BRITAIN’S FOOD

Wairarapa Times-Age, 18 October 1938, Page 6

BRITAIN’S FOOD

PRIME MINISTER OPPOSES SELF-SUFFICIENCY TRADING AND INDUSTRIAL NATION. POSITION OF THE EMPIRE COUNTRIES. “I have heard it said that we ought ourselves to grow at home all the food that we need, and I want to give you a reason or two why I think this is a wrong point of view,” said Mr Neville Chamberlain at Kettering recently, reports “Public Opinion.” "After all, we are predominantly a trading and industrial nation. We sell manufactured goods—hosiery, it may be, or shoes —to one another, but we also sell a large part of our productions to the countries of the Empire and also to foreign countries, an in return we buy from them very large quantities of food and raw materials. Now, what would happen if we were to grow all the food we need at home—l am assuming that we could, but I think we should find it a costly experiment? But if we could, what would happen? “The first thing would be that we should ruin those Empire and foreign countries who are dependent on our markets. And the next thing would be, of course, that as their purchasing power had been destroyed, those markets would no longer by able to buy our manufactures from us. Up, therefore, would go our unemployment figures, and the unemployed in turn would have to reduce their purchase of the farmers’ products. And so in the end the final sufferer would be the farmer himself. “No one has found out how to prevent frosts and droughts and high winds, and, of course, farmers have been having bad times all over the world. But I can say this, that in the seven years since 1931 the National Government has given more time and attention, and, as an old Chancellor of the Exchequer, I say more money, to agriculture than was given in the whole of the hundred years that went before them.”

"The Prime Minister ought not to have been troubled to explain to tfye deputation who saw him that he had meant neither’ more nor less than he said,” said the “Observer” of his speech. . Mr Chamberlain’s speech at Kettering quoted above caused some commotion amongst M.’sP. for agricultural constituencies, and he was forced to assure a deputation that the Government’s policy for agriculture would be steadily pursued and that his speech did not indicate a change. A MARE’S NEST. The extreme agriculturalists, comments the “Observer,” found a mare’s nest in Mr Chamberlain’s speech at Kettering, and made a racket like an air raid. It was a noise about nothing. Some enthusiasts had proclaimed that-, in advance of war, we should grow not only more of our food, but the whole of it! Commenting on this extravagance, the Prime Minister showed its absurdity. Shipping manufacture and the dominions, as well as foreign markets, would have to be sacrificed. Exports, employment, and “Empire would be injured alike. When these results were felt or threatened the reaction of the vast industrial majority in the towns would sweep away the whole present system of subsidies to agriculture. The National-Government has done more for agriculture than all other modern Administrations put together, and will do still more within reason. But limits are imposed by industrial, commercial, and Imperial interests. If farmers were tempted to think that they would gain from the Opposition, or even keep what they have, they would make the mistake of their lives. “In peace the question of food and defence involves two ploblems. They are subject to strictly strategical estimate and not to book economics of any kind. All depends upon a steady calculation of the possible effects of hostile submarines and aircraft together. By storage and home-growth we should be sure of a six months’ supply independently of imports. SERIOUS, BUT LIMITED. “By the end of that period we should either have overcome the double menace or succumbed to it. This is a serious, but a limited, problem. If sea power could not guarantee, after the first critical phase, a large part of our food supplies as now, it could not provide our raw materials either, and our doom would be sealed.” Britain needs her farmers (says the “Glasgow Herald”). The decline in food production and in the productive capacity of the land is a threat to her security. Since 1931 the Government has set itself to check that decline, to ensure, through marketing schemes, tariffs, quotas, subsidies, and a network of international agreements, a return to the farmer for his labour. Without a policy of this sort the plight of British agriculture would certainly have been far worse than it is today, and it is a policy which the National Government is most unlikely to abandon. The fact, remains, however, that Britain is a manufacturing and trading nation, and that if we are to sell our goods abroad we must be prepared to take in return what less industrialised countries are prepared to give us. Foodstuffs are, and will remain, among the main exports of such countries. We must be willing to buy such foodstuffs unless we are ready to accept the uncomfortable alternative of the kind of impoverishing autarchy beloved by the totalitarian States. This is an obvious truth; but, of course, it is not the end of the matter. UNEMPLOYED AND THE LAND. Looking at the unemployment figures one may still ask whether it would not be wise to experiment more exhaustively with plans for inducing some of our people to go back into land work — even if such work should not be of a kind likely to show an obvious profit except in renewed health and energy and a wider knowledge of agricultural processes. We may suffer in time of trouble from a state of things which leaves “marginal” lands of the kind only too familiar to Scotland both uncultivated and unpeopled. Mr W. F. Bosomworth, writing in “The Scotsman,” shows that the dominions not only sell wheat but are supplying their own manufactures. He says:— “Mr Chamberlain pointed out that if we grew all our food at home we would ruin those dominions and foreign countries which are dependent on our markets, and they would no longer be able to buy our manufactures. There

is some truth in that statement, but the position is changing rapidly as the following figures will show: — Production of Manufactured Goods in British Dominions. 1910-11 1933-34 Canada .... *1,165,975,639 *2,086,848,000 Australia £120,771,000 £330,134,000 New Zeal’d £29,317,023 £71,770,872 S’th Africa £17,248,834 £86,432,000 “Dollars. “It is clear that our dominions, by their increase of manufactured goods, are automatically becoming more selfsupporting in manufactures and less dependent on our exports, which indi-, cates a shrinking dominion market for our manufacturers rather than an increased one. If that is a correct diagnosis it warrants a considerable modification of the view expressed by Mr Chamberlain.” A LABOUR VIEW. Farmers everywhere (says the “Daily Herald”) are in revolt against Mr Chamberlain’s remarkable “no need to grow more food” speech. In East Yorkshire members of the Farmers’ Union say they want to know what Labour’s farming policy is. We gladly tell them. First, Labour—if it had power—would make the nation the farmer’s landlord. The land would be bought at a fair price from its present owners. The nation, because it has plenty of money for drainage, upkeep of buildings, loans to tenants, and so on, would make a very good landlord. And it is almost every farmer's dream that one day he will come upon a good landlord. Secondly, Labour would give the. farmer a guaranteed price for his produce. That would enable him to start the year’s farming with confidence. Thirdly, Labour would help farmers to produce more milk, more eggs, more vegetables, more fruit. Far more. These are the foods Britain grows best. They are also the foods which British families are most short of. In order to give a good price to the farmer and at the same time supply plenty of cheap food to the housewife, Labour would, fourthly, come down sharply on the middlemen who come between the two. Far too much money goes nowadays in commissions, auctioneers' fees, profits to speculators, and so on.

These are the four main points in Labour's farming policy. There are others.