The hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Captain York) has discussed in a very able speech the question of wages, and while I agree with everything he says I do not think that I can affirm it. Rather, I have been paying attention to the very grave inequality which exists at present in our agricultural policy. As one who is partly Scottish and has many friends north of the Border, I am second to none in my admiration of that country and for its agriculture and the efficiency of its livestock management. But I am quite unable to understand the discrepancy shown between England and Scotland on the one hand and England and Wales on the other on the question of a subsidy for hill breeding cattle. That subsidy has been granted for Scotland, very rightly, but it has been withheld from England and Wales. Here you have the extraordinary picture of one who is a half-Scot begging for England in the presence of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the exchequer. I think I am speaking for the Majority of farmers when I say that we do not like subsidies as such. We would far sooner have decent economic prices, and one of the things we are looking forward to in the post-war world is a prosperous agriculture which will not necessitate these subsidies. At the moment a subsidy may be a question of expediency. Only last week the Prime Minister referred to the necessity for granting increased rations to those engaged in heavy industries. Nobody, least of all those who have experienced the need of miners, will have anything to say against such a statement. How these rations are to be given—directly or through canteens or British Restaurants— is a matter for argument, but what is much more important is the source and continuance of supplies. Beef, I think, is the most important thing heavy workers need; it depends upon fat cattle, which depend upon stores, which, in turn, depend upon breeding. At the moment there are two sources of store cattle, one of which is by importation from Ireland. I do not want to say anything about this to-day, because I know that others in the House can speak with much greater knowledge, except perhaps to warn those who place too much reliance on that supply. There is also the home supply, which is almost bound to decrease as we plough up more land.

Therefore, we have to look to some alternative source, and I suggest that it already exists in the hills and uplands of this country. It only needs some concrete help from the Government in order to increase the supply very largely—a supply of fit and healthy store cattle which are extraordinarily free from the scourge of bovine tuberculosis from their very nature and environment. I most earnestly beg the Minister to consider this point again, to consider it in the wider national interest, in the interest of. the fertility of hill pastures and the consequent increase in output of much wanted mutton and wool and, finally, to consider it purely as a question of equity. After all, a hill farm, taking it by and large, has the same problems as other farms, whether it is situated in the mountains of Wales, the fells of the Lake District, the hills of the Border or, indeed, the bens of Scotland. The scope and incidence of the subsidy is a matter for arrangement and consultation, but I would suggest that there be no breed qualification. The obvious breeds are the Highland, the Galloway, the Welsh and the Angus, but there are many crosses of those breeds and even strains of shorthorn cattle which can fit usefully into the scheme.

It has been suggested by many Members during the Debate that we may have reached the limit of our capacity to plough up. I do not think we have, but I think that in many districts that point has been reached. I have received a letter from a farmer, a man of integrity and skill in the North, who is well known as a cattle and sheep breeder. I find his remarks somewhat illuminating, and I would like to read one or two of them to the House. He says: As long as the county agricultural committee confined their operations to good land fit for the plough we were all with them. But now we are to be ordered to plough impossible land at heavy expense without prospective return. There are hundreds of acres of oats still lying out that can never be harvested and no wheat can be sown this year owing to the continual rain. My own case is typical of many. I have 170 acres ploughed out on my home farm, mostly wheat, and a fine crop, and having a reserve of labour it was got in just in time. Now I am ordered to plough 250 acres of grass parks of which 200 are not fit to be ploughed. Among these fields are some of which I am to plough half, the other half being obviously unploughable. These unploughaple parts will be wasted. I shall be left with 400 acres of oats of which at least half will never be harvested, good grass ruined, add to which most of these fields cannot be -approached by a thresher, there are no buildings, no houses, nowhere to lodge or feed the harvesters (if any should be wanted). The expense to me of this new programme will be about £4,000, and I expect no return, only a dead loss to the country and myself. There are many others in the same position. Can anything be done? The only comment I am making on that letter is this: I do not blame the county agricultural committees; still less do I blame the district committees, because they are the servants of the Minister, but, if I may be critical, I do blame a policy which seeks to plough out in places which are quite unsuitable for tillage crops. This is a policy which will certainly result in many more acres and more money being paid out in subsidy, but which will not increase the food of this country.

Finally, may I turn to one more subject —petrol and agriculture? The countryside, and particularly the remoter parts of it, is suffering a great handicap through lack of petrol at the present time and other handicaps which will increase as time goes on. These handicaps come under two main headings: first, the barely sufficient ration which is given for farm tractors and, second, the difficulty of getting road transport for livestock. I know they can go to the store market or grading centre on the hoof, but in the case of fat stock long journeys may mean an appreciable loss of weight. As some of us know, even in the remoter districts driving cattle is extremely dangerous because of the number of military vehicles that one finds everywhere. I know perfectly well that the answer to all this is, "There is a war on." We know that perfectly well, but we also know other things. During the past summer we have seen an extraordinary number of private motorists, and although some of us may not have seen it ourselves, we have read in the Press and have seen pictures of the vast concourses of motor cars at race meetings, at greyhound tracks and other non-productive enterprises. I am beginning to wonder whether it is not time the Government considered this matter very seriously and whether they ought not to issue the basic ration in a more selective method. As mechanisation increases, so petrol becomes the life-line of farm production. One realises that the Armed Forces must have the first priority, but surely, agriculture comes very nearly second. Let it be remembered, too, that petrol is a very precious fluid, bought not only with cash, but bought with risk to, and very often the loss of, the lives of brave men. Those who waste it by misdirecting its energy are committing a crime against the State and are insulting those brave men who bring it to our shores.