I apologise to hon. Members for coming between them and the eye of the Chair, but I have been asked a good number of questions, and I will try to deal with them. I have often heard it said by Ministers standing at this Box that a Debate has been interesting, but I should like to assure hon. Members in all parts of the House that I say that of this Debate with complete sincerity. I am very grateful indeed to hon. Members on all sides for the extremely constructive speeches they have made. It has been one of the most interesting and constructive Debates it has ever been my lot to hear.

The hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. O. Evans) asked me whether I would say a word about the prospects for the yield of this year's harvest. For obvious reasons, I cannot give complete details, but I think it will do no harm to say that the output of cereals and straw this year will be at least half as much again as it was in peace time, whereas the total area under crops, as a result of the new ploughing up, was 45 per cent. above the peace-time figure. This will give some idea of the proportion between the yield and the area ploughed up, for which the hon. Member asked, and he will see that the yield from the ploughed-up land has been extremely satisfactory. As regards fodder crops and potatoes, the situation has materially improved since information was last given. Our latest estimates of the production of root crops indicate a very good harvest indeed, and they should be above the average for the last 10 years. The only exception is sugar beet, the yield of which is higher than was originally expected, but will probably be below the average both in bulk and sugar content. As against this, the actual production of potatoes in England and Wales will be nearly double what it was in peace time. When one considers the total tonnage involved, it will afford some indication of the physical work involved for farmers, farm workers, casual labourers and soldiers in gathering in this harvest.

The hon. Member also spoke about milk, and expressed some apprehension concerning the reduction in the number of heifers and the excessive slaughter of heifer calves. There has been lately a great deal in the Press about milk and especially about the reduction in the distribution of milk. There has been an impression that the reduction in the distribution has been due to a failure on the part of the farmers of this country to produce milk in the normal quantities. I think it will interest the House if I give one or two figures about this, because these figures can do nothing but dishearten our enemies. If one takes the last pre-war year of 1938, in September, 1938, the production of milk in England and Wales was 89,500,000 gallons, and in September of this year, it was 89,000,000 gallons. In October, 1938, it was 87,500,000 gallons; in October of this year, 86,500,000 gallons. In November, 1938, it was 79,500,000 gallons; in November of this year it is estimated at 78,000,000 gallons. In December, 1938, it was 78,000,000 gallons, and this December we expect it will be, say, 75,000,000 gallons. It will be seen that, despite all the difficulties caused by the war, difficulties of labour, difficulties arising from the very considerably reduced amount of imported feeding stuffs and the poorer quality of the feeding stuffs, the farmers have actually managed to maintain, to all intents and purposes, the 1938 levels of production.

The House may ask why it is that we have been unable to supply members of the public with what they require. The answer is to be found in the following figures: In September, 1938, the amount of milk drunk in England and Wales was 62,500,000 gallons; this year the figure was 80,500,000. In October, 1938, it was 64,500,000, and this year it was 84,000,000 gallons. In November, 1938, it was 63,500,000, and this year it will probably be 78,000,000 gallons; it will be only 78,000,000 gallons because that will be the amount of milk produced. I am told by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Food that if the milk had been there the figure might have been over 90,000,000 gallons. Taking the year as a whole, it will be found that in 1938 we produced in England and Wales 1,076,000,000 gallons, compared with an expected 1,053,000,000 gallons for this year—very nearly the same. But, whereas in 1938 we consumed only 754,000,000 gallons, this year we shall have consumed 945,000,000. On the last occasion when I had an opportunity to give the figures for liquid milk consumption, I stated that there had been an increase of 120,000,000 gallons, but the figure has now increased to 200,000,000. That is a very remarkable and striking contribution towards keeping the people of this country healthy, well fed and better able to stand up to the rigours of blitzes and the winter. It is not only helpful to the country as a whole, but is especially helpful because it has allowed the Minister of Food to give first priority to people who most need milk, namely, nursing mothers and children. About 200,000,000 gallons more milk has been drunk this year compared with the last full year of peace.

I now wish to refer to heifers. There has been a noticeable increase this year in the number of heifers and calves. It is quite true that earlier this year an excessive slaughter of calves took place, but that has now ceased, and because of the increased number of cows more calves are available. I personally should like to see more heifer calves being reared. The Ministry of Food issued instructions to collecting depots some little time ago that they should offer first for rearing any suitable calf consigned to them for sale for slaughter. We have the matter under careful consideration, as the House will see. I was also asked about the acreage payments for potatoes. I am informed that the forms are now out and that the first payments will start very soon. The Ministry of Food expect to complete payments before Christmas. The question of coupons for clothing was also raised. Negotiations between my Department and the Board of Trade are proceeding, and I am hoping it may be possible to make a statement soon.

The question of rations for agricultural workers was also mentioned. I have been in consultation with the Minister of Food for some time on this matter, and, needless to say, I have found him most sympathetic. There are, of course, very obvious difficulties in providing food off the ration for agricultural workers compared, for example, with factory workers, who have canteens or British Restaurants. However, my right hon. Friend has made some arrangements, and he authorises me to say that from 15th December agricultural workers will receive 12 ounces of cheese a week instead of eight, so that with the recent increase in the ordinary cheese ration to three ounces an agricultural labourer with a wife and two children will be receiving 1 pound 5 ounces a week, which is probably as much as he bought in peace-time. In addition to that, he has made special arrangements to distribute through retailers in country districts cooked ham and bacon, which the labourers can take with them for their midday meal. He is also very anxious that further experiments should be made in rural areas in setting up mobile canteens and British Restaurants, and he tells me he would be very grateful if the agricultural community generally would co-operate and put forward practical suggestions. Then, next month people living in the country will be sure of increased supplies of tinned food and so forth at whatever time of the day they are able to shop, which will mean that, instead of these going to those who have the time to queue up and go from shop to shop, the farm labourer's wife will be assured of her supplies. That, too, ought to be of material advantage.

Many hon. Members have spoken of the desirability of some announcement with regard to continuity of policy. No one desires that more than I do, but the House will realise the difficulty of getting agreement on such a complicated question. All I can do is to repeat that we are working hard at the job, but from a practical point of view the necessity for an early announcement has, I think, been somewhat modified by the course of the war. The Prime Minister has more than once said that there is no end to the war in sight at present. I welcome the statement of several Members that they hope that war agricultural committees, or something like them, will continue for some years after the war. I believe that is essential. I have told my committees that in my opinion they would be quite safe in laying their plans till at least the harvest of 1945. That means that we have four years to run under approximately stable conditions, and therefore the farmer now sees sufficiently far ahead to enable him to settle down and work out proper arrangements for his farm. That slightly diminishes the need for an immediate announcement about post-war policy. We can say that, as far as any human being can judge, there will be continuity of policy for at least four years.

The hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith), in a helpful speech, asked me a number of questions and made several important suggestions. I will deal with those in some remarks I propose to make about the points raised by the hon. Member for Cardigan when he spoke about agricultural education, organisation and wages. Before I pass to that, may I reply to the hon. Member for Brigg (Mr. Quibell) and the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Mr. D. Scott), who asked whether I thought we had now reached the maximum in our ploughing-up campaign. My answer is, "Yes." After this year I do not think that we can contemplate any substantial increase of our arable land, having regard to the existing supplies of labour, machinery and fertilisers. That does not mean that in particular counties or on particular farms we shall not find more land to plough up—obviously we shall. In many counties and farms we shall find considerable areas of sick arable land that wants seeding down. We shall from now onwards have to try and consolidate the gains we have already made. The hon. Member for Normanton asked whether I agreed with a quotation that he made from the "Dairy Farmer" that 67 per cent. of farmers know of land that is still badly farmed. Having regard to the position in which agriculture had got before the war and the comparatively short time we have had to get it round, there is still a great deal of land that is badly farmed. There is still a great deal of land from which we could get more production, without more labour, fertilisers or machinery, but merely by better cultivation and management. That is a long job, and it depends on the county committees. We do depend on the committees, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Brigg for the well-merited tribute he paid to the members of those committees.

With regard to the question put by the hon. Member for Wansbeck as to why a subsidy should be given to hill cattle in Scotland and not in England, there are two answers. The first is that it was the Scots who asked for it, and the second is that it is easier to identify the types of cattle which qualify for it in Scotland than it is in England. We are, however, endeavouring, in conjunction with the National Fanners' Union, to see whether we can work out a scheme for England. The hon. and gallant Member for Tiver-ton (Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte) asked whether a temporary ley could be counted as arable. The answer is that it is. He also asked whether it would not be much better to pay 2d. per tail for rats instead of following other methods. I have always been under the impression, and I am still convinced by personal experience and the experience of my committees, that trapping is not the most efficient way of getting rid of rats. On the contrary, poisoning is a far more efficient method when it can be supplemented by trapping, but if too big a bonus is given on each tail, the difficulty arises of people breeding rats for the purpose of getting the tails. That is a very real danger. Several hon. Members asked me about forms. No one dislikes filling up forms more than I do, but probably it is easier to get a man to fill up a form than to write a number of letters, and as we have to get the information, we think the simplest way is to get them to fill up the forms. I can assure hon. Members that we devote a great deal of attention to making these forms as simple as possible.

The hon. Member for Cardigan asked me about agricultural education and agricultural organisation, and I think it may be of some interest to hon. Members if I try to give a brief outline, at the end of more than a year's work, of the organisation we are trying to build up. The food production campaign depends primarily upon the county war agricultural executive committees and on their district committees. They include more than 4,000 voluntary workers — farmers, farm workers, landowners, land agents, representatives of the Women's Land Army, etc.—and I am sure that they furnish a higher proportion of voluntary workers than any other industry. The county committees and their district committees are now assisted by staffs of technical men drawn from all sources—the educational and advisory services, university teachers, research workers, land agents, farmers and employees of commercial firms with technical qualifications.

There is a great difference between the methods employed in this war and the last war. In the last war, I believe, the object was only to bring more land under the plough. In this war we are not only issuing directions as to ploughing up, but individual members of the committees have now a personal responsibility for the general supervision of the standards of farming in their particular districts, and they have power, and are exercising it, not merely to give directions about ploughing up but to assist farmers with advice and through the Goods and Services Scheme. Further, they have the task of seeing that the best use is made of machinery and fertilisers, and two committees, in Norfolk and East Sussex, have decided to try the experiment of rationing the whole of the fertilisers in their counties. This experiment is being watched, and if it works it will probably be extended to other counties. The committees have also undertaken the complex task of administering the rationing of feeding stuffs, and they are responsible for the destruction of pests, including rabbits and rats, and are getting on very well. One committee has made contracts with farmers covering no less than 500,000 acres for the destruction of rats. In addition to this, the committees deal with the problem of labour, the reservation of men, the organisation of casual labour and the organisation of gang labour. Last, but not least, they are occupied with the question of the farm survey which is required both for war-time purposes and for post-war policy.

It will be readily understood that these men have their fingers on the pulse of agriculture in their particular areas, not only day by day but almost hour by hour. Their function is to organise food production in the light of the general principles and orders issued from Whitehall; and as a counterpart it is their duty to inform me through various channels of the difficulties which they encounter in carrying Out their tasks We have as far as possible decentralised administration, but we maintain close touch between Whitehall and the counties in a number of ways. In the first place, there are land commissioners in every county; secondly, there are labour advisory officers, veterinary officers, livestock officers and so forth.

Finally, and most important of all, we have, in the last 12 months, started and developed a system of personal liaison officers—people who are all leading agriculturists in different spheres, some practical and some scientific. Their job is to keep the county committees informed of the general policies which they should pursue in the light of the national requirements and, at the same time, to keep me in touch with the developments of the food production campaign in the counties for which they are responsible. They are available to discuss, and they do in fact discuss and advise me on the general problems affecting agriculture as a whole. They attend meetings of Executive and District Committees and they see in detail what is going on in the counties. In London, we have regular meetings with them at short intervals.

Our primary object in the food production campaign has been to secure the maximum increase of food of all kinds from our soil, within the general priorities laid down by the Government. In order to achieve that, it is not sufficient for us to promulgate general orders or to make general surveys. Agriculture is a highly skilled and highly diversified industry, and success in it depends upon many factors, and chiefly upon the good knowledge and management of individual farmers and farm workers. The position varies enormously between different parts of the country. On the whole, mixed farming is characteristic of this country, livestock and livestock products, cash crops and fodder crops in various combinations. Each farm has its own particular needs, and you have to study those needs if you want to get the best out of each farm so that it will produce its maximum contribution towards our national effort. Our general policy must, at the same time, be kept sufficiently flexible to be adapted to the needs of all the different farms.

I sometimes see it suggested that we are completely out of touch in Whitehall with farming realities and arc incapable of formulating a sound agricultural policy. Perhaps the very summary description I have given will show that, on the contrary, we are definitely in a better position to-day than at any time previously in our history to know what is being done and what is required in the farming world. We have had to overcome enormous difficulties, and no one wishes to minimise them, but I am sure that we are now in a better position to devise means of overcoming them successfully than we were some months ago.

I referred just now to the problems of practical farming. It was in this connection that I instituted a survey last year which provided a great deal of useful information for our food production campaign last year. We feel now that we require a more extensive and uniform survey on which to base our long-range policy as well as our policy for immediate problems. In addition to ensuring that each farm produces the maximum volume of food during the war, we must collect the information necessary for the formation of a sound, post-war agricultural policy. The survey now being carried out will include the preparation of a map of every farm. It is interesting to note that about half the leases of the farms in this country have no maps attached to them. The information about each farm will in- clude its natural potentialities, the characteristics of the soil, its present state of cultivation, acreage of the various crops, the animal population, and the condition of the farm buildings. It is quite clear that when this war is over what we have to do is to have sufficient labour and building materials earmarked to provide the cottages required to rehouse the rural population and also to put the farm buildings in order. I am quite sure myself that one of the most important steps that can be taken to raise the standards of the agricultural worker will be to see that he is in a position to pay an economic rent for his cottage. Therefore this survey which we are now making is an important foundation.

The hon. Member for Cardigan mentioned agricultural education. As the House knows, I have appointed a Committee under Lord Justice Luxmoore to advise on this matter, but the major problem before agriculture to-day is not more knowledge, but more personal education. In pre-war days we had a system of agricultural education that was quite good in its way, but far too limited. It suffered from one grave difficulty and drawback. It was that it was not applied to the people who needed it most but to those who needed it least. Before the war there were county agricultural organisers in each county and the counties were grouped into provinces each with an advisory centre, staffed by soil chemists, farm economists, entomologists, mycologists and other technical experts, but the services of the advisory centre were only available if they were asked for. Even if the men who staffed these centres knew perfectly well of areas within their province which needed their help, they could only give it when asked. In the same way the county organiser could go on to a farm only if the farmer asked him. The result was that only the more progressive farmers, who knew of the existence of the facilities, made use of them, while the great Majority of farmers, people who really needed help, never called in the county organisers or advisory centres at all.

Last summer I altered all that. I closed down agricultural education classes and distributed the staffs that had been engaged on agricultural education among the counties, with the result that in most areas we have been able to appoint and attach a technical officer to each district committee. For the first time, therefore, in the history of this country men with technical qualifications are entitled to go with members of the district committee to a farm and examine the farmer's system of running it. Instead of waiting until they are asked they can now give advice or, in extreme cases, can issue directions with the committee's consent. I believe there has been a certain amount of criticism of my action; I have been accused of taking a retrograde step in agricultural education by closing down the classes. I venture to think that the contrary has been true, and that the action I took has resulted in an enormous spread of agricultural education. For the first time farmers who never asked for any technical assistance, and who affected to believe that the technical man could not teach them anything at all, are now finding as a result of conversations with the technical advisers that they are deriving real assistance and getting better crops and livestock. They are beginning to believe that the technical man can after all teach them something, while the latter on his side is beginning to learn something about the practical difficulties of farming. I think that is the answer to the questions raised. Of course, it is a slow job; it is in a way creating a revolution in agriculture and is bringing about a great revival of agricultural enterprise and efficiency. It is, however, still in its infancy; the numbers of people available are far too small. I look forward, however, to great results from Lord Luxmoore's Committee, and I do not want at this stage to say anything that might be taken as prejudging its conclusions.

On the side of fundamental research we have extended the functions of the Agricultural Research Council and placed further funds at their disposal. But I am so impressed with the fact that our major problem is not getting more knowledge, but getting it more widely distributed that I have appointed an Agricultural Improvement Council to secure more rapid incorporation of modern scientific knowledge into ordinary farming practice. Again, I look forward to great results. We are obtaining from day to day much new knowledge of our fundamental problems and difficulties. Our major problem is to adapt each of the different varieties of farming systems to national war needs in the light of modern scientific knowledge and the use of modern agricultural implements. There is a Council for England and Wales and a similar one in Scotland set up by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, and they are both hard at work. I am sure the result of their work will be to increase the knowledge of the farming community and to harness science more closely to the service of the practical farmer.

On the question of wages, many hon. Members have referred, in the course of the Debate, to the decision of the Wages Board to increase the minimum wage of farm workers to £3 a week. As one who is most anxious that the farming community and everything connected with agriculture should be raised in public estimation, I heartily welcome that step. I have never been able to understand why the agricultural labourer should be regarded as properly the recipient of the lowest wages. We shall now have the problem of adjusting agricultural returns to cover the increased cost of production. It is not going to be an easy job, but I have no doubt that we shall be successful. There is, however, one general observation I would like to make and I would impress it earnestly on Members on all sides of the House. It has already been said by the hon. Member for Normanton and the hon. Member for Brigg. I should like to compliment them on what they said, because I am quite sure that we have to drive home to the townspeople of this country that the agricultural worker cannot be paid a reasonable living wage unless you are willing to pay a reasonable price for the food he helps to produce, and unless you are willing to put his employer in a position not merely to cultivate his land but to maintain it in a proper state of fertility. That is the essence of the whole matter.

There has been widespread approval, not only in the House, but outside, of the decision of the Wages Board to increase the minimum wage. The cost of this may well amount to something of the order of £15,000,000 to £20,000,000 a year. This money has to come from the consumer or the Exchequer, which means that it has to be paid, directly or indirectly, by every individual in the country.

This is the immediate issue, but what I am particularly concerned with is the post-war agricultural position. It is no use leading the agricultural labourer up the garden path by letting him think he can have £3 a week during the war and then revert perhaps to 35s. or unemployment. I welcome most heartily what was said by the two Members to whom I have referred because hon. Members opposite are representatives of great trade unions and of industrial workers, workers who hitherto, for generations, have believed in the cry of cheap food. It was the cry of cheap food which depressed agricultural wages and kept them depressed. Cheap food, on the importation of which that cry was based, meant sweated labour and, above all, sweated land in the primary producing countries overseas, and it was, incidentally, also responsible, as I found when I was Secretary for the Department of Overseas Trade, for much of the curtailment of our export trade and much of the consequent unemployment. If, after the war, we look forward to a revival of international exchange and are to depend for the employment of large numbers of people on the revival of the export trade, our greatest interest must be to see that the great consuming countries who buy our goods are prosperous, and they are primarily agricultural countries. They can be prosperous only if we are willing to pay them a decent price for the food they send us, to enable them not only to cultivate their land but also to maintain it in a proper state of fertility. I have just been reading a book, recently published in the United States, called "American Farmers and the World Crisis." I would advise anybody who is interested in the subject to read it. It shows in the most vivid way what cheap food meant to the land and to the population living on it. I will read, if I may, three short extracts: The land in American farms totals about a billion acres, and somewhat over one-third of it is used for harvest crops. A century ago most of this land was virgin, and it included some of the most productive soils in the world. Yet to-day, after only a few generations of farming, roughly 50,000,000 acres of once fertile land have been practically ruined for cultivation. The condition of another 50,000,000 acres is said to be almost as serious. Loss of top-soil has impoverished and reduced the value of about 100,000,000 acres now being cultivated, and a like area is being depleted of its riches at an appallingly rapid rate. Thus, about one-third of our farm land has been completely or partly robbed of its ability to provide for the needs of the American people.…. The costs of soil erosion and im- poverishment have fallen both on farmers and on the nation as a whole… But it is the nation that suffers the full loss. Secretary Wallace"— the Vice-President of the United States, and up till then Secretary for Agriculture— has declared that 'the wholesale sapping of our land resources' is a 'serious threat to national security,' and that 'historically land decline has been an early symptom of national decadence—there is evidence, in fact, to indicate that great civilisations of the past have died of the malady of land decay'. There is the warning, plain for all of us to see. Let us heed this for ourselves, for we have not been blameless in this matter of looking after our own soil. Contrary to what many people assume, the natural covering of this country is not grass but scrub and forest. Land can maintain its fertility for thousands of years if it is properly looked after. China is a case in point. But if it is neglected or robbed then it reverts quickly to desert or to forest. Due to neglect, we started this war with 2,000,000 acres of cultivation less than in the last war—2,000,000 acres which had degenerated into rough grazings or had become thorn-infested and was in the process of turning back into scrub. Please do not let us forget that, as the hon. Member for Normanton so rightly said, if we are to prevent that recurring we have to employ labour at a decent wage, and we have got to enable a decent wage to be paid by efficient farmers who will keep their land in good heart. What we have to impress upon the people of this country is that the land is one of our most priceless heritages. We owe it to our children, and to their children, to hand it on, not only cultivated but in good heart, its fertility unimpaired, so that it may grow food for the generations yet unborn.