Farming to feed Britain

Everyone is talking about food prices, and there is very good reason for this. As each year passes many people are eating worse, not better. Steeply rising prices prevent people buying the food they want and a great number of people are eating less of the more nutritious foods. Naturally, for practical reasons, people are wondering whether British agriculture can produce more food, and even more important whether it can be produced more cheaply than at present. But they do not want this at the expense of the people who produce it. It is well known that farm workers do not enjoy a standard of living equal to workers in the manufacturing industries. The industrial workers support farm workers in their struggles, and do not want cheap food at the expense of the workers in the British countryside any more than they want it through the exploitation of workers in the developing countries. In any case it cannot be done that way. Skilled farm workers are not prepared to have sub-standard living conditions, and are leaving the land all the time.

More food, cheaper food, and good living standards and security for those working in the industry are what is needed. How can this be done? In this pamphlet the Communist Party endeavours to provide the answers.

Farming to feed Britain

Over two-thirds of the world’s population live in rural areas, with some 50 to 60 per cent of the world’s labour force engaged in agriculture. It is amongst the agricultural workers that the lowest standards of living and the most flagrant injustices continue to be found. In the industrial countries, incomes of the farm worker are, for the most part, about 60 to 80 per cent of those of manual workers in other sectors of the economy. In the developing countries there is little to distinguish the conditions of many agricultural workers and the peasants today from the serfdom of medieval Europe.

In Britain the living standard of the farm worker is considerably lower than workers in other industries. Farmers in certain sectors of agriculture may enjoy temporary booms but in the long term farmers face uncertainties, and for the farm worker it is a life of constant financial difficulties.

The scrapping in 1973 of the price support system to farmers in preparation for Britain’s integration into the Common Market and the Common Agricultural Policy led directly and quickly into chaos and the crisis of the latter part of 1974. Livestock producers did not have the resources to keep their animals through the winter, and the whole future of our livestock production was threatened. Government action during this period was tardy and hesitant. It remains to be seen what the long term effect will be, as cattle production involves at least a two-year cycle. What happens on the farm today has its impact on meat supplies in the shops two or three years later.

This situation has to be seen against the background of United Nations statistics, which state that 375 million of the world’s population are facing death through starvation. The world food supply difficulties were clearly expressed in the 1974 World Food Conference in Rome. Here a policy was outlined based upon increased food production in the developing world; improved food distribution; and a system of ensuring relief where supplies are disrupted by natural or other catastrophies. Whilst there remains an enormous potential for greater output of crops and livestock over great areas of the world, Britain cannot afford, either morally or economically, to fail to use to the full the capacity for producing our food requirements. Nor is there any doubt that it is possible to grow more grain, vegetables, dairy produce and meat to provide the better dietary level desperately needed by large sections of low paid people in Britain. With the ever-increasing balance of payments problems and the steep rise in prices on the world markets the case for growing more food from our resources becomes more persuasive than ever. To achieve an efficient agriculture operating at a high level of production there must be an adequate, highly skilled, well-paid labour force. Production must be planned with farmers having an assured market and stable prices. Public money spent to ensure this is good investment, as it strengthens the national economy and safeguards the nation’s food, producing an adequate diet at reasonable prices.

Britain is the largest food importing nation in the world, and the prosperity of agriculture is therefore bound up with, and dependent on, government policy.

This involves the expenditure of public money in many ways, some form of subsidy where necessary, grants for capital improvements, administrative machinery, advisory services etc. A heavy responsibility rests on the government and the industry to encourage efficiency and the maximum value from this government support.

The Industry

British agriculture was for many years the most advanced in the world, playing an important role in the economy of this country. The best of our farming was based on intensive arable cultivation. After the import protection ceased with the repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846, it was able to compete for a number of years with competition from abroad. Its supremacy ended towards the end of the last century when improved transport opened up the British market to the food producing areas of North America. The decline of agriculture and its economic and social importance had a depressing effect on the life of the British rural worker. As Britain became geared to being the workshop of the world and acquired a large colonial empire, based on exporting manufactured goods at the highest possible prices and importing raw materials including food at the lowest possible price, British agriculture entered a period of severe depression.

Agriculture remains our largest single industry. In 1973 the total number working in agriculture (excluding various contractors) in the UK was 704,000. This figure includes 222,000 whole-time and 66,000 part-time farmers, partners and directors. In terms of UK employment agriculture represents around 2.9 per cent of the working civilian population. It occupies about 47 million acres and accounts for approximately three per cent of the gross national product.

There is £22,000 million invested in agriculture, £17,000 million of landlords’ capital and £5,000 million of tenants’ capital. The gross output for 1973-74 was £4,352 million. The net product, on a real basis, has increased more than 50 per cent over the past 20 years.

Agriculture as an industry is exploited by big business, for while the industry is large the units are small. The total number of holdings in the UK (1972) of all sizes numbers something over ¼ million. Fifty per cent of holdings are capable of providing full-time work for at least one man. These account for nearly 94 per cent of total output. The number of part-time and smaller full-time farms is tending to decline. The average size of farms is increasing. Full-time units in UK averaged 234 acres in 1973 compared with 216 acres in 1968. Only 7,000 or so farms exceed 500 acres (excluding undeveloped rough grazing land) and could thus be regarded as large farms, and even the largest of these are but dwarfs compared with the giant enterprises of capitalist industry. Many more farms have been taken over by owner-occupiers instead of being rented from large landowners; just over half of the acreage in England is now in owner-occupation while the proportion in Wales is two-thirds. The overwhelming number of farms are small to medium size. These small farms are situated mostly in Wales, the West Country, and North West England. They are dependent on livestock production, with a small proportion on fruit and vegetables. The medium and large farms produce a very high proportion of the main arable crops, especially cereals, either with or without livestock enterprises in a mixed farming system.

The small men are handicapped in a thousand ways. Their farms are not laid out for labour saving machines, and individually they cannot use them enough to make the capital outlay worthwhile. Many of them cannot afford to keep their implements in the best of repair, nor have they the capital to improve their farms and buildings. They lack storage facilities to enable them to be flexible in their farming operations.

British capitalism has consistently opposed efforts to expand agriculture, for fear that too much food produced in Britain would adversely affect its policy of expanding exports. It was only during the periods of war that this policy was reversed.

In 1938 Neville Chamberlain, the Tory Prime Minister, in a notorious speech said that he was not in favour of special efforts to encourage agriculture. “It would ruin the Empire and foreign countries which are dependent on our markets and they would no longer be able to buy our manufactures from us.” This statement was made only a few months before the outbreak of the second world war.

It was only when the German navy started to play havoc with our food supply lines that the government of the day realised that Britain had to look to British agriculture to provide a far greater proportion of our food requirements. The arable acreage was at an all-time low; a huge acreage of permanent grass was often little more than rough grazing.

Ploughing-up campaigns were launched, with subsidies from the government. A number of further regulations were introduced and measures taken to increase food production from British farms. For some years after the war the world shortage of food and the economic dislocation guaranteed a market for all the food that could be produced. In this situation the 1945 Labour government embodied the war-time regulations into the 1947 Agriculture Act in which the principle of guaranteed prices and assured markets was fundamental. This security to agriculture resulted in a 50 per cent increase in production over the pre-war period.

With the return of the Tory government in 1951 the traditional policies of restriction returned, and for all the old reasons. When a deputation from the Women’s Institute went to the Ministry to advocate encouragement of domestic food production and gardening they were answered by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Mr Nugent, with this argument — “we must import horticultural produce from Western Europe to pay for Britain’s manufactured goods, such as machines and textiles, and for this reason a campaign on the lines of the war-time Dig for Victory drive is not required.” Almost the same words as Chamberlain’s.

Today with the serious world food and energy problem and the dramatically changed position of Britain in the markets of the world there must be a real drive to expand food production from our own soil. The measures which played such an important part in lifting agriculture to its present high standards must not be ignored.

The provisions in the 1947 Agriculture Act for an annual price review, informing farmers well in advance what crops were needed and what price they would receive, were very important. Governments have not used the Act as it was intended, because they have laid stress on the clause “such part of the nation’s food as in the national interest it is desirable to produce in the UK”. This escape clause can be used to eliminate guarantees altogether if a government wishes. Farmers were quite rightly critical of the way the Act was implemented.

As has been pointed out, British agriculture, based on a policy of planned expansion, has an important contribution to make to strengthening the national economy. With a big balance of payments deficit we cannot allow agriculture to stagnate. Our farmers and growers now produce two-thirds of our temperate food requirements. This figure could be and must be lifted much higher.

A considerable amount of attention has been directed towards the changed techniques of crop and animal production now being widely adopted. There is criticism of what are called “agribusiness methods”, consisting generally of specialised units, large scale mechanisation with large fields, bigger herds etc, and the fullest use of chemicals. It is, of course, precisely such developments that have made possible the impressive increased productivity of labour and animals and yields per acre. Technical developments are to be welcomed and encouraged.

At the same time the safety of the workers is at all times a prime requirement. We must see to it that no harm is done to the land or damage to the breeding stock, that produce is nutritionally good and safe, and the environment is protected. This involves constant checking and monitoring, but not the halting or reversing of mechanical developments. For instance, over-enthusiasm in grubbing out hedgerows must certainly be checked. Five acres may well be too small a field for efficient cultivation whereas 500 acres is unnecessarily large and can have adverse consequences on wild life and often on cultivation.

The overall energy input, in the form of fuel, machinery, fertilisers, pesticides, etc, is now a balance which likewise needs careful evaluation. It is important to distinguish between methods and objectives of capitalist organisation and the techniques they develop and adopt in agriculture.

The farm worker

In the UK there are 232,000 whole-time hired workers including whole-time hired family workers. Farm workers take a pride in their work and do not search for other work for its own sake. The fact that in the last decade 200,000 workers have left agriculture shows how poorly wages and working conditions compare with those in other industries.

Farm workers’ wages are determined by a statutory body, the Agricultural Wages Board for England and Wales, with a similar Board operating in Scotland. The decisions of the Board are enforced by government. These Boards have done little or nothing to lift the incomes of the farm worker to those in other industries and have come under serious criticism from the workers. The fact, however, that the decisions are enforceable protects the worker living in isolation. The Boards are staffed by representatives of the farmers and the farm workers, each having eight positions, with the Minister appointing five members including the Chairman. The AWBs determine rates of pay, the weekly hours of work and holiday entitlements. They have after many years of campaigning by the NUAAW introduced statutory payment during sickness.

Living in the countryside is not, as often stated, cheaper than the towns. In fact government reports show the opposite, apart from London. There are gardens indeed, but a farm worker should not have to toil in the garden after an arduous day in the fields to supplement inadequate wages. Bus journeys for shopping and other public activities have to be paid for. Fares are constantly rising and in some rural areas the bus service has completely disappeared. This is a serious blow to farm workers and their wives who find shopping in the towns offers a wider range of choice than the village shop.

The value of the production of the farm worker has risen considerably faster than the value of the wage rises received. Taking the average output in 1964-67 as 100, it was 150 in 1972-73 with a forecast of 156 for the following year; labour costs as a proportion of all farm production costs fell during the same period from 20.7 to 17.9 per cent. The increase in productivity has been achieved by increased use of capital and the adaptability of the farm worker to more sophisticated methods, often involving very complicated and expensive machinery. Many of these skills have been picked up in the process of working. The farm workers’ union has campaigned over the years for some form of systematic training for all workers entering the industry.

Safety measures for handling involved machinery and dangerous chemicals are far from adequate on most farms. The accident rate is far too high and the inspectorate far too small to enforce the limited safety regulations that do exist.

The NUAAW after many years’ campaigning has succeeded in reducing the number of hours to be worked for a minimum weekly wage to 40, which have to be worked in five days over a six day period. Three weeks paid holiday has been established of which two weeks can be taken on consecutive days. In practice the other days are taken at the last-minute convenience of the farmer. Many hours are worked in overtime on some farms, usually at week-ends or during the period of pleasant weather, resulting in the workers having an inadequate period of free time for themselves with their families.

Life in the villages means being less well served with shops and social services. There are less amenities (apart from fresh air and views) than are available in the towns.

Country people are also at a disadvantage regarding the education of their children. Employment prospects for youngsters are usually very limited with employment for women often non-existent apart from seasonal work on the farms.

The change from a labour-intensive industry to a capital-intensive one means that the farm worker is ever more isolated at work. With many villages becoming swamped with commuters and retired persons from the towns the discrepancy between farm pay and the level of wages in other industries is more apparent.

Some fifty per cent of farm workers live in tied cottages. They can be evicted by a court order on termination of employment regardless of the reason. No worker likes living in a tied cottage but with the shortage of houses in the countryside, and especially where there are large families on low wages, they are compelled to make the best of the situation. Those not living in tied cottages have to pay the same rent as their better- paid neighbours.

Position of farmers

The farmers are a very heterogeneous group both socially and economically. The large farmers have a typically capitalist outlook, and indeed it is probable that the proportion of them coming from industry and finance is slowly increasing. The main organisation is the National Farmers’ Union (covering England and Wales). The leadership has always been largely in the hands of the larger farmers and reflects their attitudes, but the majority of the membership are small and medium farmers. Most farmers are from farming families, with only a small proportion having had any technical or managerial training, relying on tradition and experience. The former role of the progressive landowner establishing new techniques has now passed to the enterprising farmers supported by various advisory services and research establishments. Many of the smaller farmers have living standards very similar to those of the wage earners; and indeed when long hours, lack of leisure at week-ends, lack of holidays, and anxiety are taken into account, some are probably worse off. Many of them, even in good times of relative prosperity for agriculture, cannot gain a return for their long hours commensurate with the minimum wage in agriculture. When the market turns against them they are forced into real hardship and often out of business.

This category cannot be precisely defined but may be taken as including those enterprises calculated as requiring up to 600 standard man days (SMD in Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food statistics). On this basis it includes about two-thirds of all total holdings but accounts for only about a quarter of total output. Government policy has been directed towards elimination of the smaller farms. This policy represents a deliberate pulling up of the ladder by which it was once possible for a farmer’s son or son of a farm worker to take on a smaller farm and progress by stages to a more economic unit.

It is in line with the European Common Market policies which have stated the aim of reducing the number of farms by two-thirds.

The reverse of this process has been the growth of big business farming, employing capital in hundreds of thousands of pounds. The pattern of development of these large concerns is many faceted. Some have grown from a farming basis and in this they have not merely expanded their arable holdings but have gone further afield and taken on sizeable enterprises in stock raising areas. Other enterprises have been set up by the entry of finance-capital into land ownerships-cum-farming-cum-forestry. Some take the form of federations of previously separate farmers. Ownership of land is the prime motive in most of these developments, though some of these large concerns are prepared to rent land. The big business pattern seems likely to continue its development, progressively swallowing up more and more farming areas unless deliberately checked.

Food, agriculture and big business

Farming in Britain, as in all capitalist countries, is an industry of small business units. Compared with the giant companies the largest farm enterprise is no more than a dwarf. The firms from which farmers buy their requirements and to which they sell their products are huge combines which are now emerging into multi-national firms. These giants are in a very strong bargaining position, able to press down prices farmers receive, and maintain high prices for all requirements. Not only is agriculture so exploited, so also is the consumer, as the profits of large retailing companies will show.

A study of these figures shows the strong position of firms supplying farmers with machinery. Fords and Massey-Ferguson are the largest. Several others dominate the market for special equipment such as milling machines, grain dryers, bulk tanks etc. These firms sell through agents, who are themselves closely organised in associations some of which have actively tried to prevent farmers’ co-operatives from developing trade in machinery. Oil and fuel must also be purchased from small number of large concerns.

The fertiliser industry is the classic example of monopoly. Imperial Chemical Industries and Fisons’ Chemical Industries are the two giants handling most of the nitrogenous and phosphate fertilisers. Fisons made a trading profit of £17.2 million in 1973 against £14 million in 1972.

The animal feeding stuffs situation is more complex, but large firms dominate. Spillers are also involved in flour milling and baking and when they merged with J W French (milling and baking holdings) on January 28, 1972, a new company was formed — Spillers-French holdings. This company is 75 per cent owned by Spillers, 15 per cent by the Co-operative Wholesale Society and 10 per cent by J Lyons & Co. This new company has 28 per cent of the UK flour trade and about 20 per cent of the UK bread market. As part of a rationalisation programme from 1972 five flour mills, nine bakeries, and thirty depots have been closed. The trading profit for 1972 was £15,339,000
1973 was £18,770,000
and 1974 was £21,708,000.

Rank, Hovis and McDougall also have large interests in bakery, flour milling, and grocery, apart from the agricultural divisions, which produces seeds, pesticides, agricultural machinery etc. and also has important grain storage and pig farming interests. There are also 42 subsidiaries in this division. There are also subsidiaries in Belgium, Germany, France, Ireland, Australia, South Africa, Argentina, Denmark, Holland, Canada, USA, Malaysia, Singapore and New Zealand.
The total profits for 1971 were £33,158,000
1972: £38,633,000
1973: £42,860,000.
RHM is now one of the three firms that dominate the supply of flour and bread.

Of the firms that purchase agricultural products, two account for over half the milk output; Unigate and Express Dairies.

Bacon and fresh meat distribution is highly concentrated in the hands of a very few large wholesalers.

Many farmers recognise they are being exploited by these large combines, and, in an endeavour to avoid this, have organised themselves into various co-operatives, farming associations, purchasing groups, machinery syndicates etc. Valuable though this is, it cannot redress the balance, and government action is needed. There are also a large number of dealers, wholesalers, and agents especially in horticulture. Handsome profits are made in this way, often without making any useful contribution to the producer or the consumer.

The land

For centuries the pattern of land ownership (however the title of the land may have been acquired) over most of England and the lowlands of Scotland was the well-known one of landowners holding estates varying in size from something approaching a county down to a few hundred acres. The majority of the land on the large estates was let to farmers as tenant farmers, whilst most landowners retained a “homefarm”’ managed by a bailiff. The class division between the landowning gentry and the middle class yeoman farmer continued well into the industrial revolution, and was almost unbridgeable.

There has been a gradual change in this system over the past hundred years, primarily through the sale of farms, singly or through the sale of whole estates to sitting tenants or city capitalists and finance institutions. Even today large estates with aristocratic owners survive. Many of them, through exploitation of values for development, ie urban ground rents, mineral extraction, etc. multiply many times the income obtainable from farming tenants. At present farm tenancies granted to new occupiers are so rare as to be almost non-existent. Farms are either sold or taken in hand by the landowner as tenancies fall vacant. Farmers’ sons may be accepted as tenants on the death of the father or on his retirement, but many are not.

Statistics on ownership are so far very scant, but will presumably be collected and made available under the current enforcement of land registration. Very large estates such as those of the Duke of Bedford, the Duchy of Cornwall, the Church estates and the Crown lands are well known.

Institutions such as the Oxford and Cambridge Colleges are also very important landowners. The state owns very large areas, especially under the Ministry of Defence, the Forestry Commission and nature conservancy. Under the 1947 Act a Land Commission was established to manage agricultural land held by the state, but successive governments failed to allow the Commission to exercise its functions as intended. Land under its management was gradually divested and the Commission was finally abolished in 1972. The National Trust, not a state body, but a semi-official organisation, holds large areas of land.

A production programme

Our food supplies, the welfare of all food producers and the state of our land resources demand urgent and drastic measures. The programme outlined here is the minimum required, and could be adopted and put into practice immediately by a Labour government that is seriously concerned about the living standards of the British people.

Vital to this programme is to ensure:

1. Good living standards and security for all those employed in agriculture.
2. Plentiful and reasonably priced food for all consumers.

The Agriculture Act of 1947 and the Agriculture Holdings Act of 1948 protected farmers from the worst excesses of monopoly capitalism and gave farmers security of tenure. The system of annual price reviews and guaranteed prices under these Acts worked reasonably well. The criticism that did exist will largely be removed when the exploitation of the industry by the monopolies has been ended, and a realistic policy by a planned expansion of food has been established.

Direct price support to farmers must be restored and a meaningful price review procedure restored, regardless of whether or not this conflicts with the Common Agriculture Policy of the EEC. Whether in the medium term the price support system or a production grant system should be adopted to give security to producers should be a matter of discussion between representatives of the industry and the government. The aim must be to expand production of all the main food products.

A differential price or grant system is needed to give extra assistance to the small farmers, possibly through a higher rate for the first agreed units of production.

The government must take action to secure the necessary food and feeding stuffs imports preferably through long-term agreements with the appropriate producing countries. A vigorous expansion of East-West trade would provide feeding-stuffs for livestock and this in addition to those derived from our own expanding home grown resources would make possible increases in meat, milk, and butter production. Private deals in this field must be strictly controlled. Britain’s requirements should be discussed with the Food and Agriculture Organisation so that as far as possible supplies are rationally allocated between countries in need.

Better eating at home and abroad

Measures must be taken to increase consumption of the higher quality foods. This would in part follow reduced prices to the consumer, made possible by improved methods of marketing, production grants, food subsidies, and the cutting back of the huge profits made by processors and packaging. Steps must be taken to increase the use of meat, milk products, fruit and vegetables in institutions such as schools, hospitals, factory canteens and other public eating places. This must be coupled with an intensive campaign for improved diets.

Real and persistent efforts must be made to increase trade in food throughout the world. The limited increase in world food trade has been accounted for by higher imports into the higher developed and comparably well-fed areas. It is essential that special efforts are made on agreements for the so-called surpluses of food to be made available to the poorer peoples of the world.

This must be done in such a way as not to create difficulties to the supplying nations or disrupt the economies of the receiving ones, and to facilitate the industrialisation of those countries. All attempts to use trade in food for political purposes must be repudiated. Support should be given to the current proposals for an all-embracing economic conference, in which measures to liberate world trade and deal with local surpluses could be initiated. The special problem of trade between the capitalist and socialist countries, which has been artificially restricted by a series of bans and prohibitions, is now being tackled. This process must be speeded up, as it has proved, from every angle, to have been quite pointless.

Price control of all imports to farming — feeding stuffs, fertilisers, chemicals, machinery — should be established as for consumer goods, and steps must be taken to rationalise distribution of such supplies and eliminate wasteful duplication and unnecessary transportation. It is essential to have government encouragement for co-operation and establishing links between agricultural co-operatives and the consumer co-operatives. Nationalisation of the large farms is essential in a socialist programme. This would assist a government to set overall price levels. Negotiations on an international level for the necessary supplies of grain, oilseeds, rock phosphate etc. should be carried out by government agencies working towards international agreements.

The monopolies

The Communist Party’s programme, The British Road to Socialism, calls for the nationalisation of banking, insurance, engineering, oil and the chemical industry, thus including most of the industries supplying agriculture. Having nationalised these industries, the usually high (monopoly) profits of these firms would partly be available to assist agriculture by lower prices for its requirements.

There is a strong case for bringing flour milling, food processing and milk distribution into public ownership. That sector owned by the large firms should be nationalised. The co-operative movement has a substantial share in milk distribution, where it handles something over 30 per cent of the nation’s supplies. The co-ops also have large interests in flour milling. As these are co-operatively owned enterprises under democratic control nothing would be gained from nationalising these interests. Consideration must be given to the strengthening of democratic control of the consumer co-ops, giving them responsibility for the whole of milk distribution and flour milling.

Similarly, the farmers’ co-operatives already have experience in marketing animal feeding stuffs and fertilisers, and could extend their interests in this area of trading.

Reference has been made to the number of co-operative organisations and groups existing within the farming industry. This is not new, as co-operation has traditionally been part of the farming scene, especially in the areas of small farms. Sheep shearing and threshing gangs were formed by one or more men from each farm going from farm to farm.

A modern form of such working co-operation is silage and pea harvesting groups in which several farmers contribute tractors, trailers and drivers to work around from farm to farm for this seasonal work.

The Central Council for Agriculture and Horticultural Co-operation exists to advise, co-ordinate and encourage such organisations, but lacks any real drive. The initiative always has to come from individuals among farmers. Nevertheless the total effect of these co-operative ventures is considerable and expanding, and could ultimately cover a major share in the various field activity.

Statutory machinery should be set up to encourage the further development of this form of activity amongst farmers. These organisations would embrace a number of villages and be managed by elected committees. This form of co-operation would offer farmers the advantage of large-scale operations without them becoming remote and losing control of the management of their own farms.

A national advisory service for agriculture would be expected to assist by servicing these organisations. Both the wholesale and retail sectors of the consumers’ co-operative societies should also be working closely with these organisations.

This voluntary co-operation, with credit facilities, would be of particular benefit to the marginal farms. Good general husbandry, with better grassland management and better hay, silage, dried grass, and modern technology, could improve the output of sheep, cattle and dairy farming.

The farmers’ co-operatives should overcome their suspicions of the consumer co-operatives and establish close trading relations with local societies, giving stability to the producer and a steady flow of produce to the societies. The success of this form of trading will be determined by the loyalty and confidence that develops between the producers’ and consumers’ organisations.

Needs of the workers

Wage increases for the farm worker must be the first claim on money made available for agriculture. Wages must be raised to those of other industries with a considerable improvement in working conditions. These reforms should be implemented without delay. This would involve a considerable sum of money, but it must be pointed out that wages only represent 17.9 per cent of total farm costs.

The tied cottage system must go and it must be made legally - impossible for a worker and his family to be evicted from their home due to termination of employment, until suitable alternative accommodation has been made available. The Labour Party has come up with a number of ideas but evictions still occur. This is not good enough. The farm worker should be free to change employment in agriculture or leave the industry without involving the family in the misery of eviction. There must be a real drive to build well-designed council houses at rents tenants can afford. The working week of 40 hours must be worked in five days with two clear days for leisure, preferably at the weekend. A system of relief workers must be established to cover the seven-day operations on the farm.

Many more safety inspectors should be appointed to enforce safety regulations with a greater participation by the union to protect limbs and lives of the farm worker.

The Agricultural, Horticulture and Forestry Industrial Training Board was established under the provisions of the Industrial Training Act 1964 with the objective of securing systematic training for new entrants to the industry and for in-service training for established workers and farmers. The new entrants receive training on the farm at which they are employed with a block release to an agricultural training establishment.

A young worker should not be trained for a specific farming enterprise. Groups of farms should have training schemes to train for the industry as a whole. This would give each trainee a wider field in which to gain knowledge and acquire skills. Many more specialist and advanced courses, such as glasshouse management, dairying, machinery, etc. are needed. A successful completion would entitle the worker to plus rates.

Participation

The measures outlined call for greater participation by the workers to organise the industry. Workers elected to committees of agriculture or to local authorities must have the right by legislation to have time off from work to attend these important bodies.

Women in the countryside

Women have always played an important role in food production. Technological changes are making it possible for women to play an even greater role in agriculture, thus giving added force to the demand for equal opportunities and compensation. Women must have the right not only to work but to take part in the planning and administration of agriculture. To ensure the right of each member of the family to equal opportunities for a full and rich life, the state must shoulder the responsibility of providing modern houses at low rents, good maternity services, home helps, nurseries and nursery schools, after-school and holiday facilities. These aids for the family are necessary to make this enhanced life possible. The right for equal pay for work of equal value, training facilities and opportunities for advancement provide the basis for further improvement in the status of women.

Transport

The closing down of railways and bus services must stop and, where there is a clear need, services should be subsidised and new forms of community transport should be explored by local councils.

Prices, subsidies and production grants

To make good the many years of neglect and of exploitation by the monopolies, to improve the living standards of the farm workers and farmers and instil confidence in the future of agriculture, outside financial assistance to agriculture will have to continue:

1. The system of the annual price review and guaranteed prices under the 1947 Act worked reasonably well and should be re-established with certain modifications.
2. Both prices and production grants should be adjusted, so as to give maximum assistance to the farmer needing it most and avoid providing it to those who can well do without.
3. The proportion spent on production grants should be increased at the expense of that used for maintaining prices, which favours the large farmers and, indirectly, has been passed on to the monopolies in the past.
4. Deficiency payments for certain commodities as a substitution for fixed guarantees should be abolished, and a straight guarantee restored, so that farmers know well in advance the price they will receive for their product.
5. For certain products, such as potatoes and eggs, the rate of guarantee should be related to the size of the crop; higher for a poor one, lower for a good one. Some special support should be available for those farmers who are hit by adverse conditions beyond the producers’ control. This would have the effect of stabilising farmers’ income rather than rate of payment.
6. Modifications should be made to recompense quality production (eg milk). The prices should, in general, be fixed to influence production towards a planned supply of various products.
7. Use of more lime and fertilisers should be encouraged. With the world shortage of certain fertilisers and sprays due to their manufacture being based on fossil fuels, we must ensure that they are used in the most productive manner, and that intensive research takes place to develop suitable alternatives from other sources. Certain operations such as bracken clearance, ditching, draining, and the construction of roads which permanently improve the industry’s resources, should be made possible by grants, and in some cases free. Schemes to assist the small farmer should be extended to benefit more farmers.
8. Loans from the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation should be at very low interest rates.
9. With considerable sums of public money being ploughed into agriculture, it is important that the government and the industry supervise its expenditure. The County Agricultural Committees should be reconstituted, with farmers and farm workers nominated by their respective unions, and the ministry appointing persons with professional, technical or other experiences valuable to the industry. The government should set up county machinery depots in all districts. These would be given priority in the provisions of new machines and would carry out all work now done by contractors. These depots should be run by sub-committees of the CAC. This would reduce red tape and inefficiency. It would also offer the smaller farmer the benefit of very expensive capital equipment. A sub-committee of the CAC would also organise and plan contract labour.
   The County Agricultural Executive Committees would discuss their production targets, with, and weigh up the work of, the local farmers. The committees would work in public, and seek the help of all workers and farmers willing to play their part. Thus the industry would be provided with an administrative machinery based on, and firmly connected with people on the spot and democratic from top to bottom. This would remove the criticism of the previous undemocratic committees, which were selected by the Minister and responsible to no one but him, and were quite out of touch with the problems of the workers and smaller farmers. The meetings would be held locally, and in the evenings if necessary. Organising public discussions and film shows to explain new techniques in agriculture would be the responsibility of these committees.

Marketing and foreign trade

Both consumers and producers have a direct interest in cutting the cost of storage, processing, packaging, grading and distribution. These functions should be carried out by a combination of marketing boards and co-operatives.

The variety and range of farm produce is so wide that marketing and distribution presents special problems. Again, the farmers operate at a disadvantage, since the buyers generally operate on a far larger scale than the producers and can effectively set their own price for many commodities. The Labour government in 1931 introduced the Agricultural Marketing Acts empowering the establishment of producers’ commodity Marketing Boards with statutory authority to regulate marketing.

The best known of these is the Milk Marketing Board which, since then, has fixed milk prices both to producers on a pool basis and to manufacturing and retailing firms, as well as itself operating several creameries and a range of other services. The MMB undoubtedly protected milk producers from some of the worst effects of the 1930s agricultural decline and has been in a large measure responsible for the very healthy state of the industry since the war.

Other Boards operate in wool, potatoes and hops. The Boards have sometimes acted in a restrictive way to control “over-production” but nevertheless avoid the worst effects of unorganised market conditions. An Egg Marketing Board was constituted and operated for several years but was voted out of existence by the producers in 1971, when production had become greatly concentrated in the hands of a few mammoth enterprises.

The Boards are clearly advantageous to the producers especially where the alternative is that many producers independently face a much smaller number of capitalist buyers. They are, however, producers’ organisations and as such will not operate in the interests of the consumers.

Cereals are handled largely through a network of country merchants, passing sometimes through several hands. Eventually a high proportion goes to the monopolistic millers who also supply the animal feeds.

Prices are set in a large degree by those on international markets, or Mark Lane Market in this country.

Meat is handled through a particularly chaotic and inefficient system of markets, wholesalers, etc. and no serious attempt has been made to replace or even to reform this. The Fatstock Marketing Corporation was established in 1962 under the aegis of the NFU but with money from capitalist sources as well; it operates a chain of slaughterhouses, buying direct from farms and selling partly direct to retail outlets; its operation may have done something to counteract some of the worst features of the trade but the gap between what the producer receives and what the housewife pays remains far too wide, and the whole meat trade business far too profitable.

Middleman’s profit is the outstanding feature too in fruit and vegetable marketing: waste of crops from prices being too low to coverpicking and despatch is all too common. Again, the trade lacks any rational organisation and is effectively at the mercy of one or two large operators in each of the main urban centres. Some co-operative marketing organisations exist and have strengthened the position of the producers to some degree.

A great deal of trade is carried on in commodities which move from farm to farm: seeds (handled by specialist firms often linked to the milling giants); store animals (ie those reared on the farm and sold for fattening elsewhere); fodder such as hay and straw; some of the grain. Quite a few co-operative groups are operating in the livestock field but the impact of co-operatives has been small in other commodities; sales are usually direct between farms, through markets or dealers.

Sugar beet is a special case, in being handled entirely by the British Sugar Corporation who supply the seed, operate a technical service to growers and organise the delivery of the crop to the Corporation’s own factories. The system has on the whole worked well and indeed performed for the arable farmer during the 1930s something of the role filled by the MMB for the dairy producer.

It is the shadow of the BSC which looms so large over the shoulder of the monopolies such as Tate and Lyle which handle imported sugar.

To stabilise food prices and reduce farm subsidies to the minimum there must be a progressive marketing system. Producer Marketing Boards should be set up covering all main products and operating with state-regulated prices, these Marketing Boards to have monopoly purchasing powers in the whole of the UK market and to become an extension of the 1931 Marketing Act.

The prices to the agencies of distribution would not be fixed by the Boards. A National Food Council should be set up consisting of equal numbers of producers, including workers through their trade unions, consumers through their organisations, with a small number appointed by the government including the chairman to be responsible for prices to the consumer.

The National Food Council would also have to solve the problems of the co-ordination of imports, which farmers rightly demand must be a condition for the success of marketing boards dealing with commodities like meat, where imports are an important part of the supply.

The NFC would be responsible for the planning of all imports of food, seeking to reconcile the interests of producers at home and abroad. This calls for long-term agreements with the poorer countries, who should be on equal terms with the British producer, with the object of meeting the GATT^* principles of generalised preferences for the less developed countries.

Arrangements would have to fit into whatever international agreements can be made for a campaign against world hunger and improving diets. The effective price of imports would remain at the international market price, with a levy being added to the receipts for poorer primary producing nations, the NFC to be reimbursed by the Treasury with the difference between the contract price to the poorer nations and the international price. This would only account for one per cent of the national income pledged for world development.

There must be no political strings attached to this form of international trading. It would open up a new chapter in Britain’s contribution to world development, giving a real lead to the creation of international institutions capable of stabilising world markets on terms favourable to the poor and, in the long run, averting disaster for the developed and less developed nations.

The objective is that the benefits of increased production resulting from public expenditure in agriculture should be enjoyed by the producer and the consumer and not absorbed by the manufacturing and distribution sectors.

The NFC must receive an allocation of funds to promote nutritional education in schools, etc and promote joint agricultural-medical research into the relationship of farming methods, food quality, diets and human health. The immediate benefits would be:

1. Consumers would not have to pay import levies; that is, a food tax.
2. The farmer would have a guaranteed price for the product, which does not apply under the present system, as it guarantees only an average return to all producers and this only on standard quantities in many cases.
3. The Exchequer would not, by virtue of the system itself, be liable to any direct support to farmers, apart from assisting the finance of the Boards, particularly in the early days.
4. Administration costs should be less than the costs of collecting import levies or arranging the deficiency payments.

The government’s policy at the moment is in direct conflict with the above objectives by allowing food prices to increase in the interest of reducing government support to agriculture.

In Norway all cereals are sold through a state agency, in Denmark larger producer co-operatives are the mainstay of marketing.

The NFU has called for an extension of the Marketing Acts to cover main products not already covered by Boards. The time is ripe for a new initiative in the marketing of food.

Nationalisation of land

To make the most effective use of our land a large investment of capital is needed. It would be intolerable for such huge sums of public money to be spent with the ultimate result of improving the property of private and institutional landowners.

Many farm boundaries need revision for more economic operations and while there would be no question of widespread redrawing of farm boundaries, the public ownership of land would assist adjustments when they are mutually desired. For these reasons a substantial part of the land should be brought into public ownership and placed in the hands of the Land Commission. This public estate should be managed by publicly employed agents. The nation would thus benefit from most of the investment made.

A reasonable method of compensation to former landowners is the payment of annuities for the lifetime of the persons concerned, and until their children reach school-leaving age; the payments being based on a fair valuation of the property taken over. The nation would thus acquire its greatest asset, the land, without creating hardship to anyone and yet at very reasonable terms.

Because of the special development needs, the state would also take over large tracts of rough grazing.

Estates up to 2,000 acres account for 21 per cent of all rented agricultural land. If estates (rented out) of 2,000 acres and over were nationalised, it would bring 75 per cent of rented land into public ownership without disturbing the small owners and owner occupiers. Tenant farmers would become tenants of the state and continue to farm in their own best interests. Thus the state, with all its resources and pledged to a policy of agricultural development, becomes the landlord instead of some individual or finance institution with the motive of making the maximum income from the ownership of the land.

A national Land Commission would be established to take over and manage this land; it should also take over the landowning functions of the Crown Estates Commissioner and the Forestry Commission. In addition to land compulsorily acquired the NLC would also be prepared to buy out owners of smaller properties who wished to sell, with the option to an owner occupier of a lease-back agreement. The NLC would need to have a regional structure to avoid over-centralised machinery and democratic control would be exercised through the appointment of local government, trade union and agricultural organisations’ representatives to regional boards. It would be charged with the obligation of providing proper fixed equipment for the occupiers of its land and, where appropriate, for amenity and recreational purposes. A strict control of rents would be essential.

Decisions on the allocation of land to the various uses for which it is required should be taken by the Commission in consultation with local government bodies and other interests. Public right of access to open areas, and to footpaths through other areas, must be preserved and even extended.

Such a land nationalisation programme is in line with proposals by many authorities, such as A D Hall, one time Chief Scientific Adviser to the Ministry of Agriculture and director of Rothamsted who, for reasons of expediency, considered that nationalisation of all land was required (Reconstruction and the Land 1941). It is, of course, not merely expedient, but vital, to a socialist programme, with the proviso that owner-occupation of moderate sized holdings is not incompatible with the general principle of state ownership and control of Britain’s land.

Horticulture

Horticultural production has received no guaranteed price, though it has in the past enjoyed direct production grants and subsidies. The fertiliser and fuel subsidy was of great assistance to the market gardener. The special problems of horticultural marketing would best be served by a further extension of co-operative societies. Statistics issued by the Plunket Foundation for Co-operative Studies indicate the real value of this form of marketing. Entering into contracts with the local consumers’ co-operative societies could also be a considerable advantage to both parties.

Forestry

Britain is at present one of the most lightly wooded countries in Europe. The 4.6 million acres of forest and woodland cover only about one-tenth of the land surface. Modern afforestation based on a policy of expansion could offer suitable alternative employment in rural areas. It can also be valuable import saving industry with our import bill for timber running at something like £1,500 million per year.

A well-planned national forest can offer many facilities for leisure in the form of car parks, picnic areas, camping and caravan sites, also forest walks and trails.

The Forestry Commission has been bedevilled by the government policy of encouraging private enterprises to exploit the forests to make as much money as possible, as quickly as possible, from the public sector of the economy. A real drive to expand the publicly owned forests and establish publicly owned industries associated with timber industry would strengthen the economy and protect the environment. There must be complete reorganisation of the Forestry Commission, with workers through their trade unions taking an active part in management of forests at all levels. A committee representing interested parties should establish areas for recreational pursuits.

The advisory and veterinary service

With good husbandry and improved day-to-day management, especially in grassland management, many economies could be achieved and a higher output attained. Modern technology has made great strides in increasing output of the farms, but this represents by no means the full potential of agricultural science.

The present technical advice and information services, together with certain statutory functions, are provided to farmers and landowners in England and Wales through their Agricultural Development Advisory Service (formerly NAAS, ALS, Animal Health and other branches) and by similar organisation under the control of the three Agricultural Colleges in Scotland. This unified system has provided a high standard of advice and at the same time gives good pay and conditions to the staff.

On the veterinary side, it is incomplete, being designed to operate as a specialist and statutory body outside the scope of normal veterinary practice which is provided entirely by independent practitioners. This independence of ADAS from outside commercial interests has been a valuable asset, but the influence upon its technical advice of some of the “reputable” manufacturers who maintain their own research and development organisations has sometimes pushed the service too far in their direction.

It is essential that the veterinary services, which are mainly organised on an antiquated private practice system, should be integrated with the advisory services. The profession has welcomed the success of the various state-organised campaigns to eradicate certain specified diseases. There must be established a state animal health service, with the emphasis on prevention of diseases for increased efficiency and production.

In future the whole responsibility for advisory work should rest with the Agricultural Central Co-operative Association. With the chemical, engineering and milling industries coming under public ownership their advisory services could also be brought into ACCA. With farmers being closely involved in the management of this service the industry would enjoy the practical application of all agricultural science both in management and husbandry.

Agricultural research

Agricultural research is vital to a developing agriculture: There are continually new possibilities to be grasped and new problems to be solved. Britain has had, from the founding of Rothamsted Experimental Station (partly on the profits of a young superphosphate industry) a notable role in research over the whole spectrum of agricultural science. It is organised chiefly by, or under the supervision of, the government’s Agricultural Research Council, though the universities and agricultural colleges and some manufacturers also maintain research in this field.

I do not attempt here to discuss the scope or organisation of agricultural research in any detail. The attempt being made under the provisions of the Rothschild recommendations of 1972 to bring research effort more closely into line with technical requirements is to be welcomed, provided'that adequate scope is retained for research along lines which may have no obvious immediate bearing on the industry but nevertheless go to form a valuable basis for fundamental understanding. We consider that a greater involvement of farmers’ and workers’ representatives in the policy formation of research bodies should be ensured. The research activities of firms that are nationalised would so far as appropriate, be integrated into the national structure of agricultural research.

Much greater resources will have to be devoted to research on health and environmental aspects of agriculture, particularly on plant breeding and the effect that chemicals and modern methods of agriculture etc. can have on the soil and quality of the food.

Conclusion

There is a need for a real development in rural industries along the main activities of farming and forestry. Quarrying and other mineral extraction would come under local co-operative organisations. Process and packaging enterprises would also be established where appropriate, providing a choice of employment and maintain a lively community.

A widespread co-operative network would form links with the local consumer co-operatives, so that as far as possible local needs would be supplied from the local area.

The whole activity of the village would come into scope of a village co-operative. The local shop, public transport, car hire service, the village community centre are but some of the activities that could be organised by the village co-operative. Joint ventures with neighbouring villages could also be considered.

Big business had an important influence in the neglect of agriculture between the wars, since the second world war developing into monopolies which have made huge profits from agricultural expansion.

Splendid achievements would have been possible had not the many efforts of the industry been frustrated by policies of restriction. Great advances will be possible when the satisfaction of people’s needs, and not the drive for private profit, will be the first consideration.

All the proposals which we have made are in line with British traditions and experience. This is essential. They cannot come about without the assent and support of the vast majority of the people concerned. The Communist Party seeks to win support for its policies from working class and other organisations concerned to preserve the character of the countryside whilst removing the gap between the living standards of the rural dweller and those living in urban areas. Both the Trades Union Congress and the National Farmers’ Union have gone on record in support of an expanding agriculture. The whole of the labour movement must give a lead.

With the emphasis on co-operation in all its forms these proposals are in line with modern techniques and science. Greater opportunities will be created for our skilled farm workers and farmers to undertake important responsibilities in feeding our people with improved diets. These measures will assist to lay down the foundation to build a system under which the means of production, distribution and finance are owned by the whole people and not for the enrichment of the minority, the financiers and private property speculators. Nationalisation and co-operative ownership will each have a place in the system of public ownership.

The Communist Party’s policy is based on the fact that the fight for a prosperous and expanding agriculture is an integral part of the general struggle against the lowering of living standards of the people by monopoly capitalism. This policy and its implications are based on the Party’s programme The British Road to Socialism, for it is with the whole of the country’s resources harnessed for the people’s benefit that we can re-equip our industries, house our people, banish poverty and unemployment for ever, and raise living standards higher than anything we have ever known. Only the vision of real social change will inspire enthusiasm for a great advance.