MINUTES OF EVIDENCE 



TAKEN BEFORE 



THE KOYAL COMMISSION ON AGRICULTUBE. 



FIRST DAY, 



TUESDAY, 5ra AUGUST, 1919. 



PRESENT : 

 SIR WILLIAM BARCLAY PEAT 



SIB WILLIAM JAMES ASHLEY. 



DB. C. M. DOUGLAS, C.B. 



MB. G. G. REA, C.B.E. 



MB. W. AXKER SIMMONS. C.B.E. 



MB. HENRY OVERMAN, O.B.E. 



MB. A. W. ASHBY. 



MB. A. BATCHELOR. 



MB. H. S. CAUTLEY, K.C., M.P. 



MB. GEORGE DALLAS. 



MB. J. F. DUNCAN. 



MB. W. EDWARDS. 



(Chairman). 

 MR. F. E. GREEN. 

 MB. J. M. HENDERSON. 

 MB. T. HENDERSON. 

 MB. T. PROSSER JONES. 

 MB. E. W. LANGFORD. 

 MB. R. V. LENNARD. 

 MB. GEORGE NICHOLLS. 

 MR. E. H. PARKER. 

 MR. R. R. ROBBINS. 

 MR. W. R. SMITH, M.P. 

 MR. R. B. WALKER. 



SIB DANIEL HALL, K.C.B., F.R.8. (Permanent Secretary of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries), 



Called and Examined. 



The witness handed in the following statement as 

 his evidence-in-chief : 



1. The Board have no evidence to offer as to the 

 main subject of the Commission's enquiry the cost 

 of production of the produce of the farm. The Board 

 have but recently begun to farm themselves, and the 

 few accounts they have compiled belong only to the 

 later period of the war and contain elements of un- 

 certainty through the lack of experience of the over- 

 head charges that will be required. The experience 

 of the Food Production Department in conducting 

 ploughing, cultivating, threshing and similar opera- 

 tions is also of no value in this connection. It was 

 war emergency work, organised under pressure of time 

 und carried out by previously untrained men. Again, 

 the farms taken over by County Executive Committees 

 were from the circumstances of the case in such bad 

 order and have been worked under such difficult con- 

 ditions that the results obtained in the one or tu 

 years they have been in hand provide no evidence ns 

 to the normal costs of farming. I am, however, 

 instructed to lay before the Commission a statement of 

 the principle which the Corn Production Act was 

 designed to carry out. 



2. In the Corn Production Act it was not intended 

 ritln-r that the guaranteed prices fur wheat and oats 

 should be the ruling prices or that the minimum rates 

 fixed by the Agricultural Wages Board should be the 

 actual wages paid. In both cases it was intended that 

 figures thus legislatively fixed should represent certain 

 minima necessary for the security of the workers and 

 the farmers respectively. It was expected that the 

 prevailing prices would be higher and would be deter- 

 mined in the one case by the world's markets and in 

 the other by agreement between employers and 

 employed. 



3. The Board foresaw that the gravest difficulties 

 would be experienced in fixing the actual prices to be 

 paid for the varying produce of the farm under the 

 extremely variable conditions of production which 

 prevail in agriculture. The experience of the last two 

 years has amply confirmed the Board's view that it 



(2612539.) Wt. 19670-12. 2000. 9/19. D & S. Q 34. 



is impossible for the State, except as a temporary 

 measure under stress of war, to fix prices that will 

 be fair as between producer and consumer, or between 

 different classes of producers. On the other hand 

 it is possible to take a broad view and say that the 

 industry as a whole will remain profitable, provided 

 the fluctuations of price are not allowed to go below 

 certain limits which would just cover the average 

 working costs. 



4. Similarly the Board consider that Governmental 

 action should be confined to fixing the minimum living 

 wage below which a working man should not be com- 

 pelled to sell his labour. This minimum should be 

 subject to variation from time to time in accordance 

 with the cost of living, but as a minimum living wage 

 it should be independent of the profits as it must be 

 of the losses of farming. As the profits of farming 

 permit, it would be open to the men to obtain 

 higher rates by bargaining with the employers, but 

 these higher rates cannot claim legislative sanction. 

 On the other hand, if the minimum rates should be 

 snch as the majority of farmers cannot pay it would 

 be necessary for the State to raise the guarantees. To 

 this extent the guaranteed prices are dependent on 

 the minimum wage rates fixed by the Agricultural 

 Wages Board. 



' ,5. The State, however, is only interested in two 

 things to maintain supplies and to enforce a wage 

 in any industry that will provide for a decent 

 standard of living. The State does not propose to 

 interfere so as to secure any particular distribution 

 of the profits of the industry, and has no basis of 

 piinciple on which it can determine what wages or 

 what prices ought to be. Were not the State driven 

 to ensure supply, the State might abandon guarantees 

 and view any downward movement of prices with 

 indifference. On the other hand, having once secured 

 the worker a minimum wage the State cannot agree 

 to the use of the machinery of the Corn Production 

 Act to raise that rate indefinitely, because every 

 increase beyond a certain point would have to be met 

 by increased guarantees of price. 



6. The Board of Agriculture thus hold that the 

 State is fulfilling its necessary function by providing 



