Letters to the Editor
[Tn view of the length of many of the letters which we receive. we would remind correspondents that we often evornotgire space for long letters and that shortones are generally-read with more attention. The length which we consider most suitable is about that of one of our paragraphs on " News of the Week."—Ed. SPECTATOR. I
" LAND AND LIFE"
[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR-.1 Sla,—T agree with your reviewer of Land and Lip that Mr. Blundell who has. seemed to- champion a wheat policy and I who have criticized it may not be so- far apart as some might believe.
We are now agreed (I) that the "subsidy" to be given to wheat growers under the Quota should be temporary (i.e., have a definite end) ; (2) that farmers who cannot grow wheat without subsidy in a normal world ought to change over to other branches ; and (3) that these farmers should receive money to help them in this change over. Can we go a step further and see how our objective can best be carried out If the subsidy is to terminate within a reasonable period (which we will call x years) we must avoid' finding ourselves saddled, at the end' of these x years, with many farmers unable to grow wheat at less than say 45s., but for whom Parliament may have made it possible to grow wheat at such a price.
ThiS predicament can be avoided if. Parliament, at the very outset, arranges for a reduction of the guaranteed price at regular, stated intervals whilst the x years are running out. In this way by the end of the x years the guaranteed price should have been sealed down to say 40s-or 38s. (unless, of course, world prices have risen above this). 77iis grading down (which Mr. Blundell supports in principle) would ensure that when the x years had run out the only farmers growing wheat would be those who Could do so without subsidy.
The alternative is to have a flat rate price throughout the emergency period—that is to say that the 45s. guaranteed price should be paid year by year throughout the x years. Under this alternative Parliament would- find it difficult to stop the subsidy if the world price had not risen approximately to 4.5s. There would-be many farmers who had been tempted by Parliament to grow wheat and who could not do so at less than this figure. Almost irresistible pressure would be brought to bear upon M.P.s to continue the subsidy. The sugar beet experiment has taught us the real danger of this. Under this: alternative our temporary " subsidy would, in fact become a " permanent " one.
But besides scaling down the guaranteed price there is another step which we can take to prevent this predicament arising, We ought to help farmers to change over.
If we reduce the guaranteed price annually the public will be spending less on the Quota. Why not earmark the money so saved and give it as. grants or credit facilities to those farmers who want to get new equipment (fencing, buildings, water, fruit trees, dre..) for their changed operations? This -would be better than trying to finance the change over through the Quota. A farmer would find it hard to finance his change over on his Quota money, i.e., to lay down his land to grass, to plant fruit trees,,&e., whilst he-was being paid to-grow wheat on this land.—I am, Sir,. &c.,,
4 St. James'. Square, S.W. 1. Aston.
Previous page
