ROYAL COMMISSION ON AGRICULTURE. 



15 



\l S vRI. I)V\II- >. M< I 



. 



nt of confidence IMH-UM> of what happened in the 

 pact. It WM mo* t unfortunate thing that agri 

 < uhuic khould ha\c decayed t >u< h n \t-nt 

 did, and particularly M> 'for the agricultural work, i- 

 ho nt one limp i-i.- earning 3Jd. to 4d. an hour 

 when the m*n who came out from the towim i i. |..i.i 

 .ui I'unii building* and roofs and so on were getting 

 -I and !d. 1111 hour. 



I I..V.T Assuming that the (<\< i mm-nt wci.- to 



i We Mill ^iv.' MIU security <>l tenure mid full 

 (ompeiisution for all bttproVWMBti you nm) 

 i. ii.int farmers instead of gi\ ing \ou this guai 

 of prices," which would \ou prefer: (Mi. M>. \ifol): 

 In what way are we to get full compensation for all 

 we put in the pl< 



11.554. I am assuming that that has been mado 

 perfectly clear to you by the Government 1 am nof 

 explaining how it is going to be done. Mr. Gardner 

 yesterday said that the Agricultural Holdings Act ; s 

 now a failure that it does not guarantee you full 

 compensation when you have to leate \<mr farms. 

 I am assuming that the Agricultural Holding 

 14 amended in such a way as to give you security 

 of tenure, but if that tenure, is disturbed you arc 

 assured of full compensation to the last penny for 

 anv real improvement you have made in the farm? 

 (.l/r. Davidson): Security of tenure with n modified 

 guarantee on a sliding scale would bo the ideal 

 solution. (.1/r. .Vr.NiroJ): We are going for security 

 of tenure and a modified guarantee as well. That 

 in the reason why we are not asking for any guarantee 

 of profit we nre asking for no guarantee of 

 profit. We are saying: if the country want the 

 stuff we will go on producing the stuff if you 

 guarantee us if a slump does come our cost of pro 

 dm t ion not including anything for our own manage- 

 ment or anything for interest or profit, simply Un- 

 bare cost of production. Wo merely want to cut out 

 the chance of a very big loss occurring should another 

 (.lump take place. 



1 ) iV>X. Assuming that the. Government simply 

 . nte> you a pric< which is very likely what they 

 will do will you be any better off than you are now 

 without the security of tenure!- (Mr. .1/r.Vico/) : We 

 are willing to take the risk, but we prefer the 

 security if we can get it; we want it if possible. 



14,556. Ts the security of tenure that you ask for 

 essential for the full development of agriculture in 

 Scotland f 1 Yes. 



1J..V57. And the guarantee as well? Yes. 



U..W. Kither one of them without the other you 

 think will not be sufficient? 1 do not think it would 

 be. 



1 (.. ">.".: ' -Mi. I>uncnn: Mr. Allison, will you turn to 

 the specimen schedule you sent out to the fanners. 

 I notice you have an item running through all of 

 them of idle time caused by unsuitable weather. 

 What is the meaning of that exactly? -(Mr. .U(i'/;it : 

 In ascertaining the labour cost the farmers wer. 

 directed to take the exact amount of labour required 

 to plough, sow, and harrow one acre. In addition 

 to that there are wages paid for work which is M.., 

 done because of broken weather and they were asked 

 to charge a certain proportion of idle time to i..\,-i 

 that, and such an amount is necessary because if MHI 

 take the accounts of the farm which is shown 

 work out the labour you will find we are short of the 

 actual labour paid for by the amount of the idle time. 



1 ! ViO. In charging tho labour they charged tin. 

 actual day's wage against each operation? Yes, the 

 actual day's wage on tho time. These haic 

 ent in by them in several cases, if you winh to sec 

 them, showing how they arrive at their labour cost. 



14,561. In what number of these cases where you 

 have given the cost of production of different crops 

 are these tho result of a Committee working and pre- 

 paring an estimate, and in what number are they 

 individual estimate*? In the case of tho returns from 

 they are the result of a Committee working; 

 the other are oanos of individuals working separately 

 and not in conjunction with one another. 



''.2. Taking potato, you give about 25 rase* 

 altogether, excluding Kif... Doe* that mean, roughly 

 that you have 24 individual estimates for Scotland" 

 I agree. 



14,00.1. That 1-1 Uie total nomlicr you haveP Y. 



hoe been no attempt on your part 

 to combine estimates? No ; the estimates are shown 

 individually as they come in. 



>. iminating the iU>m of error, or items 

 which are not common to all of them!'- "> 



I !.'( W. Take the balance-sheet you give, ami t!i 

 trading account of this farm. Can you say whether 

 .fa shown on those account* for the \e-.ir IVls 

 is rather less than usual:' It is less than usual. 



14,567. This was rather a bad year for this farmer:' 

 I would not say u bad year it was not just so 

 successful oe bis previous years. His oat crop was 

 short, as 1 have pointed out already. 



14,5(38. His wheat crop was also a bit short, waa it 

 not? No, his wheat crop is all right. 



14.569. le four quarters his average? That is the 

 figure 1 have proved from his books, and he i 



no comment with regard to it; that was his actual 

 figure. 



14.570. 1 am not throwing any doubt upon it, but 

 have you compared it with previous yoar? V I 

 have not. 1 would like to have had an opportunity 

 of doing that, but we had no time to do it in prepar- 

 ing these figures. 



14.571. I should like figures for this farm for tour 

 or five years back for the purpose of comparison. 

 Do you think it would bo possible to get that I' No. 

 it is not possible to get that, because of the fact that 

 these cost accounts which have been made up from 

 the accounts of that farm have been derived fro: 

 estimates of the cost of production in the year P.'l>. 

 which was fresh in his mind. In other words, lie 

 submitted -his coste for 1918, and* I reconciled tho>e 

 costs with his actual financial returns. In order to 

 prepare similar cost accounts for past years it is 

 necessary for him. to prepare estimates of hie costs of 

 production in those years that are past, and I should 

 imagine that would be a most difficult thing to do. 



14.572. Could we get the financial returns? The 

 financial returns are available. I am speaking with- 

 out having asked him. hut I know they exist. 



14.573. 1 put it to you that the amount of profit 

 ho is showing on a farm of this size with the amount 

 of capital employed is a good deal under the average 

 returns from farming in Scotland in 1918? I can- 

 not speak of the average, hut in the account* of 

 farme which I audited it ia just about the usual 

 figure. 



14.574. l think you will agree that the farms ot 

 which you have audited the accounts have been farms 

 where it paid thorn to pay Income Tax Sclu*Juh> " B" 

 rather than pay on the other schedule? No. The 

 farmers did not keep accounts of these farms, ami they 

 wire .sent in purely for the purpose of enabling them 

 t<> keep a basis of accounting which would show in 

 future years whether it was paying them or not. 

 There waa no knowledge at Uie beginning in tho 

 farmers' mind when the accounts were sent in. 



I l.."i"."i. Clmii iniin : For what period are you asking 

 lor the hack balance she. 



Mr. Vuncan: For four years, if we can ha\e them. 



14,576. Chairman : Can you manage that, Mr. 

 Allison? They exist. 



ll..")"77You are not certain whether the farmer 

 will produce them or not, because you have not asked 

 tlie farmer? That is the position. 



14.578. Are you willing to ask the farmer? Yes. 



14.579. And to send them in to the Secretan. 

 you get tho farmers' permission to do so?- 



14,680. Mr. Unncan: I should like to ask. Mr. 

 Stewart a question. You made a statement in reply 

 to one of the Commissioners that you estimated n 

 would take about JC5 an acre to put your land hack 

 into condition because of the effect of the past four 

 \c.ns' farming, on the land:' (Mr. Sltinirt) I do not 

 think I r acre. 



('lininnnn: The 5 per acre was from a statement 

 read li\ Mr. Allison of one farmer who is not p'. 



14,581. Mr. Duncan: I thought Mr. Stewart indi- 

 <aleil his agreement with that ? No. It may lie 

 more or it may be less; it is a very difficult point. 



I I..X1.'. Taking your own farm, what will lie i 

 sary to get your land back into pre-war condition? 

 Do \oii contemplate having to employ more labour? 

 ^ to a certain extent. In pre-war times we con 



