I wish to apologise to the House for opening a discussion on agriculture. I can only say that I have the honour to represent an agricultural Constituency, that I am also a farmer myself, and have always had a natural pride in a very long connection with agriculture and with those who follow that calling. Besides that, I have for a long period taken an active interest in a university institution in my constituency where agricultural education and research of a very high standard of usefulness have been carried on. May I take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister on his wisdom, if I may say so, in calling freely on the staff of that great college to assist him in his very important work? The House should bear in mind that in the Minister of Agriculture we have a Minister of production, who is responsible for organising the production of a variety of foods for the population to the value of over £250,000,000 per year. These are sinews of war as much as the products of any munitions works. My right hon. Friend has been long enough in his office to familiarise himself with the difficult problems arising, and he has gained a considerable measure of confidence and understanding on the part of those engaged in the industry. We have heard a great deal about production recently, and we have had changes among those who direct production in this country. I confess that I am rather suspicious of these rapid and sudden changes at the head of Departments. They do not always conduce to efficiency. Changes are not always for the better. Last July the Minister made a comprehensive and illuminating survey of the agricultural position. He drew a cheering picture, although he was rightly cautious in his estimate of the future. Generally, his statement drew well-deserved praise from all parts of the House. A fortnight later, on the Adjournment for the Summer Recess, there was a general Debate on agricultural wages, the matter having been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith). Honeyed words were not showered on the Minister on that occasion. No doubt, in view of what has happened in regard to wages, attention will be given to the subject in this Debate. I think that the decision arrived at by the Wages Board will be welcomed in all parts of the House. It will be a red letter day when the agricultural worker first receives his wage of £3 a week. I propose to say more about that later.

I hope that this Debate will provide an opportunity for the Minister to give the latest and fullest information about present conditions and about prospects for food production in the coining year, the third year of the war. He will now have more knowledge than he had when he spoke in July, before the harvest. He then prophesied a bumper harvest, given good weather and so on. He expected that the farmers would show that they were producing more food than in any year in this century. I would like to ask whether the expectation has been realised, whether the yields of the various crops have been satisfactory. Have they been below or above the average? Particularly, I would like the Minister to say something about the results from the acreage recently ploughed up. I ask him to do that in order to remove the doubts of many practical and experienced people. Is he satisfied that the policy of ploughing up now is the right policy, bearing in mind the necessity for producing a variety of kinds of food and of maintaining soil fertility? Without maintaining soil fertility, production cannot be continued at a high level for a number of years. I have heard stories, although I have not been able to verify them myself, to the effect that ploughing up certain kinds of land has been wasteful. I have heard that from my county and from the adjoining county. On the other hand, my own experience of ploughing up land which had not been ploughed up or cultivated for a very long period is that such land has shown a very high yield of oats this year, something like 64 bushels per acre.

But the question arises whether it would not be more profitable to intensify cultivation on land already ploughed than to increase the acreage of ploughed land still further. The question has been put by very competent and experienced people. The other day the President of the National Farmers' Union asked, would it not be better to consolidate what had been already accomplished in the way of increased arable cultivation? Many factors which the Minister has in mind, no doubt, justify him in increasing the arable area. But the matter is of very great importance in view of the Government's decision to ask for 2,000,000 acres more next year. We must accept this statement, made by the Minister more than once, that he is not asking for more ploughing merely for the sake of doing so, or of being able to say that there is a record acreage ploughed. But the opinion remains in the minds of many competent people that it is a mistaken policy to add now to the number of acres cultivated. In two years the area under crops has been increased by 45 per cent. Can the Minister give any information as to what this represents in actual yield, whether the increase in acreage bears any relation to the total crop? I would like to congratulate the Minister and the other people concerned on the very remarkable propaganda in favour of silage. That propaganda, as one man has said, has made many farmers silage-minded. In remote areas, silages have been constructed, and no doubt they will add materially to the quality of the feeding stuffs which the farmer will have grown on his own farm. I should like the Minister to say what is his experience as to the results of straw pulping in various farms. On my own farm I put down a crop of straw early last season, and the result has been eminently satisfactory. My bailiff has assured me that it has had a very marked influence on the milk yield.

I would like the Minister, if he can, to give the House some information on that subject. Turning to the question of milk production, we have been given re- markable figures, showing an increased consumption of 120,000,000 gallons of liquid milk over the last pre-war year. This increase is bound to continue provided the milk is available. The people of this country are getting more and more milk-minded, and the advantages of milk have been brought home by assiduous propaganda to everybody, including mothers and expectant mothers. That clearly indicates the importance and necessity of maintaining and increasing the dairy herds in this country. There is some evidence of farmers going back from the production of milk to the production of cereals, because better prices are obtained for cereals and the work is not as hard. The farmers and workmen are not tied to their jobs so much in farming arable land as they are in milk production. There, again, observers are apprehensive that, owing to the large slaughter of heifer calves, a reduction in dairy herds is bound to take place in future. I have received a warning from the executive committee of the local branch of the Farmers' Union in my constituency. The members there are familiar with what is taking place in the county and have issued a warning to that effect. I would like to ask the Minister whether he has under consideration, or whether it is possible to consider, any scheme or any means by which farmers could be deterred from selling heifer calves to the extent they are doing now. The scarcity of dairy cows is apparent; it is indicated by the enormous prices they fetch in the market, and indeed, they are frequently unobtainable at all in the market. Our task is clear. The Minister, I know, realises that every step should be taken to maintain the strength of dairy herds and to secure the maximum production of milk therefrom under war conditions.

I turn for a moment or two to the question of labour. I read with great interest the debate which took place in this House before the Recess. My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith) spoke on that occasion, and it was clear that he had devoted a great deal of attention to this particular subject. He had done this by means of being friends with the farm workers. He knew them. He had hobnobbed with them, drunk with them, played darts with them and so on. I do not think that there is a farm labourer in the area in which I live whom I do not know personally, but I do not get the opportunity of taking a drink with them or playing darts with them. I meet them at concerts, eisteddfods, lectures and functions of that kind. The House will welcome the decision arrived at by the Wages Board. No one begrudges the farm labourer what he has gained and least of all the farmer if he is provided with the wherewithal to pay. I am sure that the Minister—in fact, it goes without question—is prepared on behalf of the Government to implement the undertaking which has been given to adjust price levels to meet increased costs of production, to meet the element of costs not only in wages but in many other things which the farmer has now to meet. I believe that I am right in saying that the present rate of prices is based on the minimum rate of 48s. a week. I deprecate one thing in connection with the establishing of a satisfactory living wage for farm workers, and that is when it is said that one of the main objects in establishing a minimum decent wage for the farm worker is to reduce the gap between wages in ordinary industry and wages in agriculture. That is a mistaken policy. It would be a very undesirable thing to have wages in one industry chasing wages in another. You will never succeed in reducing, much less closing, that gap. We want to establish prosperity for the agricultural industry, which will enable those who farm to pay a decent living wage to the agricultural labourer.

I wish to mention some further points in regard to the labour side. I would draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that there is considerable dissatisfaction among farm workers in regard to rationing. The promise was made by the Prime Minister that there would be a special provision of food for heavy workers in essential industries, including agriculture, and that promise should be implemented as soon as possible. There was, I think, some misunderstanding—I have had some complaints—about this question. There was an extra ration of cheese provided during the harvest, but it was taken off again. At the same time, these workers saw in the Press that the restaurants in the country were permitted to add cheese to the menu in addition to another dish. That may have been caused through a misunderstanding, but perhaps the Minister will say something about it. Then to-day there has been the statement on the question of supplementary coupons for clothes. I did not hear any reference made in that statement to agricultural workers, and I ask the Minister whether he has had that matter under consideration. Overalls and special clothing must be obtained by workers in dairies and those who look after the dairy herds. Everybody knows that the agricultural worker has to be out in all kinds of weather throughout the winter. They must have mackintoshes, breeches and leggings and heavy boots. This is eminently a calling in which consideration should be given to the provision of extra coupons for clothing.

I would refer to one other matter in connection with labour, namely, the question of the security of labour. In December 10,000 more skilled men are liable to be called up, and there may be a great tussle now going on between the Minister of Labour, who is the chairman of the Production Executive, and the Minister of Agriculture, who is also responsible for food production in the country. My advice to both would be to take heed, to listen to the voice of the industry and to bear in mind that these farm workers cannot be taken away without seriously affecting production. To cultivate 16,000,000 acres of arable land requires a large army of skilled men, irrespective of the admirable assistance given by unskilled men and by the Women's Land Army. The industry should not only retain all the skilled men, but efforts should be made to make supplies of labour in every way practicable.

There is the question of potatoes. A very great increase in the potato crop has taken place during the year. There is a £10 grant per acre for growing them, but that grant has not yet been paid, and I understand that even in some parts of the country the forms have not yet been received to be filled up. I urge the Minister to expedite the operation of the grant of £10 an acre. It would be a great boon to farmers to-day if the forms which have to be filled up were reduced in number and made more simple. We want farms, not forms.

All I have said up to now deals with the immediate problem, which might be regarded as coming within the ambit of a short-term policy. I submit that the time has now arrived when the Government might indicate broadly what is their long-term policy. One thing is certain. Whatever it might be, it is essential in agriculture that we should have some continuity of policy to avoid the tremendous breakdown that took place after the last war, when there was disaster for everybody concerned in the industry. There is already considerable misgiving and tumult created by the large number of unauthorised programmes which have appeared in books and pamphlets of all kinds. I suppose more books have been published on agriculture in the last year or two than have been published in the history of this country. Everybody tries his hand at writing a book and proposing what should be done for agricultural reconstruction. Most of them are in marked contrast to one another, and it is essential, I think, that the voice of the Government should be heard as soon as possible. Indeed, the Minister himself held out some hope—I think I am right—that a statement might be possible before the end of this year, which is now fast approaching. Time and again statements have been made on behalf of the Government by the Minister, recognising the importance of maintaining after the war a healthy and well-balanced agriculture as an essential permanent feature of national policy. Here I would like to refer particularly to the four partners in industry, because he has added the war agricultural committees as a partner. That, I think, clearly indicates there is something in his mind that the war agricultural committees will function in some way after the war or at any rate for some years after the war. I agree with that; I think these committees in many counties have done remarkable work, and I believe it would be impossible for the Government to dismiss or dispose of them until a considerable time after the war.

I congratulate the Government that certain steps have already been taken to indicate that they view the future of agriculture in its proper perspective. For example, the Government are to be congratulated on setting up two very important committees, one of which is to examine the present system of agricultural education and make recommendations for its development after the war. I am glad that the Minister has drawn upon the services of a university man who knows a great deal about education and who has taken up agriculture particularly as a study. The other committee is a very important committee if it does its work properly—the Agricultural Improvements Council—which is to devise an effective means of adapting the results of research to practical problems of industry. That is the fundamental basis of agriculture, and without that form of research, and without the application of problems to industry, any industry is bound to fail in the long run. I think Sir George Stapledon at his office at Aberystwyth is carrying on work which shows what can be done with imagination and courage. I feel sure that the House will be interested to hear, if it is possible to-day, what the Minister has to say on the Government's long-term policy for an industry which has played, and is playing, such an important part in our war effort and which will undoubtedly be called upon to make a greater contribution to the nation both in war and in peace.