We have had two very interesting speeches from the hon. Members who preceded me, and I am very glad that the subject of agriculture has been raised to-day. During the past 19 years a number of Members in all parts of this House, not excluding myself, have endeavoured to understand agriculture, have taken a very keen interest in it, and have from time to time made very critical speeches. Looking back to 1929, I do not remember any time when I have been more pleased than I am to-day, in view of the fact that the Central Wages Board have established a £3 minimum wage for farm workers. In agricultural history, especially on the trade union side, there are several important dates. One of the greatest landmarks in agricultural history dates back to the Tolpuddle martyrs, and, when I had the privilege to look across Botany Bay, I realised that even in that great Commonwealth the Tolpuddle martyrs have not been forgotten. Another date which will go down in agricultural history is 28th December, 1941—the date when the £3 minimum comes into operation. It is the highest minimum wage which has ever been in operation in the kingdom.

It is rather interesting to note that the first county agricultural wages committee to recommend this £3 a week minimum happened to be Dorset, where they have a very fine body of men who are respected by all who know them. Without any patronage, I say quite frankly that all deserve our congratulations. The Central Wages Board have exhibited hesitancy and a good deal of timidity; but, after all, it is not an easy job for the Central Wages Board with 47 districts and with all the variations and anomalies to reach a decision. It is also notable that there has been a revolt in the countryside. This revolt has, in the main, been brought about by the county agricultural wages committees which recommended the minimum of £3. This is attributable, no doubt, to the statement made by my right hon. Friend that cost of production, including alterations in wages, will be taken into account. So far so good. The agricultural workers, the Press, the public and the farmers are entitled to a word of praise. I have addressed delegate meetings and public meetings in a good many counties in the last three or four months, and I have not heard a single farm worker or farm workers' representative endeavour in any way to hold up national production while asking for this minimum. There has been no threat to strike. They are a patriotic set of men. They have conducted the campaign with extreme shrewdness and they have succeeded. Our thanks are due to them.

With regard to the farmers generally, after the Debate on 7th August on the refusal of the Central Wages Board to come to a decision, I was astonished at the hundreds of letters that reached me from all parts of the country from farm workers, farmers, farmers' wives, clergymen and others interested in the countryside, and not one of them said the farm worker was not entitled to it. What the average farmer said was, "We are willing to pay; we recognise that the agricultural worker deserves it, if only prices enable us to pay it." No matter what industry you are in, you cannot pay more that 20s. out of a pound. I am hoping that this £3 minimum is not to be merely a war-time minimum but is to be a new standard in agriculture which will put behind us for all time the poverty of the men who produce our first needs.

I recognise that, if we are to establish something like a prosperous agriculture after the war, it is not going to be easy, and we may have to shed some of our pre-conceived notions. Some of them have gone already. While we are at war we need maximum production, and everyone realises the importance of agriculture in the nation's economy. When the world becomes normal again and trade begins to flow more freely than it is doing now and the wide open spaces begin to want to get rid of their primary products, the question will arise as to the balance between home production and what is imported. That is bound to arise in more countries than one. I met farmers in Sydney; Melbourne, Adelaide and New Zealand. The question they had in mind was whether they should develop their secondary industries, and the argument ran something like this: If we develop our secondary industries and take less manufactured articles from the Home Country, the Home Country in return will take less of our primary products. That was the argument between business men and farmers in different parts of the Empire, In war-time you are compelled to develop your secondary industries, and I can foresee problems which will need a good deal of thinking out. I have always held that the farmer must have enough for his produce to enable him to live decently and pay reasonable wages and give decent working conditions.

This £3 a week minimum has given general satisfaction and will make for some measure of tranquillity on the countryside, but do not forget that you have not removed all the problems of the countryside from the workers' point of view. You have a lot more to deal with. The hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. O. Evans) congratulated the Minister on the setting-up of a committee to consider rural education. Up to now there is no representative of the farm workers on that committee. A tremendous amount of money is spent on education in mining districts through the Miners' Welfare Fund. You could not conceive of any of the committees handling that education not including representatives of those who work in the industry. It is worth consideration whether a representative of the farm workers could not be added in this case with profit to the work of the committee. This is the suspicion. I have found it in more counties than one. There is a fear that rural education may be defined as meaning once a farm worker always a farm worker, and that they must not be expected to aspire to any other position except on the land. There is as good a brain capacity on the countryside as anywhere else, and there are men in all walks of life occupying very high positions who come from farming stock. If my hon. Friend would consider putting a farm workers' representative on this committee, he would remove a source of irritation.

In your consideration of post-war agricultural policy you have to give the countryside better amenities than we have had in the past. A good deal was done after the last war, and after this war started, with regard to housing, but in some agricultural districts there are cottages that ought to be demolished and replaced by a better type of house. I am hoping to see the time when the farm worker and his wife and family will be able to live in houses with some of the labour-saving devices that we have in the towns, with proper bathrooms, hot and cold, and so on. But these things will have to wait until after the war. If one peruses agricultural journals, as I do, one is bound to admit that there is a wide difference of opinion as to what should be done with agriculture, particularly after the war. Some advocate small farms, others a system of small holdings, mixed farms and big farms. That is one thing that you have to keep in mind. There is one thing we have to keep in mind; this House must not betray its trust to agriculture as it did after the last war. It must carry out its promises.

When we come to examine it the point that has to be faced is this. If we are to have a prosperous countryside, with decent wages and conditions, it must be reflected more or less in the price of the produce when the consumer receives it. People in the towns have to be prepared to pay, in peace time in particular. The prices now are artificial and have been pegged down, but in ordinary times they will have to pay a price that will cover the cost of production. My experience among townsmen is that they want agriculture to have a reasonably prosperous time and the farm worker to have a reasonable wage. Indeed, last night in thousands of homes, when the news was given in the 9 o'clock bulletin, there were murmers of approval from the townspeople that the agricultural worker was to have £3 a week. They felt it was a good job and too long overdue. The townsmen will have to be prepared to pay, and I think they will be, but there are certain suspicions in their minds that will have to be removed. They want to know what is the real position in agriculture and whether the average farmer makes any money or whether he loses a lot. I was brought up among farming stock. My father's side were farmers but they never made any money. I used to stay in Leicestershire with one who bred shire horses, and if one asked him how he was doing, he would reply, "Not too bad; I could do better."

There is a general feeling among townsmen that they can never get the truth about the position in agriculture. My opinion is that the big fanner, the man who has capital, the man who can see ahead a bit and buy ahead, does better than the man who has limited capital. The latter is at a disadvantage in every way. Here comes a point in regard to fixing prices, and my right hon. Friend has my sympathy in this matter. I heard a lecturer of his Department say that one of the difficulties in fixing the prices of agricultural products on a uniform basis is that if you take the average farm and get a mean as a datum for fixing a price it naturally follows that those farming in a big way will gain and those who farm below the average will lose money. It is difficult to know how to balance these things. While the townsman will give a fair price to the farmer, he will not agree to the Government giving public money to an industry that does not need it.

Another thing about which the townsman is suspicious is that there is so much difference between the price of vegetables and other produce at the point of consumption and the price paid to the farmer. In my early days in Parliament I represented a Constituency with a large agricultural population. Much as we disagreed, we are still friends, and they will do anything for me except vote for me. I used to be appalled at the invoices which farmers brought to me in those days showing the little money that was left once they had let go of the produce and it was auctioned off. What the ordinary purchaser cannot understand is why he has to pay so much more than what the farmer gets.

It is the same with coal. If you can convince any London housewife when she pays £3 and £3 5s. for a ton of coal that there is any relationship between those prices and the price paid at the pit head, I will give in. I have been looking through some figures of a certain London firm who bought coal in the North for 25s. 6d. By the time it had landed here it became 54s. 6d. While the townsman will be prepared to pay he will want to know whether all is being done by more direct selling, whether there are some middlemen who can be cut out, whether, indeed, we can more or less systematise the sale of agricultural produce so as to obviate unnecessary waste. If these things are done I do not think townsmen as a whole will complain. They have no right to cheap food at the expense of the poverty of the men who work on the land, whether farmers or workers. Miners have been brought up to the belief that coal has been sold too cheaply at the pit head and that it ought to be sold only at a price that would give a fair return to the companies and decent and safe conditions for the men who work in the pits. I would never ask for myself or the men I represent what I would refuse to any other body of equally important workers.

Are we doing as much as we can to get maximum production? The "Dairy Farmer" for November gives the result of a Gallup poll among farmers, and it says: Here are two important facts that emerge from this investigation. One is that more than 95 per cent. of the farmers consulted agreed that agriculture was not doing its utmost to win this war. Under this figure 19 out of 20 farmers are not satisfied with the war effort of their own industry. The second is that over 67 per cent. stated from their own personal knowledge that there was still derelict or badly farmed land in their own neighbourhood—and this in the third year of the war. Whatever may be the merits of that statement, my right hon. Friend ought to pay some attention to it. The "Dairy Farmer" says in another part of the paper that there is still too much bad farming. One of my farmer friends told me in Leeds three weeks ago that what we have to aim at is to take away from the land those people who take out of the land all they can get without putting anything back and who get out at the first possible opportunity with no good to themselves or to the country.

I hope that the new departure in agricultural wages has come to stay. There is no doubt that it, will be appreciated in the countryside. It will give the agricultural worker and his dependants a feeling of independence. If there is one thing I have tried in the last 20 years to instil into the agricultural worker, it is that "You are as good as anybody else but no better. Get your shoulders square, recognise and show your independence, and do what is right." I have always regretted it when I have heard the agricultural worker made the butt of the comedians' jokes on the stage. He is always looked upon as something inferior to the average man. He is not; he is as good as the best. If we are prepared to think out a policy this £3 a week minimum will be a landmark in the history of the country and we may eventually see a prosperous agriculture—before long, I hope.