THE ENCROACHING STATE
By A. P. McDOUGALL Why have Local Authorities been stripped of practically all their agricultural responsibilities with the exception of small holdings? Though education has been reorganised, it has been left under the control of the County Councils and County Boroughs. Educational reforms are generally the result of profound and careful thought. When the Minister of Education introduced the Bill and carried it through its readings in the House of Commons, it was recognised as a masterly piece of work. The whole agricultural programme, on the other hand, has been piecemeal. The Luxmoore Report, so far as education was concerned, was set aside, and the responsibility for agricultural education is, it is interesting to note, still given to the Local Education Authority.
To trace cause and effect we have to go back to the organisation of the food production campaign. It is said that when Sir Reginald Dorman Smith, then Minister of Agriculture, was ordered by the Cabinet to prepare a scheme for producing increased food if war broke out, the section of the Ministry chosen for the work was the Lands Department. This section knew little of the enormous technical and advisory services which were administered through the County Councils, and the decision was made that new executive authorities should be established—the War Agricultural Committees. The long experience in administration, in finance and general organisation of the County Councils was ignored. The only advantage of the new executives—the need for ruthless action—could have been secured by granting the necessary powers to the estab- lished authorities, as was done in the case of the Civil Defence Services. When the scheme came into operation, in those cases where the County Councils were not used as media the necessity for expert advice was met by borrowing the County Council staff, thereby disrupting the Council's own services.
The food-production campaign has been successful, but not because it was divorced from the control of the Local Authority. The reasons for its success were:— (i) The power to call on the Treasury to a degree never before known in agriculture.
(2) The unlimited mechanical powers of the internal-com- bustion engine.
(3) Drastic compulsory powers over cropping and fanning methods.
(4) The spade-work of twenty-five years of effort on the part of the County Councils to bring science for the first time in history to the door of every farmer in England.
In 1919 agricultural education in this country was completely overhauled and reorganised by that compeer of Arthur Young, Sir Daniel Hall. Agricultural Committees were set up, with expert advisers paid partly by the Treasury and partly by the Local Authority. The repeal of the Corn Production Act of 1921 was, excepting for one thing, an unmitigated blunder. As a compensation for breaking faith with 1,2oo,000 producers, masters and men, it was decided to make more funds available for agricultural education and advisory services in the counties. These Agricultural Com- mittees and their staffs, often discouraged by their Councils, often starved by the Ministry of Agriculture and other spending depart- ments of the County Councils, plodded on. The result was remark- able. In 1920, science and the expert were anathema to the average farmer. To the great majority only the old rule-of-thumb methods, followed by their forefathers for generations, were looked on as real farming. Every adjective indicating contempt was hurled at the pioneers who were sent out to the market-places to spread the
gospel of science. In 1938 the wholly ignorant and inefficient might still sneer. The vast majority received those apostles as friends on their farms, welcoming them as the mother greets the doctor who comes to treat the ailing child. The result of following their advice had shown itself in increasing the yield of eggs and milk, in the elimination of pests, in the growing of better crops, and in the switch-over from debit accounts at the bank to credits. If these foundations had not been laid, agricultural production under war conditions could never have been the success that it has been.
At the end of the last war there were available (allowing for one- fifth of the horses being brood mares and unbroken horses) approxi- mately 88o,000 horse-power in terms of horses together with 1,650 tractors. Allowing 25 horse-power per tractor, we have a total of 920,000 horse-power. In 1944 there were available soo,000 horses, plus 3,500,000 horse-power in terms of tractors, or a total of 4,000,000 horse-power. Inasmuch as the tractor is, as compared to the horse, relatively sleepless and tireless, travelling at more than double the speed, the real power was much greater than the figures indicate.
These are the solid foundations that have enabled the War Executive Committees, based on control from the centre, to trans- form the face of England. But could not the County Council authorities, with the same power and the same urgent need for action, have secured results as beneficial? Even if it were open to proof (and at the moment there is none) that control from the centre is in some degree more efficient than control by the people for the people in their own interests, is it worth while to destroy the great tradition of democracy in England to foster centralitation—a typical Nazi doctrine? In 1939 there were many who were prepared to argue that the Fascist State under Mussolini was more efficient than democratic England. Are there any such advocates today?
Parliament has decided that agricultural education, without any age-limit, should be the duty of the Minister of Education through the County Council Education Committees. The Ministry of Agriculture has already taken over many advisory services, and has decided that those remaining shall be taken over as from a certain date. We shall therefore have two distinct authorities, the' one in charge of agricultural education, based on local government, the other an advisory service based on Whitehall and divorced from local government.
One of the reasons for the remarkable spread of and desire for knowledge on the part of the farmer during the 20's and 30's was that either through Farm Institutes or through the ordinary advisory services there was an indissoluble marriage between advice and education. In the morning the expert, the friend of the farmer, was the adviser to deal with the troubles from which he suffered. In the evening he was the teacher, but not the teacher looked on as a pedagogue and bookworm. He was a practical man who knew more than the practical fanner. The effect of this was a multiplica- tion of his influence a hundredfold. Farm Institutes caught hold of the young, who were taught by men whom their fathers respected. They returned to the farms preaching the gospel of knowledge and progress. Their spiritual home was their Institute, which they never forgot. There they returned for their refresher courses, for lectures, for discussions, for everything that stimulated their keenncs to strive for better results.
Whatever happens, educational and advisory services must be under one control—either County Councils must be entirely stripped of their powers concerning agriculture, and everything, includirg
education, must come under the Ministry of Agriculture, or, far, far better, reorganised and strengthened Committees of the County Councils should resume the work which, with little encouragement, has had so much to do with the success of our food production campaign. The reason given in the Luxmoore Report for the changes proposed is the co-ordination of all the research and educational services under one authority. Clearly research must be the respon- sibility of the Ministry of Agriculture, but the co-ordination of interests between it and the Ministry of Education can surely be accomplished with incomparably greater ease in Whitehall than in fifty-two counties.
Previous page
