the fact that we have agreed to the diversion of so many cereals to Europe. Before we send all this stuff to Europe—and that is the reason why these cuts are being imposed—we should make quite sure that the condition of certain countries in Western Europe, so far as foodstuffs are concerned, is as bad as it is in this country. Certainly, so far as I am concerned—

Will the hon. Member say how many tons of foodstuffs we have sent out of this country, because he is suggesting to the Committee that we are sending foodstuffs out of the country?

With all respect, Major Milner, I think it was while you were absent from the Chair that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture devoted a portion of his speech to describing in detail, with the actual figures, the agricultural position in various countries in Europe. He gave the figures for cattle, pigs, poultry and so forth, and with all respect I submit that it is germane, when we are discussing what is being done and the sacrifices that are being made here, to have some regard to the position of those for whom we are making those sacrifices.

I made no reference whatsoever to the area in Europe for which we as a nation are responsible, which is totally different from what the hon. Member raised.

I am sure it is within the recollection of the right hon. Gentleman and of the Committee that he gave in detail figures of the cattle, pig and poultry populations in Denmark, Holland, Belgium and so forth. That is precisely what my hon. Friend meant.

I persist in saying that I made no reference to any country in Europe for which this nation is responsible.

We cannot have an inquest on what has or has not been said. In my view the hon. Gentleman's remarks were not in Order.

Naturally I at once accept your Ruling, Major Milner; but you would not deny, and I think no Member of the Committee would deny, that the Minister has accepted—as have we all—a special responsibility of this country to feed the British zone in Germany. That, I think, is completely in Order, because it is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend. On that point I would say that I think the position there has been enormously aggravated by the decisions reached by His Majesty's Government with regard to mass deportations from Eastern Germany into Western Germany; and also by reason of the fact that no food is at the present time coming from Eastern Germany into Western Germany. I want to know why, and what the right hon. Gentleman is doing about that, because I understood that it was definitely part of the policy—

Is the hon. Gentleman asking me why no food is coming out of Eastern Germany, or out of the American-controlled zone of Germany, into the British zone?

Would it not be better if the hon. Member asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who is responsible for the British zone?

In any event, that question does not arise. It is not covered in any Vote which is now before the Committee.

I would point out that the Minister two minutes ago accepted responsibility for the British zone in Germany, on behalf of His Majesty's Government. I merely want to suggest that it is in fact true—I cannot give this point up—that one of the main causes of the present trouble is the diversion of feedingstuffs which might otherwise be coming to this country. It is generally accepted that this has been the case; and I am inquiring into the causes, and the necessity for it.

To get back to the question of production, for which the Minister is directly responsible, I want to suggest to him that if he had taken timely and resolute action, along with the Secretary of State for Scotland, a few months ago, he could have saved the situation in Western Europe, and particularly in the British zone in Germany, by exporting a sufficient quantity of cured herrings and potatoes, without giving away any more cereals. I know that the herring fishing industry is my "King Charles' head," but it is a matter of production, and the Minister is directly responsible. It is a subject I happen to know something about; and if all hon. Members talked only about subjects they know, we should get on very well. I do know something about it. It is not as if the Government were not warned about this position, and it is not as if we had not had two years of bitter experience, of seeing the great herring fleets tied up in harbour while masses of herrings floated some 30 miles off the coast waiting to be picked up. The fleet lay in port last year on two or three nights a week, and sometimes only half was allowed to put to sea. The same thing is happening again, even in this time of acute food shortage.

I want to make it quite clear that the fishermen are not in any way to blame for the restrictions on fishing which have already been imposed this year, and which I am afraid will have to be imposed in the future. That responsibility lies with the right hon. Gentleman, and with the Government. I accuse them of criminal negligeence with regard to the herring fishing industry. I have written letter after letter begging and imploring Ministers, urging them, encouraging them, and cursing them, in order to try to get the necessary raw materials and labour for this industry—above all, wood for barrels. Last week I received a letter, which I shall quote to the Committee, from one of the leading curers in the North of Scotland. It says:

Cured herring are not there. What I put to the hon. Member was this: that in the existing situation ought this grain to go to human beings or pigs? The hon. Member for East Aberdeen says it should go to the pigs.

The herring are there. The only trouble is they are not cured; and the reason they are not cured I have just explained. There are plenty of herring. And one need not only cure them. There is a thing known as "Klondyking." That is to put the herring lightly salted in a ship, and transport them direct to Germany. Why have we not got klondyking from Aberdeen today? We ought also to have a far better distribution of herring in this country. There are thousands of them; but how many hon. Members can get fresh herring or kippers today? It is precious difficult; and the towns and villages of this country ought to be flooded with them. The distribution is abominable.

I have been interrupted once or twice, and I have exceeded my time, and I want only to say this in conclusion. I firmly believe that the food policy of this Government borders on insanity. We have a limited acreage in this country and a large population to feed, and our only hope is to produce the maximum quantity of protective foods; in other words to convert raw materials into costlier finished products. It is necessary both on economic grounds and on nutritional grounds. Before the war 75 per cent. of our total agricultural revenue was derived from livestock products; and we produced high quality stock to fortify the herds in other parts of the world. There was never a moment in the history of British agriculture when the replenishment of our soil and the replenishment of our herds with good stock was more necessary. What are we doing about it? We are killing off our livestock and proposing to buy abroad, out of our limited dollar resources, tinned milk, butter, meat and eggs, at a cost four times greater than the cost of the raw materials needed to produce these commodities ourselves. The right hon. Gentleman said he was doing his utmost about labour, and I think he is doing his best. I would urge him to do something about water and electricity as well, in the countryside. For the supplies of both are woefully inadequate.

I would like to make one final suggestion. I do honestly believe that we shall never get a comprehensive, clear, balanced food policy in this country until we have far better coordination between the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Food. I go so far as to say that these Ministries ought to be amalgamated. I remember when I was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food in 1940 writing a minute on a file about a foot high, as follows:

7.15 p.m.

I am very glad to have the opportunity of speaking immediately after the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) because his advocacy of herring is most interesting. I have just recently been in Washington, attending the conference of the Food and Agriculture Organisation, and one of the surpluses reported, especially in Northern Scandinavia, is a surplus of fish. I have no doubt, however, that from the point of view of the hon. Gentleman's own constituency, herring are important. But on another question mentioned by the hon. Member for East Aberdeen, I cannot agree. Any large-scale killing off of cattle on account of reduced rations is plain arrant nonsense. It will not happen. There will be some reduction, some culling, and there will be reduction in the milk supply. That is obvious. But there will not be any large-scale killing off of cattle. That is quite certain, as the right hon. Gentleman who opened the Debate will tell him. I found it very interesting indeed to listen to the right hon. Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson), because he is an advocate of long-term planning in agriculture. He has frequently talked about it. Sometimes we have had private talks about it between ourselves. But on this occasion he seemed to think that, for some mysterious reason, after the Labour Government had been elected a shorter period than ever before was all that was required for agricultural planning and for the turnover from one kind of planning to another.

I confess that, after coming from the atmosphere of the Food and Agriculture Organisation conference in Washington to the Debate today in this Chamber, I am surprised to find that the debating here is of a much poorer quality than it was over there. At the Food and Agriculture Organisation conference, where the representatives were people of Ministerial and ambassadorial status, there was acknowledgement all round the table that there have been in the last 12 months mistakes with regard to agricultural production in many countries. They have been by no means confined to this country. There have been mistakes here, and some of them have been made by the right hon. Member for Southport in a number of decisions that he made. What the hon. Member for East Aberdeen appeared to advocate in the concluding stages of his speech was a return to increased livestock production at the present time. I do not pretend to be an agricultural expert, but I have been in the company of a good many agricultural experts, and that suggestion of his is against the whole consensus of world opinion. We need very greatly increased cereal production. We must have it; and we are going to get it in this country when the plans have taken shape.

May I interrupt one moment on that point? Does the hon. Gentleman know the increase in livestock production of the United States and in the Argentine during the last five years—what the percentage has been, as against what it has been in this country?

I am quite aware of the enormous production of the United States. No doubt there has also been great production in the Argentine. That is one of the causes of the world disaster. The Americans have been—and they admit it frankly—feeding grain to stock in order to produce a large amount of meat, and it has been a disaster to the world, and they are now having to reverse that policy.

At the conference I attended there was a very large amount of information on the agricultural position—the whole farming position—of the world in general, and it was agreed to set up a world information organisation dealing with food and food production. It was also agreed and stated in the memoranda—one of which I have in my hand—that there has been up to the present little accurate information about any country. It is extremely difficult to get accurate information. But in the future there will be this organisation functioning, and it will have a great deal of accurate information. There will also be—

You were fairly strict with some of us, Major Milner. I do not think that this material is included in the Vote.

My attention was distracted for a moment but I think the hon. Gentleman is not in Order.

I was endeavouring to keep within the limits of Order. I was going to say that there would be suggestions from this organisation for planned production, for the coordination of production in this country with pro- ductuion in other countries—which, I am quite sure, the right hon. Gentleman would consider a very important matter. There will be other matters of equally great importance. There is no doubt whatever that we can, by coordinating our actions with those of other countries, get very much better results than we have had in the past.

I quite understand that the right hon. Gentleman opposite was making a political attack on this Government. As the leader of the Opposition, for the time being, he is entirely entitled to do so. But he was justifying his speech by the old formula that the duty of the Opposition is to oppose. He made a very good Opposition speech, but there was very little agricultural substance in it. Anyone with knowledge of the facts knows it was very ill founded. Never mind. He can do that as much as he likes. I do not suggest that he should be constructive and help this Government; but I do suggest that if he has any private ideas he might pass them on to the Minister, who will take note of them and benefit from them, because the right hon. Gentleman has wide experience. I am sorry that he did not give us the benefit of his experience. He gave us the benefit of his political astuteness, and it was, I think, a very good Opposition speech. It would have been better, however, if he had told us more about what we needed to do.

Several hon. Members have spoken during the Debate about a tremendous reduction in milk this coming winter. There will be a reduction, but, as the right hon. Member for Southport was careful to point out, the milk will be sufficient in quantity for priority consumers, for infants, nursing mothers, invalids and so forth. While there may be only one pint or 1½ pints for adults, milk is not an essential food for them—it is essential for infants—and, although we may have cause to grumble, we shall not suffer in health or vitality in consequence. The situation is that our production in this country is going through a very difficult stage owing largely to world conditions, to the using up of immense quantities of cereals in the United States by recklessly feeding of them to animals, and the using up of cereals in South America to fire locomotives because they could not get oil from the United States or coal from us. These things have dislocated the world food economy.

If the right hon. Gentleman had been in Office, he would have had to do exactly the same thing, he would have had to adapt our policy to the realities of the world situation. It is no good pretending that anything else could have happened. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but I should be very glad if he would explain sometime the difference which he could have made. He made certain decisions in July, but I wonder whether he would have been ready to reverse them in September.

We may or may not be sceptical about that, but I confess that to my mind it would have been doubtful. There is no doubt that at the present time, under this Government, we may look forward to a very much improved organised agricultural production, coordinated with the work of the new international organisation now set up in Washington, which the Minister of Food will be attending on 23rd June. I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland will have something to say about the relation of production in this country to world planned production of this new organisation. I believe that the future of our agriculture depends on it being part of a planned world economy, and this organisation is the first step to a planned world economy in which this country may take part. That is the way we shall obtain agricultural production satisfactory to this country, which will be able also to play its part in general world production, avoiding the difficulties of over-competition and unrestricted free trade. I trust that when the Minister winds up the Debate he will have something to say about this wider international aspect of production, because it will govern our production for many years to come.

7.24 p.m.

I have no wish to add alarm or despondency to this Debate. Although some Members on the other side may not accept this. I share completely the view of the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd) when I say that Members on this side of the Committee would be proud indeed to contribute something to the solution of the problems which confront the Minister of Agriculture. I have sought to intervene in this Debate because I have the honour to represent a constituency in a part of the world which has a very big agricultural surplus which it ships to this country. Earlier in this Debate the Minister of Agriculture challenged Members on this side to support their argument with facts and figures. I know that at this stage it is very boring to quote figures, but acceptance of that challenge is my excuse. Northern Ireland has shipped from 31st March, 1945, to 31st March of this year 3,000,000 gallons of liquid milk, and processed with equivalent to 12,000,000 gallons of liquid milk, 174,000 animals, with a total value of close on £5 million sterling, 779,000 cases of eggs, which is another £4 million, poultry to the tune of 9,500,000 lbs., and potatoes to the extent of 163,000 tons. Therefore I speak with the object of trying to safeguard and maintain this supply of food to this country, and not because I want to cause any alarm or despondency.

The proposed cuts in foodstuffs have a grave significance for the small farm economy of Northern Ireland. I listened with astonishment to the criticism levelled at the small farmers, because farming across the Channel is a small farm economy which has succeeded in producing the immense surpluses I have just quoted. A year or so ago we were encouraged to increase our livestock. That advice was taken on the other side, and the breeding of cattle, pigs and poultry have all increased. It will be a grave blow to the confidence which the farmers over there have felt in the Minister of Agriculture if that policy is now to be shattered. We have been asked many times to be constructive. During the Debate it was suggested that grain should have been purchased in the Argentine, and the Minister of Agriculture threw out a challenge to the right hon. Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) and asked him if he could do any better if he went out to the Argentine at the present time. But one argument was lacking, namely, the question of prices. Those who have been concerned with buying and selling, as I have been concerned all my life, know that one factor in buying and selling is price, and, therefore, if the agricultural Mission had gone to the Argentine with as free a hand as apparently was given by Russia and France, they would have brought back the grain. I hope that every effort will be made in the future and that exchange will be provided.

Another serious challenge has been thrown across the Floor of this Committee as to whether grain should go towards preventing starvation, or whether it should be fed to pigs. There is no reason why we should not debate ways and means of making the most use of any grain which we obtain, and I suggest that grain destined to go to different parts of Europe where famine and death are hanging over people like a dark cloud, should be brought to this country and milled, and the flour sent across in that form.

There is an old saying about killing the goose that lays the golden egg. That is generally used to suggest bad or false economy. It seems to me that if this policy is pursued of cutting down the feeding stuffs ration, we are about to kill the cow that yields the milk, the pig that provides the bacon, and the hen that lays the eggs. I hesitate to put forward any special plea for my part of the country, but there are different forms of farming in different parts of the land. There are the small farmers concentrating on animal products, and the big farmers growing corn, wheat and barley. It may be that some scheme can be worked out which would maintain the herds, the pigs and the poultry at the highest possible level by modification of the drastic cuts which are threatened. If they are carried into effect it certainly means, so far as Ulster is concerned, less milk for Glasgow, to mention but one great city, less meat for England, and fewer eggs for the United Kingdom.

7.32 p.m.

I shall not keep the Committee long, but there are one or two points which I want to raise in answer to the challenge of the Minister of Agriculture. He asked for criticism and challenged anybody on this side of the House to suggest other ways in which our food production might be increased. My first point concerns the agricultural executive committees, as they now exist. When will a decision be made by His Majesty's Government to change the existing executive committees into the committees that are to be set up under the new constitution? I feel that indecision on this matter is a great mistake. We must have a decision, and we must have it now, and I shall endeavour to show the Committee why. In the first place, members of existing executive committees want to know about their future. For example, what is to happen to the technical expert? Is he going back to his agricultural college? Will he be taken on the new committee, or what is to happen to him? In the second place, there are a great many members of existing committees who feel that it is somebody else's turn to serve in that capacity, and there are also representatives on these committees who want to give up their work because of their age, and so it is an unfair act, so far as personnel is concerned, if the Government continue to be undecisive.

Such indecision is only part of the story. Far more serious will indecision be to our maximum food effort.

I am sorry that the hon. and gallant Gentleman is pursuing that particular line. Surely he is aware that, on the Estimates, I announced that a decision had already been made. Consequently, he is hammering at something on which it is not necessary to spend the time of the Committee.

I regret it if I am hammering at something already stated, but I understood that that had not yet been decided. I was recently told by my own committee that they had heard nothing about it. If a decision has been made I am very glad to hear it, and we must look to the future to see what can be done, because there are many decisions that have to be taken. I hope that the decisions this year, unlike those of last year, with regard to our wheat crops in Scotland especially, will be taken quickly. I do not know whether His Majesty's Government have made any announcements on those lines as yet. If they have not, I think they should do so soon. It takes two months from the time an order is given by a committee to the time when the order is actually put into operation. In Scotland, we have to have our wheat in the ground by the beginning of November at the latest. I hope that we shall have a decision on wheat crop requirements soon, and not, as was the case last time, at a very late date indeed.

I should like to refer briefly to soil fertility. The Secretary of States knows fully about a case which I have put to him concerning lime, or that material which is at present supplied to farmers under the heading of lime. I refer, for the information of the Committee, to supplies of this material which are at present delivered to farmers of a lime content far below that which is stated under the guarantee of the contractor I do not know whose fault causes this deficiency, or if it is anybody's fault, but I am informed that legislation could be put in train to put the matter right, so that farmers would know exactly what they are putting on their fields when they buy lime. I should like the Secretary of State to expedite action on this matter, because I believe it is of the utmost importance. I know that, in my part of the world, the land is crying out for good lime, and if he will expedite supplies of good lime, I believe that he will produce more food.

I would refer also to the potash content of our soil. In my part of the world—and I should think this applies to Scotland, and, for that matter, to Great Britain—I can assure the Committee that, during the last nine months, the potash content of the soil in Angus, at any rate, has gone down alarmingly, and our crops will suffer this year unless we get a better supply of potash manure. May I ask the Secretary of State what has happened to the supplies? Have imports of potash manures been bungled, or what has happened? Will he look into it, and could we have some constructive answer before the end of the Debate?

Lastly, I want to speak about research, and, in particular, the application of research to farming. I think that in the matter of research there is far too little contact with the farmers. In Scotland, we want to see a greater stimulating effect upon the activities of our milk recording societies. We want to have full statistics of disease; we do not want to keep them just as disease records, but genuinely to use them for the improvement of our cattle breeds. I believe a lot of sound activity, and profitable activity, could be put in, in that direction. We want to see particularly an extension of our veterinary health services. In the first place I am told that our animal health divisions are feeling frustrated, and feel that they are not doing all that they could do. I suggest that a possible reason is because they come under the Civil Service and are not directly responsible to the Minister. I believe that if they were to shoulder responsibility, far better results would be obtained.

I am told also that our veterinary advisory service requires a vastly increased range. They should be in direct contact with the farmers. They want to approach the farmer instead of always having to be approached by him. Doubtless that would mean a numerical increase in those with veterinary training, but I think that we should give more encouragement to men and women to go in for this calling. It is a most urgent necessity that we do have more people in the country with this training. I should like to ask the Secretary of State whether he is taking any steps to encourage young men and young women to go in for veterinary training.

Here is an illustration of how an extension of our veterinary health services could genuinely increase our food output, not only long-term, but during this winter as well. In Angus, as a result of the food cuts for animals, we will produce approximately 400,000 gallons less milk during the seven winter months, and I believe that our veterinary services can be employed to make good a great deal of that loss. It has been found that penicillin will cure at first treatment, 75 per cent. of the cases of mastitis. I do not know whether penicillin is in sufficient supply for animal treatment, or whether it is used only for treating human beings, but I wonder whether the Secretary of State for Scotland has bothered to find this out. If he has not, I suggest that he does so, and perhaps if he does find that penicillin supplies are insufficient for this purpose, he will try to boost them and get greater supplies so that they can be used for treating our cattle. There is no doubt that mastitis probably results in more milk being lost in this country than any other known disease. I am certain that this would not make good the 400,000 gallons of milk in Angus, though it would make good some of it, but how much I cannot say. I am perfectly certain it would be an experiment well worth trying throughout the country if only some sense of urgency were displayed by the Ministers responsible. I should like to ask the Secretary of State if there is any reason for not starting in Scotland now a campaign against mastitis in cattle, because I genuinely believe it would be a most profitable action as far as our food is concerned. That is a practical way in which we might make good some of our food losses during this coming bleak, winter. I have endeavoured in a short time to produce concrete suggestions which can help our food supplies, and I hope I have played some part in answering the challenge of the Minister of Agriculture.

7.5 p.m.

I listened with a great deal of interest to the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Forfar (Major Ramsay), and I believe he did make a genuine effort to put forward constructive proposals which we all are agreed are so urgently needed at the present time. Like the hon. and gallant Gentleman, I come from a part of the country which is particularly affected and particularly interested in the present Debate. In Scotland we have not only to face the effects of the cuts in feeding-stuffs for cattle, but we have also had to face a very exceptional drought. I was very interested in the criticism of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Southport (Mr. Hudson) when he suggested that the Government should plan for exceptional weather conditions. I do not know anybody who would have forecast this year ten weeks of a drought which has been the worst in living memory. I do think it was rather partisan of the right hon. Gentleman to suggest that the Government should anticipate weather conditions such as we have had in Scotland during the last ten weeks.

The situation in Scotland is really more serious than it is in any part of the country. In Southern Ayrshire, which I represent, we are very deeply affected by the cuts in fodder, which are going to create changed conditions in milk production in a district which supplies a very large percentage of the milk to the industrial areas of the West of Scotland. It is estimated by the local agricultural committee in South Ayrshire that, as the result of the reduction of feedingstuffs there will be a drop next winter of 41 per cent. in milk production or 2,666,000 gallons. That is going to be a very serious situation indeed for the West of Scotland, especially for the schools which rely upon milk for the feeding of the school children. I hope that the Government will think of every possible device to deal with this situation, so that some- thing practicable can be done to alleviate the very grave shortage of milk that is going to arise this winter.

An hon. Member who spoke earlier in the Debate said that what we needed was British labour for British land. I am not altogether pleased about the announcement made by the Minister of Agriculture about the continued employment of German labour. He gave a figure of 200,000 German prisoners to be employed, I believe, in England and Wales. In the Debate on the Scottish Estimates the Secretary of State for Scotland told us that this year we were to have 35,000 German prisoners in Scotland. It was also stated in the Debate that this was a very large percentage of the labour which will be used in Scotland in the harvest, and we wondered whether it is not a bad thing for the economy of agriculture to rely too much upon German prison labour. What is to happen when the 35,000 German prisoners return home? Shall we not then be faced with a very serious labour situation? I wish that we could be told something definite about the Government's proposals to deal with this problem in the years that are to come.

We shall have to rely, I believe, a great deal more upon mechanisation, and one of the questions put to the Minister of Agriculture was what was he doing in regard to agricultural machinery and spare parts for tractors. Has there not been something very wrong in the planning of agriculture when, at this time, we have to rely upon America for spare parts for tractors? What sort of planning ahead was done in past years when, at the present time, we have to rely upon America for those spare parts? Why have we not our own tractor factories? Would it not be a great contribution to the future prosperity of our agriculture if we developed the tractor industry in Scotland or England? [An HON. MEMBER: "What about Wales?"] The Welsh can speak for themselves. The labour problem will be very serious in the future, and I urge on the Minister to remember that in time he will have to meet, for example, the opposition of the more enlightened education authorities in Scotland, who are becoming alarmed at children being recruited from the schools, year after year, to swell the army of potato growers.

What is to be done in the future? The Minister said that agricultural workers would not be conscripted. That is very good. But at the same time we are taking men from factories and foundries which make agricultural machinery, and putting them into the Forces. This country, and Scotland in particular, cannot afford to conscript men for service in Armies abroad, when they are needed in the development and production of food. I look upon the future with grave forebodings if something is not done to ensure that we get the agricultural labour that is needed. We need to recruit people to the countryside; we need to give them better houses; we need to give the farms water and electricity; we need a long-term plan for agriculture. I appeal to the Government not merely to face the immediate future, but to go forward with a long-term plan for finding employment for British labour and British land in order to build up the prosperity of this country on a really sound foundation.

7.54 p.m.

I would like to follow for one moment what has been said by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) about tractors. He asked why we had not built up a tractor industry in this country. The answer is that we have. There is Fords at Dagenham, and the Marshall Diesel plant and the International Harvester Company also manufacture here. We have built up an extremely successful and thriving industry. The Minister of Agriculture rightly pointed out that the production of food depends on increased supplies of agricultural machinery. What is happening to the machinery that is coming out of British factories? A considerable proportion is being sent abroad. In the first four months of this year we exported 5,406 tons of tractors, 4,497 tons of ploughs, 520 tons of threshing equipment, and 5,028 tons of other agricultural machinery. Judging from the average weight of a tractor, that means that something like 3,400 tractors were sent abroad during that period. When the May figures are out they will show than an even greater number of tractors has been sent abroad. I know perfectly well that we require to have an export drive, but surely our present food situation and great shortage of agricultural machinery demand that we should give preference to our own farmers. The same position exists with regard to horticultural glass. I tried to get figures from the Board of Trade on the quantity that was being sent abroad, but they could not give me details. The Dutch, however, say that they are getting adequate supplies of British horticultural glass, although the damage to their greenhouses as a result of the war was less than the damage to ours.

I turn to the question of the acquisition of land. During the war we lost, through the building of aerodromes and military camps, a considerable amount of good corn-growing land. Today, we have a situation in which the War Office are in process of requisitioning a large area of good corn-growing land in Dorset. They are requisitioning it for what? A tank gunnery range. That will mean the dispossession of farmers, the destruction of farms and, incidentally, the destruction of a centuries old fishing industry. That is in the Kimmeridge area. I was recently between Penrith and Carlisle, where I saw a huge tank gunnery range, standing empty. The camp attached to it was empty as well. Yet here we have the Minister of Agriculture allowing another Government Department to requisition and destroy growing land.

I would like to know what the Government are doing to get alternative supplies of feedingstuffs from abroad. I refer, particularly, to cotton seed cake from Egypt. I had a letter last week from Egypt which told me that the Soviet Government have agents buying cotton seed cake in Egypt and offering, in return, coal from the Don Basin. If it is a question of sterling that prevents us from getting more feedingstuffs from abroad, linseed oil and olive oil and so on, I would like to ask the Government why they spent, in April alone, £250,000 on buying lettuces from the Dutch, and thereby spoiled the market for the British crop?

7.59 p.m.

I listened with great anxiety to the speech of the Minister of Agriculture, and I must confess that I found it only an attempted justification of the reason why he continued the policy of his predecessor and that he felt he was in the midst of vast world forces which he can neither plan nor control. I did not see in it—and I hope we may be given some information later—any indication that the Government are really applying those principles of planning, in which they profess to believe, to this problem of food production. Food production is not a problem that will be with us for a few months or a few years; it will be with us for a very long time. To say that we must rely as much as we can on our own production at home is a truism. I am not appealing in any way for economic self-sufficiency; on the contrary, it is essential to put the stress on the maximum of international trade; but with food shortage all over the world, Britain can make a contribution by producing the most from her own land and her own resources. There is a long-term problem as well as a short-term one. There is need both for emergency measures and planning ahead.

What is the task? It is to enable the farmer to get the most and the best out of the land, and to attract the best men to the land. There is a danger of agriculture being considered a profession which is the last resort of persons who have no other outlet for their employment. If we are to plan on the basis I have indicated, we must think not only of the remuneration of all those who work on and derive a livelihood from the soil, important though that is, but also of those features and matters which affect the amenities and conditions of life in the countryside. I speak with particular reference to my own constituency of Merioneth. I think the conditions there are true of the other mountainous rural constituencies of this country. There are bad approach roads to the farms; only a small proportion of farms have a piped water supply; there is the bad condition of the dwelling houses and the outbuildings, there is the poor condition in many cases of the rural schools, there is the high drainage rate: and to a certain extent, there still persists some feeling of insecurity, not so much insecurity of tenure, although that does exist—and I know this will be a sore point when I mention it to the Minister—but insecurity from the point of view of the large powers of the Forestry Commissioners and the activities of the military in the county.

The Minister of Agriculture cannot solve these problems alone. I was considerably dismayed to notice the absence of any reference in his speech to coordination, to a concerted attack on the problems, by all the Government Departments. When an hon. Member asked the Minister about the problem of domestic help for the farmers' wives, the Minister said that question should be addressed to the Minister of Labour. When another hon. Member asked what amount of British produced food was sent to Germany, the right hon. Gentleman said the matter was one for the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. The Chancellor of the Duchy is not in the Cabinet, and these matters are the collective responsibility of the Cabinet, and should be faced as such. I would like to know what machinery exists for tying up all these activities which bear on life in the country and which will make life in the country more attractive and bring out of men their best. Does the Minister of Agriculture cooperate with the Minister of Health on the question of houses and with the Minister of Supply on the question of prefabricated outbuildings—

The hon. Member is getting very wide of the Vote which the Committee is discussing, which deals with food production.

I thought these matters had reference to food production. At the present time we shall attract men to the land, and we shall persuade farmers to put their energies into food production, if we make the conditions such that they will be able to obtain the greatest results from their labours. In my own constituency of Merioneth, in particular, the farmers are faced with two factors which militate constantly against food production. The first is the tendency of the Forestry Commissioners to acquire good land for afforestation. They take the middle land. There is land which they might well take, shrubland and cleared woodlands, but only recently, at a time when there is an acute shortage of food and when we must concentrate all our energies on food production, I referred to the Minister the case of a farm in my constituency, Ty-Cerrig, Caecoch, where good middle land is being taken for afforestation. The activities of the Forestry Commissioners are supposed to come under the surveillance of the Minister. Is this purely nominal? I would like to know whether the Minister is advised by the county war agricultural executive committee or the Welsh Department of the Ministry at Aberystwyth before these inroads are made by the Forestry Commissioners. At the moment there is a feeling of frustration, particularly on the part of the small farmers. They feel they are up against a large, ruthless authority, that they cannot make their protest effectively, and that their voice is disregarded.

The second matter which worries farmers in Merioneth and indeed North Wales, and which militates against food production, is the activities of the military—activities such as the breaking down of hedges, the using of phosphorous bombs which contaminate the pastures and which result in the death of sheep, fox terriers and cattle. I gave instances recently to the Minister, and he referred them to the Admiralty. What was the answer? At a time when we are supposed to put food production foremost in importance, the Admiralty gave an assurance to the Minister that the use of the bombs would be limited to the minimum necessary to meet training requirements. The Minister admitted that that was not satisfactory. I say that when food production is so important, the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Food should have the highest say in this matter. Yet the Minister of Agriculture has to take a back place to the Service Departments; and the Minister of Food, whose voice might be effective, is not even in the Cabinet.

What I ask for is an indication that the Government are dealing with these problems in a large way. The problems include the amount of land to be devoted to the production of wheat, the position which the raising of stock, and the production of milk is to occupy, what coordination there is with other Government Departments whose activities affect the lives of men in the country—all that large-scale sympathetic planning which we are entitled to expect from the Government, and which we have not yet seen so far as this Department is concerned.

8.8 p.m.

I ask the Committee to turn its attention for a few minutes to the fishing industry, which has been touched upon only briefly by the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson). I hope that there are no hon. Members who, in a Debate on food production, think that the question of the fishing industry should interest only those who represent fishing constituencies. It is not always realised what a very large part of food production is the production of fish. The Minister recently gave us some idea when he mentioned that the weight of fish landed in the years before the war was equal to the weight of meat raised, with the sole exception, of bacon. Even since the war, in the month of April this year, in the ten major ports, the landing of white fish amounted to 1,350,000 cwts. That is a very large quantity for a single month and it omits, of course, all the catch of herring which is very considerable as well. Just because this industry has revived at such a speed, and because it is now landing such considerable quantities, there has been a general tendency to suggest that it is not urgent, that it can wait, and that the production of fish will go on of its own accord. If anybody holds those views, I hope he has not omitted to notice that there has been in the last fortnight a hold-up in the fishing industry, and that large portions of the trawler fleet have been tied up in port. In my own constituency of Grimsby the total number of trawlers tied up at one time has exceeded 150. I think that should show that fish production cannot be left entirely to itself. The strike is only one symptom of the general uncertainty which is bound to continue until some overall policy for the industry is proclaimed by the Government.

The Minister reiterated today, that so far as the agricultural side of his duties is concerned he attempts to give guaranteed prices and assured markets to the producers. The need for those things is just as great in the fishing industry as in agriculture, but as yet, so far as I am aware, no hope of a similar coordinated policy has been given to the fishing industry. At present our fleets are largely obsolete and inconvenient, and yet the owners do not dare to build new ships. Within a short space of time—perhaps a year or two years—it is not impossible that the least economic and oldest of the ships will have to be tied up because they do not pay. They will be tied up and they will not have been replaced by any new building. That, perhaps, is a rather long-term danger, but there is the immediate danger of the fishermen, who are catching more and more fish, and earning less and less for their labours, deciding from time to time that the game is not worth the candle and refusing to sail.

I will not weary the Committee with figures, but I think it right that hon. Members should know that there have been cases in the last fortnight of men coming back from three weeks' trips to Bear Island and finding that apart from their basic allocation of some £4 12s. normally allocated to their families to keep them while the men are away—they have had nothing whatever. One man said he had had four shillings on his return from a trip which had been highly successful, and during which a great deal of very good fish had been caught and on which, during the fishing period, the men had been working a 126 hour week. It is not to be expected that men should put up with that and I ask the Committee to consider in what other industry men, when they come to look for their pay packet after a successful and hard period of work, find that their earnings, through causes quite outside their own control, have dropped to a third or perhaps a quarter of what they are accustomed to expect.

What is the root of the trouble? We have been told in many trade journals and in the Press generally that it is due to the landings of foreign fish. I agree with the right hon. Member for Southport that this is by no means the whole of the story—far from it. It may be true that with the existing inadequate machinery in the industry heavy foreign landings may cause a certain amount of trouble, but the remedy is not so much to stop the foreign landings as to put the machinery right. The things that are wrong are very well known. First there is the lack of provision for refrigeration, both in the ports and on the railways, and the inadequacy of processing facilities referred to by the hon. Member for East Aberdeen. Secondly, there is far too little cooperation between the producers—that is, the trawler owners—and the merchants who have to sell the fish which is brought in. Much more could be done to see that the ships catch the kind of fish for which there is the greatest demand.

The hon. Gentleman is going rather wide of the subjects that can be discussed on the Vote. He is now dealing with matters which fall within the province of the Ministry of Food, and are not the concern of the Minister of Agriculture.

I must, of course, bow to your Ruling, Mr. Beaumont, but I think that you have perhaps made one of my points for me, namely, that it is really quite impossible for the Minister of Agriculture to ensure a regular level of production in this industry, unless he is prepared to accept some responsibility for the distributive side. After all, this industry—unless it is to be nationalised—must work for a financial return, and unless the Minister is prepared to take measures such as he takes in the case of agriculture to ensure some reasonable market for the goods when they come in, then it is utterly impossible for him to do anything practical for it.

There is one further point which I think is perhaps the most important and urgent, and which does come, in part at any rate, within the responsibility of the Minister of Agriculture. It is the question of the setting up of some joint industrial machinery for the industry. That may be primarily a matter for the Minister of Labour, but I hope, Mr. Beaumont, that you will not consider that it falls entirely outside the province of the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries. If these problems—in my view the only problems which matter in connection with the fishing industry—all fall outside the province of the Minister, then I should certainly find myself supporting the hon. Member for East Aberdeen in his contention that the Ministry of Food and the Ministry of Agriculture should be united. None of these problems is new. The truth is that this industry needs an overhaul, and that overhaul cannot wait until legislation for some improved White Fish Commission or something of that kind is provided 18 months hence. There are powers in existence which would enable the Government, if they took the necessary steps, to ensure better consultation in the industry and a more rational system of production. If that is not done we risk trouble, not only because of the legitimate discontent among the men from time to time, but also because of obsolete fleets going out of existence and not being replaced.

8.18 p.m.

I hope that the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Younger), who has just made a most valuable speech, will forgive me if I do not follow him, but I feel that where the hon. Member could not wholly keep in Order on the subject of fishing, one who hails from the chalky soil of Salisbury Plain would have very little chance of success. Time is limited and there is one particular point I wish to make, but first I wish to associate myself very strongly with the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Emrys Roberts) and my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Baker White) in begging the Minister to take a much stronger line than he has done up to now against the depredations of the military upon agricultural territory.

I wish to take up a point that the Minister made in his speech when he claimed that there had been no general criticism of his agricultural policy. His policy, he told us, was one of guaranteed prices. So far as that is his policy, it is the last thing I, or I think anyone else on this side of the Committee, would want to criticise. We all agree with a policy of guaranteed prices for the farmer. If prices are guaranteed to the farmer one can turn round and demand that he should pay to the agricultural worker a high wage sufficient to give him a standard of living equal to that of the worker in the town which is necessary, not merely as an act of justice to a deserving class but also as the only way of stopping that drift of population from the country into the towns which is one of our greatest national dangers. There is no dispute about that. That is the Minister's philosophy, if not his policy, and we entirely agree with him.

But in order to pay high wages it is necessary not merely to have guaranteed prices but to have reasonable stability of productive policy. That should be obvious. It is no good telling people that they will get a good price for milk if you at the same time prevent them from producing milk. It is no good laying down a price for wheat which is sufficient only if enough wheat is grown upon good land, and then extending the wheat area so that wheat has to be grown on marginal land. It is no good telling people that they can get a better price for barley and then complaining that too much land is still under barley. In order to have that sound agriculture you must not only have guaranteed prices, and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman and many other hon. Members will agree with me in saying that we must have reasonable stability of policy.

The only real issue can be simply stated. Nobody has spoken more strongly than the right hon. Gentleman of the tragedy of the present impasse. The only question is whether the recent steps, in themselves admittedly evil, were a necessity, and whether the blame for them should rest, as the right hon. Gentleman said, upon what he called the inscrutable working of Providence, or whether the blame has to be brought a little nearer home. The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) put the issue in what seemed to be almost a startlingly over-simplified form. He said that the sole issue was whether we should give our food to men or to pigs. He seemed to imagine that pigs were a kind of pekingese pets and that if you feed pigs nothing ever happens to the food afterwards. The question is, What is the best and most economical road along which to use our food?

The question which hangs over this Debate and over all the deliberations in the country is one to which the answer is still completely uncertain. It is, To what extent is there a world shortage of feedingstuffs today? And to what extent has there been rather an increase in livestock in the countries of the New World with the result that an excessive amount of feedingstuffs is being given to the animals in the New World instead of being given to animals in this country? There is very little doubt that the answer is, in point of fact, that there is not a world shortage of feedingstuffs but that there has been a vast increase in the number of livestock in Argentina and the United States, and that 30 million additional tons of feedingstuffs now go in the United States of America to the animals there instead of being sent to this country.

The agricultural pattern of this country, whatever detailed changes may be made in the amount of land put under the plough, is that 75 per cent. of its agricultural income is derived from the products of livestock which are very largely fed upon imported feedingstuffs. That position cannot be changed substantially, whether it is desirable to do so or not. To some extent we are today cutting down our standard of life. If it is true, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) said, that the main reason why we are not buying feedingstuffs from America is the influence of the Treasury, then the policy of the Treasury in this respect is almost a policy of insanity. In order to save dollars on feedingstuffs we are to buy tins of milk and make no use of our own animals. We are to spend roughly four times as many dollars in order to buy the produced article, and at the same time allow our own animals to go to waste.

The hon. Member for North Islington (Dr. Haden Guest), speaking from his position of authority, challenged us to produce an alternative policy to that of his right hon. Friend. In issuing the challenge he gave the answer to it. He said, what I believe to be perfectly true, that the Americans have come to regret their over-production of livestock and are drastically cutting down on that livestock. If that is true, they will soon have a very large surplus of feedingstuffs which they will be only too anxious to sell to us. It has therefore not yet been at all demonstrated that it was necessary to put through this policy of drastically cutting down feedingstuffs in a manner which will throw into disarray the whole agricultural policy of the right hon. Gentleman and of the Government.

Hon. Members will recall that in the Debate on manpower the President of the Board of Trade said, with obvious sincerity, that the purpose of the Government, for the first time in human history, was to put through a policy of planned economy without direction of labour. But that is the exact opposite of what has happened. What we have is the direction of labour, but no vestige or sign of a planned economy. We have the Essential Work Order, but the Government cannot make up their mind what is the essential work that the people are to do. The one constant element in the Government's policy is that of the Essential Work Order, but the planned economy is entirely absent.

8.27 p.m.

I do not think I shall be able to follow the line taken by the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis), except to say that the point he made about the situation in the United States seems to have been amply covered by the Minister in pointing out that even an increase of 500,000 tons in home wheat production would not have made any net difference to our food supplies, because it all had to be dealt with by the Combined Food Allocations Board. That Debate has been very useful to the Government in that it has proved conclusively that the basic responsibility—in so far as responsibility can lie with any one person of Government—lies with the right hon. Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) in the decision that was taken late in July last year and which caused a loss of production equivalent to the figures of the present shortage. It is as well that that fact should be clearly demonstrated.

There has been mention also of the point that there has been a succession of good harvests, and that wisdom dictated that we should take every precaution because of the possibility, in the nature of things, of a bad harvest. I agree, but the right hon. Member, in face of that very possibility, took the fatal decision in the middle of 1945, and it has proved disastrous. It is not the first time that disastrous decisions have been taken by Tory Ministers and Tory Governments. The people of this country will be wise enough, I have no doubt, to see that it is the last. After years of war and the likelihood of famine in various countries, the position should have been safeguarded. I agree in one respect with the former Minister of Agriculture, that the people of this country, and even the Government, do not realise to the full the overriding and fundamental importance of agriculture. We must realise that unless agriculture is the basis of our structure, we shall fail, because we should be certain to return to the anarchy of the inter war years.

I would like to put forward one or two suggestions which I hope may be of some assistance. First of all, we must regard agriculture as the highest priority for the provision of electricity, water, drainage and housing, and we must see that it is even more important, in connection with water supplies, that there should be grants for water supplies to houses in the countryside before water supplies to cattle sheds. There are thousands of unused acres of good farmland and tens of thousands of ill-used acres which could be and should be more fully used. We must definitely adopt a long term policy of maximum cereal production. I suggest that the figure of 3,000,000 acres should be regarded as a minimum. When I first had the honour of addressing this House in August last, I made these suggestions and used many of the phrases which have been used today by hon. Members who have referred to the necessity of taking the plough round the farm. That means a balanced agriculture, and one cannot have that without fairly substantial cereal production. I do not think there is any need to cut our dairy herds, except for the culling, which has been mentioned, of inferior animals, if we take the plough round the farm and increase our grass leys sufficiently to enable us to maintain a higher number of cattle on the same acreage, which is yielding and will yield a greatly increased tonnage. The hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) said that our land had deteriorated. That is certainly untrue. The yields both of various cereals and hay, temporary grass and permanent grass, are all very considerably in advance of the ten-year average before the war, and I maintain that the quality of our land has improved.

I urge the Minister also to take steps to ensure that the maximum possible use is made of available grass and grain dryers. This step would be a very definite help in view of the shortage of animal feeding stuffs. I have in my constituency a farmer who farms only 100 acres. He has a 100-ton silo, and a grass and grain dryer which was put in last August. Even as late as that, he was able to dry 1,000 sacks of grain last year, and this year he has been drying lucerne, which is afterwards put through a hammer mill. He has, therefore, all the feeding stuffs that he needs for a large number of pigs—well over 100—and poultry, and his dairy herd as well, and grows on his land as much as 15 tons of potatoes to the acre. He is more than self-supporting. If wherever there are grass dryers the local agricultural committee encouraged farmers to make the maximum use of it, particularly this year when the harvest, and the hay harvest especially, is likely to be so uncertain, it would mean a very great increase in the amount of dried grass with a high protein content, which would have a very important effect on increasing the available supplies of animal foods. In other words, we must give our farmers every possible encouragement and assistance to enable them to overcome the unavoidable shortage this year, and which has been rightly described as tragic. However, I do not accept that the drop in production of milk and other things need be nearly so large if we really set to work to make the maximum use of our available resources.

A great deal has been said about cereals, about milk production, about fish, but very little about other foodstuffs of which we could very largely increase the production, such as fruit and vegetables. The Minister of Food has spoken about increased variety in our diet, and I would urge the Minister of Agriculture to see what can be done about assisting cloche farmers. There are some 5,000 of them, varying in size, in this country and they could do a very great deal to increase the quantity and variety of our outdoor fruits and vegetables. Moreover, they can produce them four to six weeks in advance of the ordinary outdoor production. I have seen tomatoes, melons, aubergines and cucumbers, and a variety of other things, which are a long way in advance of the ordinary production. I am informed that the Ministry were asked to advise these cloche farmers on certain things that they could produce, but no advice was forthcoming. Yet I understand that we are now importing some 5,000 tons of Dutch cucumbers which, I would submit, could very well have been grown in this country had there been a little extra collaboration between the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Food. I believe that if these people are given assistance in the shape of advice as to what is wanted and perhaps in obtaining more glass, they could do a very good job of work in increasing our food production.

I think, too, we should avoid any possibility of discouraging our producers and I would say that if foreign produce is imported for sale alongside similar home produce, and the English produce is controlled in price, then the foreign produce must be controlled at the same price. It is totally unfair for an English producer, for example, of spring onions to be compelled to sell them at 8d. a lb. retail and alongside Dutch shallots, masquerading as onions, selling at 1s. 6d. a lb., and they are quite indistinguishable. That happened last week, and it is only one instance. That is quite intolerable; it is easily avoidable, and we should not discourage our producers in this way.

Again in connection with fresh fruit, which can add so much to the health of the people of this country when the dietary is restricted in other directions, I hope it will be possible, even at this late stage, to consider to some extent limiting the pre-empting of our soft fruits this year, thus giving the housewife an opportunity of making her own preserves either by means of bottling or jam making.

The question of jam making relates to the Ministry of Food. The Debate relates to the Ministry of Agriculture. The hon. Member is now out of Order.

I am obliged for your Ruling, Mr. Beaumont, but I was thinking it was on the question of food production and it is sometimes very difficult to keep within the narrow limit.

It may be very narrow, but I have allowed the hon. Member to wander pretty freely.

I am very grateful to you, Mr. Beaumont. One other point, which is in connection with the production of food, and that is with regard to the possibility of bread rationing and its effect on agricultural workers. I hope that if bread rationing comes into operation, agricultural workers—I think I am in Order, Mr. Beaumont—

—agricultural workers, in the interests of food production will be regarded as heavy workers, because they are doing heavy work. They are—

I cannot allow the hon. Member to pursue that matter. The Minister who will speak cannot deal with it in reply to the Debate.

I am sorry, I did not think that I was out of Order. I will conclude by congratulating the Minister on the very complete and able reply which he made to the speech which opened the Debate this afternoon. I urge as a last appeal that there should be the maximum overhaul and supervision of county committees and departmental committees in the interests of speed, because we need the maximum possible speed in attending to all matters dealt with by the Ministry—water supplies and everything else which affects food production. Sometimes I have known cases of water schemes submitted to the Ministry of Agriculture and there has been considerable delay and consequent loss of production. I hope every possible step will be taken to speed up the matter departmentally.

8.42 p.m.

In the few minutes at my disposal I want to say a few words about wheat production. I am aware that the production of wheat in this country during the war was not looked upon with a very favourable eye. The reason was undoubtedly that there were very heavy stocks of wheat in the world during the majority of the war period. For instance, in 1943 there was a reserve of something like 43 million tons of wheat in the world, but by the late summer of 1945 that reserve had dropped to a very dangerous level—something like 22 million tons.

At that stage I wish to raise criticism, not necessarily of the Minister of Agriculture, but of the Government, that they did not come to a quick decision to meet the position, of which they were fully aware. I think I am correct in saying that in August, 1945, the Government knew that there was a very serious shortage of wheat in the world. If I am saying something which is not true, I am prepared to give way to a Minister to contradict what I am saying. I will repeat it. In August, 1945, the Government knew that there was a serious shortage of wheat in the world. They were advising the Economic Security Council that all practical steps should be taken to see that millable wheat was brought to the mills for human consumption. The one practical step which should have been taken was that the price of wheat should at once have risen to £25 a ton. The result would have been that wheat would have been produced in every possible place, and it would have come forward for human consumption. I assert that there was no shortage of wheat for human consumption in August, 1945. The result of that policy would have been twofold, not only would the wheat have been reserved for human consumption, but in the autumn of 1945 the farmers of this country would have made wheat Priority No. 1. During the war the price of wheat has been kept so low that farmers always kept wheat on the lowest level and when cropping out their farms, instead of looking where to grow wheat, they looked to see where they could avoid growing it. I submit that the result of that price in- crease would have been at least an extra 500,000 tons of wheat for the harvest of 1946. That is the problem we are facing at this moment.

I think I am justified in making that assertion, because I would draw attention to what happened during the war. Barley was allowed to be priced at from £25 to £35 and £40 a ton. When it was found that wheat was of more importance than barley, if the price of wheat had been altered the emphasis would have been on wheat production instead of on barley. The result of the low price of wheat during the war period has been that in spite of the fact that the farmers of this country have increased their arable land to an enormous extent, the increase of wheat from 1938 to 1945 amounted only to 215,000 tons, but the increase in the production of barley rose to 1,167,000 tons. If, instead of having the emphasis on barley, quick action had been taken in the autumn of 1945, we might easily have increased our wheat production by 1,000,000 tons.

I would call attention to what the position would have been if business people had been in the saddle in the autumn or late summer of 1945. Suppose the Baltic Exchange had been in operation. As soon as the wheat shortage of the world had been noted, the business men on the Baltic Exchange would have been buying up wheat all over the world. The result would have been that in due course they would have got the wheat for disposing of to the mills. I know that they would have been in the position of being accused of gambling with the people's food, but I suggest that it would have been better if someone had gambled with the people's food and had obtained the wheat, rather than that there should have been gambling on the hope that something would turn up. What has been the result of not bidding up wheat last August? The wheat was consumed by the animals of the United States to a very large extent. They increased the consumption of cereals by their animals by 40 per cent. Now, when the wheat has been consumed, we have started to bid up the price of wheat when it is too late.

I asked the Minister of Food a few weeks ago what we were giving for wheat landed in this country from the United States of America. I received the rather astonishing reply that we were not buying wheat from the United States of America at the moment. Therefore, I want to know whether we are buying flour from the United States of America and leaving the offals, which our poultry keepers and milk producers want in this country, to feed animals in the United States of America, and whether they will then sell to us the manufactured article instead of allowing us to manufacture it ourselves. The rest of the answer I received was that if we had been buying wheat from the United States of America at the present time we should be paying, including freight and insurance, £26 5s. a ton for it. It would have been much better business to have bid up the price of wheat to £23 a ton last autumn rather than try to bid it up now and not get it. I believe I am right in saying also that in Ireland at present wheat is worth £24 10s. per ton. I ask the Minister whether he thinks it fair that the British farmer should be expected to grow wheat at £15 a ton plus £2 acreage subsidy when the world price of wheat is £7 or £8 a ton higher. If this country wants wheat and food for the people from the 1947 harvest, I suggest the Government ought to think again and get away from their February prices which gave a miserable 1s. 9d. per cwt. which will not bring the British farmer's price up to that which prevailed in 1944. I do not blame the Minister of Agriculture for the whole of this, although he has to take the brunt. I suggest that his colleagues should share the burden. In my opinion there should have been combined operations. The combination should have been the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Food and, particularly, the Chancellor of the Exchequer who, in my opinion, is the nigger in the woodpile.

It is not the slightest bit of good the Minister of Agriculture trying to bring out a long-term policy for agriculture and giving a price review unless he is supported by the Minister of Food and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. His long-term policy for agriculture goes down the drain unless some cooperation exists between those three Departments. I hope there will be that cooperation in any future planning. We have been told that we are making a political stunt out of this without offering any constructive criticism. My constructive criticism is that those three Ministers should go into a huddle and plan for the future in the same way as D-Day was planned when our fellows landed in France. I liken the Minister of Agriculture to Field-Marshal Montgomery, if he had planned to land his Army on the shores of France without the cooperation of the Navy and the Air Force. The Minister is in that hopeless position. The Minister also will be in a hopeless position unless some steps are taken to see that the price review which he has promised the farmers for every February has some meaning.

I would refer to the position in which the farmers of this country are placed at present. They had a price review in February which has no meaning whatever. Since that time when 1s. 9d. per cwt. was given for wheat, and a little bit for something else, the farmers have been called upon or will be called upon shortly to pay something like an extra £20 million in wages. Railway freights have been raised and that will affect every commodity both going into and coming away from the farms. Many other small items have risen in price. One is sisal, used in manufacturing binder twine. All these things have risen since the price review in February. I warn the Government that if they do not think again quickly and generously they will not get the production from the British farmer which he is willing to give if he gets a fair deal. I ask the Minister of Agriculture when he confers with his Cabinet friends to put his back into it and to see that he gets something like a fair deal, otherwise the whole of his policy will fall to the ground.

8.54 p.m.

As possibly the last back bench speaker on this side of the Committee in this Debate, I want to draw the attention of hon. Members to the fact that behind this food production campaign stands the farm worker. I think it would be unchallenged by the bulk of the farming community that the Government's agricultural policy still holds the field. Despite all that has been said today with regard to that policy, I think the farming community, in a very large measure, is still very much taken by the general lines of our agricultural policy. In this Debate, we have been attempting, from one side or the other, to apportion the blame and draw our own conclusions, but I want to bring the Committee back to the man behind the whole of this business—the man who has been working patiently in agriculture for many years, the man to whom the country still looks for an abundance of food.

I need hardly remind the Committee of the very fine contribution that was made by farmers and farm workers during the war years, and I think it right to say that our agricultural population are prepared to continue to play their part in peace time. The incentive has been offered to the farmers in the form of assured markets and guaranteed prices, and I think that the suggested increase of 10s. a week in the wages of farm workers will not be without effect. May I stress one point here? I want the farm worker, in the days that lie ahead, to be regarded more as an essential partner in the agricultural industry. I want to see the British farming industry going forward as one body to produce an abundance of food, and I would like to reinforce a suggestion which has been made that we should establish for the industry a joint production committee, which I think could do a vast amount of work in the direction of increasing food production. I do not think that there is any need to appeal to the farm worker's patriotism so far as his own work is concerned, because that was plainly evident during the war years. I think all that is necessary is to point out to the farm worker the importance of his effort in peace time. If that is pointed out to him, I am certain that there will be an overwhelming response on all the farms in this country. The farm worker must realise that he has to press ahead to produce food for the days ahead, not so much for himself as for others. It was certainly the case in the war years, when the men who produced the food received least reward, and these men might now be asking that, if there is anything going, they would like to have some of it.

In regard to the future work of the agricultural industry and the general work of the Ministry of Agriculture, I ask the Government to accord the fullest recognition to the farm worker and the importance of his job. We had a talk at Bournemouth on agricultural policy, and I have been asked what caused the revolt at Bournemouth. I want to be quite clear and say that what caused the revolt was not any exception taken on our side to the party's agricultural policy but the fact that, up to now, a great deal of stress had been laid upon the importance of the farmer in connection with food production and the industry generally, and that the farm worker, very often, was left in the background. I suggest to the Minister that the Government would be well advised, in connection with any future food production campaign, to bring the farm worker entirely into the picture. He has fought for and won another 10s. a week, and he expects a tremendous improvement in the matter of rural housing. I would remind the Minister that, not only are we expecting in the rural parts of the country an abundance of new houses at rents which farm workers can afford to pay, but houses possessing all modern amenities.

May I say that I was going to express the hope that, in bringing the farm worker into the picture—and that is my sole desire in this Debate—he should be assured, not only of decent wages, but of decent working and housing conditions. I hope that before this Government go out of office they will have tackled, and ended for all time, the evil of the tied cottage system. With regard to the Government's educational advisory service, I want to suggest to the Minister that farm workers should be brought entirely into the picture. I want to see the farm worker of the future knowing as much about the scientific side of the industry as his boss. In a good many cases today the farm worker knows more than the boss, but I want to make sure that the sensible farm worker in the future knows as much about the running of the farm as does his employer. I want to utter a mild word of protest against the caricature of the farm worker so often presented by the B.B.C. in their funny pieces. There are very few of the old "Jarges" left in the farming community today, and the yokels, depicted by the B.B.C., are almost non-existent. The farm workers are a fine body of men who played their part during the war and, given encouragement and a lead, and brought into the limelight as they ought to be, they are prepared to play their part in the difficult days that lie ahead.

9.2 p.m.

I am sorry that the very loyal speech which the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Gooch) had prepared for the Bournemouth Conference and which he delivered tonight was ruled out of Order because it seemed to be half our case of the faulty administration of the Minister of Agriculture. Although this is not a policy Debate, it is quite true that the Minister of Agriculture pinched the policy of my right hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) and the Bournemouth Conference complained that he ran away with my right hon. Friend's clothes. But what we are complaining about today is the administration of his Department in the nine months during which he has held office. Before I begin my summing up for the prosecution, may I say two words in favour of the accused? I shall never forget the very great work that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture performed for agriculture during the war when he was steered and strengthened by my right hon. Friend the Member for Southport. I am quite sure that no one is more conscious of that fact today than the Minister, and I have no doubt that, in these very difficult times, he would like to have that same strength and support on his Front bench so that he could still be Parliamentary Secretary. But there is one other great advantage which the Minister of Agriculture possesses. He is a Yorkshireman and, therefore, he ought to know the value of the blunt truth.

The first speech in this Debate was not delivered by my right hon. Friend the Member for Southport; it was delivered over the B.B.C. on Sunday night by the Minister of Food. I gather that it was intended as the opening speech in this Debate for, if it was not so intended, I do not know why it was made. It said nothing that could not have been said perfectly well by the Minister of Agriculture. In that speech the Minister of Food made one very startling—for him—admission. He said that since last August the Socialist Government had been too optimistic. In that admission he really threw away the whole defence that the ex-Minister of Food tried to make to the House. He admitted the Government had been too optimistic. Why does not the Minister, or the Secretary of State for Scotland when he replies, say quite frankly, "Yes, we agree. We know we made a mistake. We were too optimistic"? The people of England have realised that for some time about this Government, from the point of view not merely of agriculture but of every other branch of the Government's policy. They realise that it is the unfulfilled and unfulfillable promises of the Socialist Government which are causing a great deal of the misery which is being experienced today and which will be experienced in the future. The Minister today has rested his defence on these lines. He has said, "It is quite true that I refused the demand of the Opposition that more wheat should be planted at the end of last year. I did that because"—

I do not think the hon. Gentleman would like to misquote anything I said. As far as I recall, the Opposition never asked me last year to increase the sowings of wheat. Indeed, they never realised the need for it until this year.

I hoped the right hon. Gentleman would interject that remark, because I personally asked him on 15th October. He will find it in HANSARD, and in reply he said:

"The growing of wheat on unsuitable land … would no longer be justified."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th October, 1945; Vol. 414, c. 703.]

Pressure was being exerted from this side during the months of October and November, and yet we are told today by the Minister of Agriculture that there was little apprehension of a wheat shortage until the end of December. May I remind the Committee of what the right hon. Member for Rotherhithe (Sir B. Smith) said in the same month of October? He said:

"I am at this moment particularly concerned with the world wheat position. … Until recently wheat was one of the few foods of which there was no shortage. … But with the liberation of Europe, and later the Pacific, an exceptionally heavy demand coincided with, and was aggravated by, adverse weather conditions in many areas."

He went on to say:

"It will also be incumbent on all countries to maximise the collection of their homegrown bread grain and to utilise it to the greatest possible extent for direct human consumption."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th October, 1945; Vol. 414, c. 2447–8.]

Clearly it was known to the Government in October that wheat was short and that we should increase our production of wheat in this country. The Minister of Agriculture has said today, "Oh well, the cropping plan is normally made in February. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Southport in July had said that he was going to lift the directions, and who was I to alter the plan when I came into power five weeks later?" What had happened in the interval?

Quite true, the party opposite got into power, but something else happened. In the intervening five weeks Japan had been defeated, and the whole of the wheat position was radically changed, and if the right hon. Gentleman is not now aware that with the defeat of Japan the whole planning of the Government, both for demobilisation and especially for wheat production, was entirely changed, I fear that he will never live up to the high reputation he had when he was Parliamentary Secretary.

I would like to ask for a little more clearness from the Minister on what is the present position of the cuts. The announcement which was issued to the Press in June regarding the cuts is not the Government's policy; it is making amends for the lack of policy. We are told that in the coming winter the supplementary allowances will have to be made from the agricultural executive committee's discretionary reserves. I am anxious to find out what those reserves are to be from which the agricultural committees will be able to draw for giving supplementary rations to dairy producers. As hon. Members are well aware, at the present time where a farm is a marginal farm, principally a grass farm—and most of the farms in the Yorkshire dales are of that nature—the farmer is allowed to have no reductions made against his ration for his own cereal production. At the present time the farmers in those areas have been told nothing about how they are to plan for their winter production of milk. Will the Minister give the committees a reserve which will enable these farmers to have the whole of the reduction in the form of an extra ration? I hope the Secretary of State for Scotland will try to reply to that question clearly, so that the farmers can plan. As far as I can see, the reduction to the farmers on the marginal land, the small dairy farms and dairy smallholdings, will not be 40 per cent. but something in the region of 60 per cent. In fact, for farmers who are averaging 45 gallons per month per cow it will, I believe, come to 70 per cent.

The other question I wish to ask the Secretary of State is in regard to the small pig farms. In the domestic pig producing farms we have the position that, unlike the poultry producers, they cannot cut their flocks down. There is the farm worker, about whom the hon. Member for North Norfolk was talking, who has one pig to look after; he cannot possibly keep his pig on half the ration. What is the solution which the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Government will give in regard to the farm worker and the farm worker's pig? It is a problem which is facing us in all parts of the country. What will happen to the pig clubs? They have been the salvation of the bacon production of the Minister of Food. If we are to have a 50 per cent. cut, most of the pig clubs will have to go out of existence. When the Secretary of State replies, I hope he will give some details upon that matter.

I would also ask him to reply to the different suggestions made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd) in order to encourage protein production in the future. How far will war agricultural committees be allowed to help small men with silo cultivation? It is one of the few ways in which we can get over the stringency of the present food crisis. What is to be done about spare parts for machinery? The Minister of Agriculture was asked several questions about spare parts. He first of all told us that the matter was difficult because of the dollar shortage.

I should like to correct that. I said that dollars were made available for all the spare parts our agents in America or Canada could possibly buy.

I understood that at a later stage, but at an earlier stage he had made a contradictory reply. Anyhow, HANSARD will show which of us is correct, and we can leave it at that.

I want to turn now to another subject which has not been touched on today. There are a large number of experts at the Ministry in the Feedingstuffs Department. In fact, we are paying £50,000 for the officials in the Feedingstuffs Branch of the Ministry of Agriculture. What are they doing to protect the interests of the British farmer in obtaining feedingstuffs? In the first four months of this year we have imported for distribution to farmers only 16,000 tons of feedingstuffs. Although that figure is only one quarter as much as last year, we have exported 6,000 tons, or eight times as much as last year. I hope the Secretary of State, when he replies, will give us an explanation of that. These feedingstuffs, which are wanted by British farmers, are coming in and then being exported all over the world. Who is there in the Ministry of Agriculture to look after the interests of the British farmer, to see that he gets a sufficient quantity of feedingstuffs, and to see that when the feedingstuffs come here they are not exported again?

Then there is the problem of maize. The Minister told us today that maize was allocated by the Combined Food Board and not bought in the open market. On 29th May my hon. Friend the Member for Ripon (Mr. York) asked the Minister of Food whether the Government had purchased all available supplies of maize in the Argentine during last year. The reply was: The Minister of Food replied:

Is there not a difference between the allocation and the actual purchase of maize?

I feel sure there may be something in that interjection; I was quoting the Minister of Agriculture, who today talked about allocation, and the Minister of Food, who talked about the open market. I leave it to the Secretary of State for Scotland to try to find some satisfaction in the difference of opinion between two Ministers. It is a great pity when the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Food so differ in their opinion.

May I ask the Secretary of State to tell us how far the Government are assisting in having feeding stuffs made at home? I am thinking particularly of how far the agricultural attachés and the economic advisers of the Ministry are seeing to it that we get grain coming in here in the form of grain and not in the form of flour. There has been a most alarming development in this matter this year. Instead of importing grain, we are getting a great proportion of our grain imports in flour. In the first four months of this year we have had 5,000,000 cwts. of flour coming in. That is twice as much as we had in 1938, when there was no food shortage—before the war. Yet our exports to foreign countries were not exports of flour, but, largely, exports of grain, and I calculate that if the imports into this country had come in the form of grain and not in the form of flour we should have had another 37,500 tons of feeding stuffs. What steps are the Government taking to ask Canada, for instance—Canada is an especial sinner in this respect—to send her grain into this country to be milled here, so that we can have the offals for the production of eggs and milk? I hope the Secretary of State will tell us that.

The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) made a great appeal to us that we should see to it that the Germans get enough food. I realise we have got a great obligation to our enemies. But that should be an obligation to send them human food, and not animal food. Why is it we are exporting grain to the tune of 20 times as much as we exported in prewar years while our flour exports have gone done by half of what they were prewar? Surely, what we send to the Germans ought to go in the form of flour so that the millers' offals are kept for the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture. I have a feeling that the British farmer is being sold all along the line. We have not had our case fought as it should have been fought, both at Washington and in the Cabinet here.

I read on 5th June a paragraph in what is, I believe, the recognised organ of the Socialist Party, dealing with this, entitled "The Battle for Milk." [An HON. MEMBER: "What paper?"] The "Daily Mirror," naturally. It said:

"There is something more that Mr. Attlee can do. He can hand over the leadership of the new battle for milk to someone, unlike the present Minister of Agriculture, who has not already lost the confidence of the public. Mr. Tom Williams has failed to retain the good will of the Land Girls. His handling of the wages question disappointed the land workers He is not the man to conquer the coming crisis."

Naturally, the hint given by the Socialist organ, the "Daily Mirror," was followed in this matter, as in others by the Socialist Party. After all the "Daily Mirror" has a very great record in this matter of changing Ministers. It was that paper which demanded the head of the right hon. Member for Rotherhithe on a charger, and it duly got it. It now demands the head of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture, and I see from my perusal of what happened down at Bournemouth that the Socialist Party took the hint. We heard from the hon. Member for North Norfolk in the speech that he had prepared for it that the Minister of Agriculture had failed his party in this matter.

I was not at Bournemouth the day the matter was discussed, and I did not prepare any speech.

That certainly explains a great deal, but what I should like to say to the right hon. Gentleman is that I think he was a bit unhappy in the defence of his agricultural policy which he made at Bournemouth. He said:

I was very sorry that, in that speech on Sunday night, when the Minister of Food talked about farmers, it was the Canadian farmers whom he spoke of as having stuck by us all through the war. It was a great pity that neither he nor the Minister of Agriculture today has paid real tribute to what the British farmers have done during the years of war. The British farmers and the British farm workers have never once failed if given the proper leadership. If told what they have to do, then they always respond. My right hon. Friend the Member for Southport and Lord Woolton always told them well ahead what was going to happen and what was expected of them, and if they were given a pledge, that pledge was never broken. Under the present Government that has not happened. The farmers whom I represent believe that they have been let down. After all they have done for the country, they deserve a better fate than this, and tonight they demand better leadership.

9.30 p.m.

Reference was made by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) to a lack of tributes being paid to the fanning community of this country. No charge was ever so unfair as that, levelled against this side of the Committee. Repeatedly, and particularly on the Scottish Estimates when we were discussing agriculture, I have paid the highest tributes that could be paid to the farming community. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Thank goodness, there are honest Tories on the other side. I do not mind fair debate. No Minister on this side objects to fair debate, but it was grossly unfair to suggest that the Minister of Agriculture had not repeatedly paid tribute to the agricultural community of this country. When hon. Members read HANSARD tomorrow they will find that, even in the speech today, he paid tribute to the agricultural community. So I resent a charge of that kind, levelled either against myself, or against the Government to which I belong.

If I do not reply to all the questions which have been put by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton it will not be out of discourtesy; but if I spend my time replying to all the questions put by any one hon. Member on either side, there will be no time to deal with the questions put by other hon. Members, so I will deal with only one or two points. We were definitely told by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton that this was not a policy Debate. That is perfectly true, because hon. Members on the other side cannot possibly attack the present Government because of their agricultural policy. We have a policy, and we have announced it to the country. [An HON. MEMBER: "It does not work."] It has not had time to work, but the policy of the Party opposite has had time to work, and I will tell them how it has worked.

The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton suggested that we, on this side of the Committee, got into power by promises. That is perfectly true; we got in by promises which we are determined to fulfil. [HON. MEMBERS: "Friendly societies."] The party on the other side are out of power because of their performance. Let me see how that applies to Scotland, which I know even better than England. I have taken out some figures as to the performance of the representatives of the party opposite, who have been in administration for almost 100 years. I am surrounded by their life-sized paintings in Fielden House, and there is only one there who belonged to the class to which I belong. I am debating their performance, as against our promises. I am going to stick by administration; you cannot deal with policy, so far as this Debate is concerned. What do I find? [ Interruption. ] Let me remind hon. Members that I never run away from answering questions. I have not interrupted a single speaker during this Debate, and I have heard most of it. I hope that my right hon. Friend will take the medicine that is coming to him without squealing. In 1918 the total land under arable cultivation in Scotland was 1,476,000 acres. In 1939, despite the experience we had in the last war when there was the need to keep a real agricultural population on the land and when there was a need to cultivate our land to the fullest possible extent, the acreage had been reduced to 957,000. Let me take the number that were on the land. They have been reduced by approximately 127,000 in my own country of Scotland.

Very interesting, but little else. Under what heading does this information come?

I am sorry at the innocence of my right hon. Friend. It is the question of food production that we are discussing. We could not discuss food production if the land were allowed to go out of cultivation and if the agricultural workers because of low wages and bad conditions were allowed to drift from the land into the industrial centres rather than a real live agricultural population being kept, which, after all, should be the backbone of the industry. [ Interruption. ] Yes, it is the performance of the party opposite that drove them out of power, and I agree it is the promises which we made which brought us into power.

Yes; but I will make my speech in my own way and hon. Members will not move me. I have been too long in here to get worried at things of that kind. After all, at the end of the Debate the usual British policy will be pursued and some hon. Members opposite will be as good friends of mine as ever when we meet outside.

I was asked by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton if I could give some indication of exactly how the rationing would apply as far as some of the dairy farmers were concerned. They will have to provide feeding stuffs for the first gallon of milk sold and the additional cereal for the next quarter gallon as far as possible. I want to make it perfectly clear—because this was the announcement by the Minister of Agriculture in his opening speech—that we can no longer make supplementary allowances without limitations, but they will only be within the limits of the discretionary reserve. I was asked a question as to what we should do in connection with the small poultry keeper.

Before the right hon. Gentleman finishes with that, I could not quite understand from his reply what he meant, and nobody else knows. Take a marginal farmer with, say, ten cows and no land on which to grow cereals or protein. What is he going to get under the new plan? At the present time a man with ten cows yielding 510 gallons per month gets 13 coupons. What is he going to get in the new winter ration?

I have already pointed out that we can only grant within the discretionary reserve. It is quite obvious that some right hon. and hon. Members opposite do not understand what it means. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] We hold reserves so that we can have something with which to help those on the marginal land, so that we can provide the foodstuffs which they are unable to provide for their animals.

No, I have only a limited time in which to reply to a long Debate. My right hon. Friend has already said that he will meet a deputation from the Small Pigkeepers' Council, if need be, for the purpose of reducing the hardship as much as possible. There are difficulties, but we are trying to face up to them. There are hardships for all of us, and it is the duty of our administration to minimise them if we possibly can.

Now let me turn to one or two of the other points which have been raised, and questions which have been put. This Debate has been like the land from which we get our food. It has varied in its quality, and in what has been offered by those who have spoken. It was suggested that we ought to do something in the way of silage. A prolonged and intensive campaign has been carried on to encourage the ensilage of grass and other crops, and I am sorry to say that it has met with very little success. The smaller farmers were not facing up to the real need at the time. We must still go on encouraging them, and propaganda is still being continued. So far as is known, there is no difficulty, at the moment, about the supply of silage requisites. We are asking the Farmers' Union to do what they can to help us in encouraging grass silage. The Ministry of Agriculture and the Department of Agriculture for Scotland are also affording encouragement and facilities to farmers and others who wish to undertake grass drying. Difficulties have been reported to us about the supply of grass drying machinery, and we are trying to deal with this matter as speedily as possible. Up to the present time, the reasonable fuel requirements for grass drying machines have been met.

The important question of swill for pigs was raised, and we were asked whether we were trying to encourage local authorities to collect waste on the lines on which it was collected during the war [ Laughter. ]. I see no reason to laugh. The questions were not put from this side of the Committee, but from the opposite side, and I am trying to answer them. It is the Government's policy to encourage the organised collecting of unavoidable kitchen waste, as it is their object to secure the maximum use of this substitute for feedingstuffs, which we have lessened because of the greater extraction of flour from wheat. We shall continue the work of collecting that waste.

It is true that does not come immediately under either of our Departments, but there is coordination with the Board of Trade who are responsible for this side of the work, and I can assure the Committee that the Ministry of Agriculture in England and Wales and the Department of Agriculture in Scotland will do what is possible to get the maximum collection of that waste, which will help to take the place of the reduction in animal feedingstuffs that has been caused by the greater extraction of flour from wheat.

I was asked questions about agricultural machinery. It is true that throughout the whole range of industry we are trying to build up an export trade —and in the Debate reference has been made to the export of agricultural machinery—while at the same time meeting our home needs. This is to some extent the case with agricultural machinery, as with other commodities, but it is not the case that exports are being given priority over essential home needs. Arrangements are well in hand for increased programmes of production, for home use and export, of tractors. It will still take a little time before the new tractors come off the line in large numbers. In the meantime, there has been no increase in the proportion of tractors for the export market, because of our need for home production. No more than about 25 per cent. of our output is going abroad. The number of tractors in use in this country is some four times as large as the prewar number. I think that the greatest credit is due to the manufacturers in this country. [ Interruption. ] We have neither nationalised nor threatened to nationalise the manufacture of tractors, and I cannot imagine why anyone should complain when I pay a compliment to those who are helping us to overcome our difficulties.

There must have been wise organisation on the part of those who guide the manufacturing industry. The export trade in tractors is important, from the point of view of the home user, but we are seeing to it that we get the maximum number of tractors for home use. I was then asked—I think by the hon. and gallant Member for Forfar (Major Ramsay)—what we are doing to encourage the production of fertilisers. I can assure the Committee that we are doing what is possible, and I think it will be admitted, when I give the figures, that the results are not too discouraging. In 1945–46 the total tonnage of phosphates was 66,000 tons. We have increased that for 1946–47 to 72,200 tons.

The right hon. Gentleman must have got the figures wrong. The amount is far more than that.

If it is far more than that, all the more credit is due. I admit the correction. I am giving the figure for Scotland alone. I think I will take the advice of the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby), who said that I was more acquainted with Scottish figures. The reason I took out the Scottish figures was that the question came from a Scottish Member. When it comes to potash the figure was 18,000 tons in 1945–46—for Scotland—[ Interruption. ] I presume that Scottish Members have the right to put questions in this House and that the Scottish Minister has a right to reply. This question was not put from a United Kingdom point of view, and it is from a Scottish point of view that I am trying to give my answer. The figure for potash in 1945–46 was 18,000 tons, and in 1946–47 we propose to step this up to 22,000 tons.

I have not the slightest objection to saying that the hon. Member will receive a reply to any question he may wish to ask, but I do not intend to give it to him from this Box at this moment.

I have not the slightest idea. In view of the high level of cultivation during 1947 it will be necessary to arrange for a distribution of fertilisers probably in greater quantity than has been possible during recent years, and the supply of the raw materials required for the manufacture of fertilisers is still inadequate to meet the demands. We are, however, doing what is possible to meet those demands.

One word about the point raised by the hon. Member for East Aberdeen. He made reference to another foodstuff which I think is as important as the supply of wheat—herrings. What is the position? [HON. MEMBERS: "You tell us."] I gave the hon. Member a full reply as to the position so far as herrings were concerned when I said, in a written answer to a Question:

the number of barrels likely to be available for cured herring and the labour available for filling them. The supply of barrels is limited owing to the acute shortage of the special timber required. …"

No one knows better than the hon. Member for East Aberdeen that it is not possible to make barrels to hold herring with any kind of timber. There is a special kind of timber. My reply continued:

"… but every effort has been, and is being, made to obtain barrels, and I have every hope that the target will be reached."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th June; Vol. 423, c. 347.]

I am hopeful that it will be, and I shall do everything to see that it is. [HON. MEMBERS: "Time."] Hon. Members need not worry; I will finish in time.

In conclusion I would say that we have nothing for which to apologise in our administration. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] I have no intention of apologising. I believe that our administration compares more than favourably with any that has preceded it. We shall at least see that the land is used to its fullest and best advantage. The agricultural labourer who produces the food and the farmer who does the organising will at least have a fair deal in future such as has been denied to them in the past by those who have allowed land to go out of cultivation. We shall see that the land is kept in cultivation. I entirely agree with the view expressed earlier in the Debate that it was the duty of agriculture to provide food for the people. That is the aim and object which we have in mind in our administration. At the end of our four and a-half or five years of office we shall be judged not merely on our policies but on our performances in putting our policies through.

I beg to move, "That Item Class VI, Vote 8 (Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries) be reduced by £5."

Question put.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 157; Noes, 284.

Division No. 192.]

AYES.

[9.58 p.m.

Aitken, Hon. Max

Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)

Butcher, H. W.

Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Armagh)

Boothby, R.

Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)

Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.

Bower, N.

Byers, Lt.-Col. F.

Astor, Hon. M.

Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

Carson, E.

Baldwin, A. E.

Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan

Clarke, Col. R. S.

Barlow, Sir J.

Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.

Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.

Beechman, N. A.

Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.

Cole, T. L.

Birch, Nigel

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

Cooper-Key, E. M.

Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)

Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)

Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)

Jeffreys, General Sir G.

Renton, D.

Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.

Jennings, R.

Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

Joynson-Hicks, Lt.-Cdr. Hon. L. W.

Roberts, H. (Handsworth)

Crowder, Capt. J. F. E.

Keeling, E. H.

Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

Darling, Sir W. Y.

Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H.

Ross, Sir R.

Davidson, Viscountess

Lambert, Hon. G.

Scott, Lord W.

Davies, Clement (Montgomery)

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)

De la Bère R.

Langford-Holt, J.

Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.

Digby, Maj. S. W.

Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

Smith, E. P. (Ashford)

Dodds-Parker, A. D.

Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

Spearman, A. C. M.

Donner, Sqn.-Ldr. P. W.

Lindsay, M. (Solihull)

Spence, H. R.

Drayson, Capt. G. B.

Linstead, H. N.

Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.

Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)

Lipson, D. L.

Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

Duthie, W. S.

Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)

Eccles, D. M.

Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)

Erroll, F. J.

Low, Brig. A. R. W.

Studholme, H. G.

Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L.

Lucas, Major Sir J.

Sutcliffe, H.

Fletcher, W. (Bury)

Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

Fraser, Maj. H. C. P. (Stone)

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.

Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)

Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)

Macdonald, Capt. Sir P. (I. of Wight)

Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

Gage, Lt.-Col. C.

Mackeson, Lt.-Col. H. R.

Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)

Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.

McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.

George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'ke)

Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries)

Touche, G. C.

George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

Turton, R. H.

Glossop, C. W. H.

Manningham-Buller, R. E.

Vane, W. M. T.

Glyn, Sir R.

Marples, A. E.

Wadsworth, G.

Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G.

Marsden, Capt. A.

Wakefield, Sir W. W.

Gridley, Sir A.

Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

Walker-Smith, D.

Grimston, R. V.

Mellor, Sir J.

Ward, Hon. G. R.

Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)

Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.

Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie

Hare, Lieut.-Col. Hn. J. H. (W'db'ge)

Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)

Wheatley, Colonel M. J.

Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.

Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)

White, Sir D. (Fareham)

Haughton, S. G.

Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)

White, J. B. (Canterbury)

Head, Brig. A. H.

Nield, B. (Chester)

Williams, C. (Torquay)

Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.

Nutting, Anthony

Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

Henderson, John (Cathcart)

Orr-Ewing, I. L.

Willink, Rt. Hon. H. U.

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Osborne, C.

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Hogg, Hon. Q.

Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl.

Hollis, M. C.

Pickthorn, K.

York, C.

Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)

Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)

Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)

Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)

Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.

Prescott, Stanley

TELLERS FOR THE AYES

Hurd, A.

Raikes, H. V.

Mr. Drewe and

Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)

Ramsay, Maj. S.

Commander Agnew

NOES

Adams, Richard (Balham)

Buchanan, G.

Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)

Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)

Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)

Dumpleton, C. W.

Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

Callaghan, James

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Alpass, J. H.

Castle, Mrs. B. A.

Edelman, M.

Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

Chamberlain, R. A.

Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough, E.)

Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

Champion, A. J.

Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)

Attewell, H. C.

Chater, D.

Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)

Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

Chetwynd, Capt. G. R.

Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)

Austin, H. L.

Clitherow, Dr. R.

Evans, John Ogmore

Awbery, S. S.

Cobb, F. A.

Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

Ayles, W. H.

Cocks, F. S.

Fairhurst, F.

Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.

Collick, P.

Farthing, W. J.

Bacon, Miss A.

Collins, V. J.

Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)

Baird, Capt. J.

Comyns, Dr. L.

Foot, M. M.

Balfour, A.

Cook, T. F.

Forman, J. C.

Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.

Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.

Foster, W. (Wigan)

Barstow, P. G.

Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)

Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

Barton, C.

Corlett, Dr. J.

Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

Beattie, J. (Belfast, W.)

Corvedale, Viscount

Gibbins, J.

Bechervaise, A. E.

Cove, W. G.

Gibson, C. W.

Belcher, J. W.

Crossman, R. H. S.

Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

Benson, G.

Daggar, G.

Gooch, E. G.

Berry, H.

Daines, P.

Goodrich, H. E.

Bing, G. H. C.

Davies, Edward (Burslem)

Gordon-Walker, P. C.

Blackburn, A. R.

Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)

Blenkinsop, Capt. A.

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Grey, C. F.

Blyton, W. R.

Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)

Grierson, E.

Boardman, H.

Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

Bottomley, A. G.

Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)

Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.

Deer, G.

Guest, Dr. L. Haden

Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

de Freitas, Geoffrey

Gunter, Capt. R. J.

Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)

Diamond, J.

Guy, W. H.

Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

Dobbie, W.

Haire, Flt.-Lieut. J. (Wycombe)

Brook, D. (Halifax)

Dodds, N. N.

Hale, Leslie

Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

Donovan, T.

Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

Brown, T. J. (Ince)

Driberg, T. E. N.

Hall, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Aberdare)

Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

Moody, A. S.

Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)

Hardy, E. A.

Morley, R.

Snow, Capt. J. W.

Harrison, J.

Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)

Sorensen, R. W.

Hastings, Dr. Somerville

Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

Soskice, Maj. Sir F.

Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

Mort, D. L.

Stamford, W.

Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

Moyle, A.

Steele, T.

Hewitson, Capt. M.

Murray, J. D.

Summerskill, Dr. Edith

Hicks, G.

Nally, W.

Swingler, S.

Hobson, C. R.

Naylor, T. E.

Symonds, Maj. A. L.

Holman, P.

Neal, H. (Claycross)

Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

House, G.

Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

Hoy, J.

Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)

Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)

Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)

Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. (Derby)

Thomas, John R. (Dover)

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)

Noel-Buxton, Lady

Thomas, George (Cardiff)

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Oldfield, W. H.

Thorneycroft, H. (Clayton)

Hughes, Lt. H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)

Oliver, G. H.

Thurtle, E.

Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)

Orbach, M.

Tiffany, S.

Irving, W. J.

Paget, R. T.

Timmons, J.

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)

Titterington, M. F.

Janner, B.

Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

Tolley, L.

Jeger, G. (Winchester)

Palmer, A. M. F.

Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.

Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)

Parker, J.

Turner-Samuels, M.

Keenan, W.

Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)

Usborne, Henry

Kenyon, C.

Paton, J. (Norwich)

Viant, S. P.

Kinley, J.

Pearson, A.

Walkden, E.

Kirby, B. V.

Peart, Capt. T. F.

Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

Lang, G.

Perrins, W.

Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)

Lavers, S.

Platts-Mills, J. F. F.

Warbey, W. N.

Leslie, J. R.

Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)

Watson, W. M.

Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

Popplewell, E.

Weitzman, D.

Lewis, T. (Southampton)

Porter, E. (Warrington)

Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

Lindgren, G. S.

Porter, G. (Leeds)

Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.

Logan, D. G.

Pritt, D. N.

White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

Lyne, A. W.

Proctor, W. T.

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

McAdam, W.

Pryde, D. J.

Wigg, Col. G. E.

McAllister, G.

Pursey, Cmdr. H.

Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.

McEntee, V. La T.

Randall, H. E.

Wilkes, Maj. L.

McGhee, H. G.

Ranger, J.

Wilkins, W. A.

McKay, J. (Wallsend)

Rankin, J.

Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

Rees-Williams, D. R.

Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)

Reeves, J.

Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

McKinlay, A. S.

Reid, T. (Swindon)

Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)

Maclean, N. (Govan)

Rhodes, H.

Williams, W. R. (Heston)

McLeavy, F.

Richards, R.

Williamson, T.

Mainwaring, W. H.

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

Willis, E.

Mallalieu, J. P. W.

Rogers, G. H. R.

Wills, Mrs. E. A.

Mann, Mrs. J.

Royle, C.

Wilson, J. H.

Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)

Segal, Dr. S.

Wise, Major F. J.

Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

Shackleton, Wing-Cdr. E. A. A.

Woodburn, A.

Marquand, H. A.

Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.

Yates, V. F.

Marshall, F. (Brightside)

Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)

Young, Sir R. (Newton)

Mayhew, C. P.

Silverman, J. (Erdington)

Younger, Hon. Kenneth

Middleton, Mrs. L.

Simmons, C. J.

Zilliacus, K.

Mikardo, Ian

Skeffington, A. M.

Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.

Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES

Mitchison, Maj. G. R.

Skinnard, F. W.

Mr. Collindridge and

Monslow, W.

Smith, Capt. C. (Colchester)

Captain Michael Stewart.

Montague, F.

Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

Original Question again proposed.

It being after Ten o'Clock and objection being taken to further Proceeding, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

Whisky and Gin (Prices)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[ Captain Michael Stewart. ]

10.14 p.m.

I want to direct the attention of the House to the refusal of the Government to control the prices of whisky and gin in bars although the prices are controlled in restaurants when they are served with meals; also to their refusal to control the prices of bottles of gin and whisky in shops. The Minister gave reasons on 15th April, reported in HANSARD, column 380, for this refusal. I will deal first with the refusal to control prices in bars. The Minister gave three reasons for his refusal. The first was that amenities in bars varied very much. I suggest that amenities in bars do not vary any more than amenities in restaurants, where whisky and gin are sold at one fixed price. Actually, many expensive restaurants which also own bars, such as Frascati's, do sell whisky and gin in their bars at the same controlled prices which they have to charge in their restaurants.

Presumably they make a good profit. If necessary I suggest that a house charge might be permitted in specially luxurious bars, though for the reason I have just given, I do not think that that is necessary. A further point I wish to make is that during the 1914–18 war and afterwards, the prices of whisky and gin in bars were controlled, and on the whole the control worked quite successfully.

The Minister gave as a second reason for his refusal the fact that every bar would have to use official marked measures. Why not? They have to use official marked measures for beer; why not for whisky and gin? If the price-fixing order which I suggest were made, it would be quite easy to allow a sufficient interval of time before it came into force in which these measures could be provided. Probably most licensees have tucked away somewhere the measure known as the "Lloyd George measure," which was introduced in the last war, which contained one-fifth of a gill, and with which they used to extract 26⅔ small whiskies or gins, commonly known as "drops," from a bottle. Today, I regret to say that because of the absence of an official measure, the measure commonly in use contains only one-sixth of a gill, and no less than 32 "drops" or single whiskies or 16 double whiskies are taken out of a bottle. It would not be difficult to enforce the use of official measures through the ordinary weights and measures inspectors. Indeed, the Incorporated Society of Weights and Measures Inspectors has for years been pressing the Government to introduce this reform. It seems to me a scandal that nothing should have been done to stop this gap in the weights and measures law. I do not deny that most bars sell at a fair price, but a good many sell at an excessive price, and when the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary was asked what she was going to do about this, her reply was that the remedy was not to drink. That seems to me a very poor argument: it seems to amount to this, that the case against profiteering can be met by not buying from profiteers; in other words, a free hand should be given to profiteers.

I come to the question of control of the price at which whisky and gin are sold in bottles in shops. In that same reply of 15th April the Minister said that the vast bulk of the sales which took place in shops are effectively controlled at 25s. 9d. for whisky and 25s. 3d. for gin, because that price is fixed by the distillers. That is perfectly true, but on the other hand, as the hon. Lady knows perfectly well, there are many shops which I call black-market shops—I could take her to a dozen within a mile of this place—at which 70s. or 80s. is demanded for an ordinary bottle of whisky or gin, that is to say, three times the price which the distillers have fixed. That is a scandal which the Government ought to tackle. How is it that the price of 25s. 3d. or 25s. 9d. is enforced in the respectable shops? The answer is that the public would complain if they were asked to pay more, and then the distillers would cut off supplies. What reason is there to think that the public would be more backward in complaining if the prices were fixed, like food prices, by Order? No large army of inspectors would be required; the public would do the job themselves.

The second reason which the Minister gave for not controlling the prices in shops was that the remedy is largely in the hands of the public. But why do some of the public have to buy at 70s. or 80s. in the black-market shops? It is largely because they are not on the list of regular customers in the respectable shops and they cannot buy there. There may be a perfectly good reason for this. They may have just come into the district or they may have just come out of the Army or from abroad after many years residence there. Again, they may recently have become gin or whisky drinkers under the orders of their doctor. I suggest, and I am perfectly serious in this, that there is a very great hardship imposed on these people because they cannot buy in respectable shops and they have to pay 70s. or 80s. for a bottle of whisky or gin. Finally, the Government have imported and are increasingly importing, I am glad to say—because I am not wedded exclusively to the interests of whisky and gin—sherry and port, and they are controlling the prices at which this sherry and port is sold in the shops. Why cannot they apply this control also to whisky and gin? It is perfectly true that the Government, impressed by this scandal of these black-market whisky and gin shops, have recently prohibited the sale of whisky and gin by auction in the hope of cutting off one source of supply for the black-market shops. I suggest that this will not really stop this nefarious traffic. The people who put whisky and gin into these auctions will now go direct to these black-market shops to dispose of their whisky and gin. I ask the Government to reconsider their decision not to impose control in these two respects.

10.23 p.m.

I feel that I should in self-defence explain to the House that the information which I have acquired on the relative values of whisky and gin, and the conditions existing in the bars of the country, has not been obtained through personal investigation, but through what has been told me by acquaintances, and from my wide reading. I feel that the House should get this Debate into the proper perspective. We are discussing the conditions of sale, not of an essential article but of a luxury commodity.

If the hon. Gentleman will remember, I did not interrupt him when he was on his feet. The very fact that whisky and gin are luxuries—

The fact that they are luxuries is taken into consideration when the Minister of Food is deciding what to control, and what not to control. The hon. Gentleman has already repeated the arguments which we have put forward. I think the hon. Gentleman will agree that the present Minister and his predecessor have been very fair in this matter, and have tried to explain to the hon. Gentleman on many occasions why the Government are not controlling these particular spirits. Therefore, I must repeat some of the arguments we have put forward already. So far as the supply of whisky and gin in bars is concerned, in the first place there are no uniform measures for these spirits, sold for consumption on the premises. The hon. Gentleman says that will be quite simple, but is he aware that there are between 80,000 and 90,000 public houses in this country?

In each public house, there might be three or four different bars. It is quite impracticable today to provide the necessary standardised measures which have to be inspected by the Weights and Measures Department. The hon. Gentleman said that in the last war, prices of these spirits were controlled, but, if he examines the evidence, he will find that the control was quite ineffective and was evaded on very many occasions. He also told us that the amenities in bars did not differ. It is a little difficult for me to describe the amenities of a "four-ale bar" and a saloon bar to this House, but I think most hon. Members here know them, and, therefore, because the amenities are different, we cannot fix one maximum price. If we fixed a high maximum price for these drinks, then, of course, they will only be sold in the saloon bars and working men will be deprived of those drinks. If we fixed a low maximum price, then, of course, the better class bars will feel that it is not worth their while to sell whisky and gin. The hon. Gentleman also suggested a house charge. Is that practicable? I have already told the House that there are about 80,000 public houses in this country, and in each public house there are about three bars. Are we to fix a house charge in each of the three bars?

What about restaurants where charges are fixed?

The hon. and gallant Gentleman does not realise that restaurants have a catering licence. Certainly, the price of drinks served with meals is fixed. That is in order that restaurants should not evade the Meals in Establishments Order. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman likes to order a gin and lime, or a gin and ginger ale, any charge can be made for it. If we insist that the conditions in bars should be the same as in restaurants, those bars must have a catering licence. The facts are that, in the 80,000 public houses in this country, only 8,000 have a catering licence. The hon. Gentleman interrupted when I was talking about a house charge. Surely the House will agree that we could not possibly fix a different house charge for each of the different bars in each different public house? There may be, in one small town, a dozen public houses each of different status, and a saloon bar in one public house may differ from the saloon bar in another, so that in that town it would mean that the number of different house charges would be 12 multiplied by three. [ Interruption. ] The hon. Gentleman asks why not. He must realise that the Ministry of Food has a great deal of work to do, and that to issue Orders of such complexity would bewilder the whole country. They would be utterly ridiculous. We must approach this matter in a practical manner.

The hon. Gentleman also asks why we do not control the price in bottles. The experts told us that it is quite impossible to define whisky or gin. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] It is not nonsense. We may, perhaps, arrive at some definition of gin and fix a control price. Somebody would come along and put two or three drops of colouring matter into the gin. Its potency would not be changed but it would become a different colour, and would not come within the original definition, so that the seller could charge any price he wanted.

Certainly, it a different coloured liquid was given, the customer could say, "This is not gin." The customer would be ordering gin, but I am talking about a drink that might be coloured and sold under a fancy name. It would still be as potent and any price could be charged for it. I want to prove to the hon. Gentleman that we have given the most careful and detailed attention to the whole matter. We decided that, if there was to be effective control, all spirits should be controlled. This would mean an extremely complex schedule of maximum prices for the whole wide range of spirits, liqueurs and—

Certainly, but I am trying to prove to the hon. Gentleman that if we tried to control gin and whisky, we should have to control all spirits. Therefore, if we controlled all spirits it would almost certainly mean that people would be called upon to pay the same price for whisky as they do for brandy today.

I wish the hon. Gentleman would not repeat himself. After all, there are other words besides "nonsense." So far as drink in bottles is concerned, I would remind him also that there is no standardisation—I regret I have to waste so much time on this subject—of containers, and that it would therefore be necessary, in order to define—

On a point of Order.

It being Half-past Ten o'Clock, MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.