Source: https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/lords/1931/may/07/agricultural-land-utilisation-bill
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 16:36:35+00:00

Document:
§ Order of the Day read for receiving the Report of Amendments.
My Lords, I bog to move that this Report be now received.
My Lords, before that Motion is put, I should like in a few words to answer a question which was put to me by the Leader of the Opposition, and to which he desired an answer before the Report stage of this Bill was taken. I want to make it quite clear that my intention in intervening at the present time is not in any way to discuss matters which will come forward on the Report stage. They will be discussed on their merits when in the ordinary course they come before this House. It would, however, be discourteous to the Leader of the Opposition not to give an answer, before the Report stage is taken, to his question whether the Government will or will not advise the House of Commons to waive their Privilege in regard to certain Amendments introduced during the Committee stage of the Bill which will shortly come before your Lordships on Report. The matter, which has been mentioned more than once by the noble and learned Viscount who leads the Opposition, is, I think, very clearly expressed in the following extract: What I am asking the Government to do is to give an assurance at some period, certainly not later than Report, as to whether they will or will not advise the House of Commons to waive their Privilege with regard to some Amendments. Later, on the same occasion, the noble and learned Viscount said: All I am proposing to ask the Government is to assure us that, in regard to certain limitations, they will give the House of Commons the advice to make that waiver because, unless they are able to do so, I should not be able to vote for some of the clauses. I think (and there is no difference between us) what the noble and learned Viscount said is clear. The noble and learned Viscount has made it abundantly clear that the condition of his support in this House on the clause in question 1050 on Report is a pledge that the Government will give an assurance which, if given, would unquestionably be a challenge to the long-recognised rights and privileges of the House of Commons.
The noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, speaking immediately after the noble and learned Viscount, said with great accuracy: The House of Commons has frequently waived its Privilege, but I do not remember an occasion when the Government in these circumstances has been asked to pledge it self not to raise the question of Privilege in another place. That is a novelty to which I raise the strongest objection. I find myself entirely in accordance with the statement of Lord Beauchamp and, having had a search made by experts in Constitutional Law and the librarian, I find he is quite right in regarding a suggestion of this kind as a novelty so far as any record is preserved. I have no doubt myself that the course proposed by the Leader of the Opposition is a novelty—a novelty, in my opinion, inconsistent with the fundamental principles of constitutional practice. In the view of the Government, it is quite impossible to give any other than an un-compromising negative to the assurance asked for by the noble and learned Viscount the Leader of the Opposition. I hope that this answer will make further discussion or argument unnecessary, and I must ask the noble and learned Viscount to accept it as final and conclusive.
My Lords, far from making any complaint of the fact that the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House has made the statement which he has just made, I am grateful to him for giving a straight answer to a straight question, and I think it is only convenient that we should have had that answer at the earliest possible opportunity. But while I thank him for the fact of his giving the answer, personally I am bound to say that I regret the answer which has been given. It would be hypocrisy to pretend that we have not been prepared by recent speeches in the country for the answer to which we have just listened. The Prime Minister, speaking at the end of last week, said that we should get no such pledge as that which he alleged we had asked for, and he said that the 1051 Government would weaken no Privilege of the House of Commons. Dr. Addison wrote a letter to The Times in which he referred to the question I had addressed to the Government as a public challenge to the Commons and a threat of such stark audacity as to raise the very gravest issues. In view of those public statements, the answer to which we have just listened was only to be expected.
But I am bound, I think, to take the very earliest opportunity of disclaiming any such interpretation upon the question which I put as that which the Prime Minister and Dr. Addison seek to fasten upon it. Let me remind your Lordships of the course of events. On the Second Reading of this Bill doubts had been raised by numbers of your Lordships, first of all, as to the operation of the Parliament Act, and, secondly, as to the operation of the rules of Privilege in Committee stage upon the Bill, if it ever reached that stage. When I spoke on the Second Reading the advice which I ventured to tender to your Lordships was to give the Bill a Second Reading. I pointed out that no question of the Parliament Act was raised since it was not a certified Bill, and with regard to the question of Privilege I was careful to point out to your Lordships that I could give no similar assurance because undoubtedly it was true that there were in the Bill such matters that a great many Amendments might touch upon questions of Privilege. I said—I hope your Lordships will excuse me quoting from my own speech, but it is important we should get this right—I said in column 121 of the OFFICIAL REPORT:— . … it is said, and said truly, that Amendments which deal with the qualifications and limitations and conditions of a grant are matters of Privilege which we cannot insist upon in this House and which are the exclusive prerogative of another place. I went on to point out, in the following column: We know well that, the Privilege being a Privilege of the House of Commons, the House of Commons can and does waive Privilege on proper occasions, and it does so normally on the advice of the Government of the day. I then went on to ask the Government, in view of the difficulty which was created by the existence of that undoubted rule, 1052 whether or not they would be in a position to assure your Lordships that, with regard to some at least of the Amendments which we were going to discuss, the difficulty of Privilege and the possibility of any conflict would not arise because the Government would be prepared to advise the House of Commons to waive its Privilege.
The noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, who was in charge of the Bill, had thought that I was asking him to answer the question at once, and, as will be seen in column 133, I intervened to clear up that misunderstanding. I said this: If the noble Earl is referring to me, I did not suggest that His Majesty's Government should to-day on the Second Reading make any such announcement. What I was suggesting was that, when His Majesty's Government have seen the Amendments and had an opportunity of considering them, they should then be in a position to say to this House what attitude they propose to invite the House of Commons to take on the question of Privilege. I think that I repeated it later on, but not in any different sense. That accurately summarises the invitation which I addressed to the Government. That being so, whether or not the Government choose to give any answer to the question or to give an affirmative or negative answer is of course entirely for them, but it seems to me, with great respect to the learned and noble Lord the Leader of the House, that it is a misuse of language to say that that challenges any Privilege of the House of Commons.
Let me remind your Lordships, because this as an important matter, of what the constitutional position is as I understand it. More than two hundred years ago the House of Commons laid it down by Resolution that it is the undoubted and sole right of the Commons to direct, limit, and appoint in such Bills the ends, purposes, considerations, conditions, limitations and qualifications of such grants, which ought not to be changed or altered by the House of Lords. I am quoting from the actual Resolution as stated on page 564 of the thirteenth edition of Sir Erskine May's standard work. The learned author, himself a Clerk of the House of Commons, in the edition from which I quote—that edition was edited by Sir Lonsdale Webster, another Clerk of the House of Commons; 1053 both were men of great experience in these matters—the learned author points out that: The responsibility discharged by the Lords in the grant of supplies for the service of the Crown, and in the imposition of taxation, is concurrence, not initiation. He explains that by that he means that it is undoubtedly within the province of your Lordships to reject a Bill notwithstanding that the Bill contains conditions on which grants may be made.
He goes on further to explain that: The right of the Lords to reject a Bill … has been held to include a right to omit provisions creating charges upon the people, when such provisions form a separate subject in a Bill which the Lords are otherwise entitled to amend without any infringement of the Privileges of the House of Commons. That will be found laid down on page 575, and there are a. whole series of precedents quoted in which it has actually been done. Further, the learned authors point out on pages 566 and 567 that where an Amendment was made in your Lordships' House which did infringe, the Privileges of the House of Commons, it was always open to the House of Commons, if it saw fit in any particular case, to waive that Privilege in that particular case. A series of instances is given in which it has been done. The form in which the transaction is carried through in the Journals of the Mouse is carefully explained. I do not think anybody in either House of Parliament would challenge the fact that that power is undoubtedly within the competence of the House, and is one which has been frequently exercised by them. Indeed passages are quoted from Mr. Speaker Abercromby, in which he, "speaking as the authorised guardian of the Privileges of the House"—that is the House of Commons—pointed out that if the Privileges of this House were strictly pressed in such a case"— as the particular Bill which he was there dealing with— they would almost tend to prevent the House of Peers from taking such a measure into its consideration in a way that might be, on all grounds, advisable. That, as I conceive it, is the constitutional position.
I have not challenged it. I am not going to challenge it, and I am not going to be misrepresented at having challenged 1054 it, at any rate, without contradiction. The position which I desire to take up is that I accept fully the position that the Privilege of the House of Commons to deal with limitations and conditions and so on is undoubtedly their exclusive Privilege. They have an absolute right to insist on the Privilege in such cases as they think proper. Whether or not a particular Amendment does infringe the Privilege is a matter which the Speaker of the House of Commons, as the guardian of its privileges, acquaints the House of Commons with, and nobody in either House would doubt that that duty is discharged with absolute impartiality and fairness by the Speaker. But, my Lords, that being the position, we have here a Bill which contains a number of clauses with regard to some of which it is at least doubtful whether or not a particular Amendment would or would not be held, technically at least, and perhaps substantially, to infringe the Privileges of the House of Commons. We have no opportunity of making any representation in that matter. The Speaker of the House of Commons must decide it.
It is common knowledge after that debate, that a considerable number of your Lordships regarded the present Bill with very grave misgivings. It is not in the least true to say that those misgivings are confined to my Party. Your Lordships will remember that the rejection of the Bill on Second Reading was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Treowen, who sits on the Liberal Benches. I hope none of my own friends and supporters will misunderstand me if I say that some of the most devastating criticism which was levelled against the Bill on Second Reading was in the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, a prominent member of the Liberal Party. Those misgivings seem to me to have very good foundation. On the other hand I personally am very anxious not to throw out a Bill which has been passed in another place if, by reasonable amendment, it can be made into a reasonably practicable measure. Accordingly the suggestion which I made, which still does not seem to me to be an unreasonable one, was that we should pass the Second Reading, but that when matters arose in Committee with regard to which it might be doubtful whether 1055 Amendments might not be in order, we should ask the Government to tell us that they at any rate would not invite the House of Commons to reject them on the ground of Privilege, but would consider them on their merits.
They were not in the least bound to promise to do anything of the kind. They have seen fit to say that they will not do anything of the kind, and they are perfectly within their rights. The position then, so far as this House is concerned, is that we have to consider the clauses on a basis that if we amend them and pass them we may find that we shall have to treat them as passed in their unamended form, because the Amendments raise, or may be held to raise, a point of Privilege. We know now that we have to deal with these clauses on that hypothesis, and when we come to particular clauses I shall have something to say, on my own judgment, as to the practicability of passing them. But it is quite untrue to say that I have ever asked the Government to give up or weaken in any way any Privilege of the House of Commons. I recognise explicitly and to the full the existence of that Privilege. I recognise that the House of Commons is the only body which can decide whether it will choose to waive its Privilege in any given case or not; and if the Government choose to say that they will not give us any assurance of the kind to which I have alluded they are quite within their rights in so doing. Only then we must proceed on the basis that the risk of Amendments being disallowed on the ground of Privilege is one which must be present to our minds.
I am quite unable to see where any question of challenge to the House of Commons or to its rights can possibly be held to arise. When I made the suggestion, which I quoted, the noble Earl in charge of the Bill was not quite so shocked as I have no doubt he feels now. What he said then—I am quoting from column 134 of the OFFICIAL REPORT—was: I admit I did misunderstand the noble Lord and I am sorry for it. We shall see about the Amendments when they are put down. I do not know very much about House of Commons procedure, but I gather that Governments sometimes waive Privilege 1056 with regard to Amendments they like, and do not with regard to those they do not like"— that is not quite accurate because, of course, it is not the Government which waives Privilege; it can only invite the House of Commons to do so— but I can assure your Lordships on this point that we are most anxious to be reasonable. When he assured your Lordships that the Government are most anxious to be reasonable, what he actually meant was that this was a shocking challenge to the Privilege of the House of Commons to which the Government could only return a most uncompromising negative.
Of course, it is plain, I think, what has happened. The Government know well enough—they would be blind indeed if they did not know after recent by-elections—that when once their record is submitted to the judgment of the constituencies they will find that the constituencies will say what Mr. Lloyd George has been saying, that they are an acknowledged failure, that they have wholly failed to discharge their duties, that they have mismanaged our affairs and that there can be only one verdict—the verdict of condemnation. But if they can be fortunate enough to find some other issue than what they have done that would be a very happy way out for the Government.
I do not think they thought of it themselves. So far as one can judge not only have they failed to solve the problems of the country but they are quite incapable of solving their own problems. They were content to drift on and hope that something would turn, up before the Election which they so eagerly desire to postpone. But lately they have acquired a new adviser in Mr. Lloyd George, and Mr. Lloyd George was able to tell them out of the rich store of his experience, that he had a device which he had successfully used twenty-one years before when he was a member of a Government whose record was not too popular in the country, and which at a General Election might have met with condemnation. Mr. Lloyd George had the happy thought that if, instead of considering what the Government had done, the people were misled into thinking that the issue which they had to try was the People against the Lords 1057 and against the landlords, why then they might get a more satisfactory verdict. Accordingly taxation of land values and the Peers against the People were the battle cries with which they went to the country.
Well, my Lords, that succeeded in 1910. Mr. Lloyd George presents the panacea to the Socialist Government in the hope that it may succeed again, twenty-one years later. All I can say is that I do not think that you can fool all the people all the time. You can do it once but you cannot do it too often. We cannot prevent the Government and their supporters, if they are sufficiently unscrupulous, from saying to the people that there is some tremendous constitutional issue between the Peers and the People. All we can do is to make quite sure that if they say it they shall know that they are saying what is untrue. It is for that purpose that I am making my explanation this afternoon. I read in the same speech of the Prime Minister that he would remind this House that there was such a thing as an Election: The House of Lords, like every other anachronistic institution in this country, must be subject to the will, desire and mandate of the electors. I suppose an anachronistic institution is one which has outlived its usefulness. If that is so, I should think the Government must very well fit that description. I wish they would submit themselves to the will, desire and mandate of the electors.
The Prime Minister, no doubt, never forgets that there is such a thing as an Election. He wishes he could. It is only because there is such a thing as an Election that Mr. Lloyd George keeps him in office. But sooner or later the Election will come. When it comes they will desire to fight on an issue which is not raised. Therefore, I want to make it quite clear here and now that the issue is not raised in any shape or form. This House will discharge its duty to the electors and the people of this country—not merely to the electorate but to the whole people of this country. This House does not desire to challenge the expressed will of the people. But to say that, because it does not wish to do that, therefore it is bound to accept any measure which a minority Government, by any disreputable bargaining and 1058 gerrymandering in another place, can squeeze through the House of Commons, is a perversion of the truth which I do not think will deceive the electors. I am obliged to the noble Lord for the explanation he has given. I have, as he will observe, postponed any discussion of the merits of particular Amendments until we come to them, but I have, I hope, made clear—at any rate to everyone who desires that it should be made clear—what the position is which I have sought to adopt, and that that position involves no such challenge as the Government would only too gladly fasten upon this House.
My Lords, there is really very little I can add to what I had the honour of saying to your Lordships when this matter last arose in Committee of this House. I hope that in what I say I shall in no way misrepresent what was said by the noble and learned Viscount who has just sat down. I accept fully, wholly and entirely his quotations from Sir Erskine May and the interpretation he put upon them. The distinction I want to make, which he carefully avoided making himself, is that it is the House of Commons, and the House of Commons alone, that has the right to waive their Privilege, and that it is impossible for this House to do so, or that the Government in this House should be asked in advance to pledge the Government in another place to ask the House of Commons to waive their Privilege. This is a right, not of a political Party, but of the House of Commons as a whole. It is not the right of any Government. No Government can possibly pledge itself in this House to act in this unprecedented way.
It generally follows. It very usually follows, but on this occasion it has abstained entirely from expressing any approval, and I am quite sure that this action will be followed by a number of members of his own Party in another place. The fact of the matter really seems to me to go rather deep. When there is a Labour Government in office you must expect Labour legislation to be presented to this House, and not only presented to this House; it must be passed. Amendments, no doubt, may be made; but that a Bill should be transformed into a Conservative measure is an action which no self-respecting Liberal or Labour Government could possibly accept. This House did it before. They began it in 1906, when one Bill after another, introduced by the Liberal Government of which I had the honour to be a member, was either rejected outright or entirely transformed by this House. We know what happened in the end. I am in no consultation with noble Lords opposite and I have no idea what may be in their mind, but it will not surprise me if they ask for an amendment of the Parliament Act reducing still further the period of delay which your Lordships' House may-interpose between the introduction of a Bill and its passage. If your Lordships proceed in the same kind of way in regard to legislation introduced by a Labour Government as you did in regard to that introduced by the Liberal Government in 1906, and onwards until the passage of the Parliament Act, I am afraid that your Lordships will meet with one more rebuff at the hands of the people of this country.
My Lords, there necessarily is no Motion before your Lordships' House, and discussion upon the statement made by the noble and learned Lord, the Leader of the 1060 House, really resolves itself into an expression of personal opinion. I should, therefore, apologise to your Lordships for making even the shortest statement about my own opinion, and my only excuse must be the reference which the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Hails-ham, made to me in the speech that he has just delivered. I cannot help thinking that we are liable to get confused, in our remarks upon this point, between the merits of the Bill as originally under discussion and the circumstance that has given rise to the statement of the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House. It is quite true that I did my best to criticise this Bill on Second Reading, and I advanced what I believe to be powerful arguments against many of its provisions. One advantage of reasonable arguments is that, unless the reasons on which they are based are answered, both the reasons and the arguments remain, and as I have not found a single one of my reasons properly answered in regard to the Second Beading, my position is exactly as it was before.
That position was that, though I disliked a great many of the provisions of this Bill and did my best to get them extirpated, yet I thought it was impossible, having regard to the fact that the Bill definitely dealt both with allotments and with small holdings, for this House to take the strong course of rejecting it altogether. I mention that merely to show what my position was and is in regard to this Bill. But the real difficulty that has arisen is far more important. Many of your Lordships were anxious to reject the Bill as a whole. The noble and learned Viscount may have been misunderstood, but what he led many people to believe was that he asked the Government to make a bargain with him, and that the terms of his assent to the Second Reading were that the Government should promise that the House of Commons should waive their Privilege with regard to Amendments.
I say without hesitation that such a bargain is one that no person could possibly make, and, were it made here, it would be rejected, as I believe, unanimously in another place. Nobody in this House can bargain away the rights of the House of Commons. Nobody can promise that the House of Commons will waive their Privilege, and to say 1061 that you will advise them to do so, unless it is meant that the advice is going to be accepted, is, of course, an idle thing. It is no use advising in the air. You must advise with the intention that the advice shall be carried out. I cannot help thinking that, in making any such request to the Government, the noble Viscount did, I regret to say, a very unwise and a very perilous thing. It might even now jeopardise this House in the struggle which must lie ahead, and to which the noble Viscount looks forward with greater hope than I can possibly feel.
I only wish to say in conclusion that I think it is a profound mistake to imagine that, because of the return of a majority in opposition to the action of this House in 1909 and because, after twenty-one years have passed, the Labour Party, which was then a mere handful, has grown to be a Government, you will find that the verdict will be reversed to-day. The chance is that the verdict will be repeated with emphasis. I am not at all prepared to avoid the quarrel when the quarrel comes, but I have said once, and I beg to be allowed to repeat, that when that quarrel does take place it should take place upon ground carefully selected by ourselves, on which we can say that we are not making any attempt to invade the Privilege of the House of Commons but that our action is an assertion of the rights of the people.
§ VISCOUNT HAILSHAM moved to leave out Part I of the Bill. The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, the first Amendment which I have to move this afternoon, and indeed the only one apart from consequential Amendments, is to leave out Part I of this Bill. In moving it I feel that it is necessary and due to your Lordships that I should give some explanation of what has induced me to take that course. Your Lordships will remember that the Bill in its original form contained in Part I what I believe to be four separate subject matters. First of all it had a provision for setting up large-scale farms. Secondly, it had a provision in Clause 2 1062 for demonstration holdings. Thirdly, it had in subsection (1) of Clause 3, proposals with regard to acquiring land by agreement for the purpose of reclamation. Finally, in subsection (2) of Clause 3, there was a provision for giving notice requiring land in a grossly neglected condition to be put in order, with compulsory powers for its acquisition in case of default. In the Committee stage your Lordships thought it right to reject Clauses 1 and 2, and, with regard to Clause 3, to make certain Amendments.
§ In the first part of the clause your Lordships inserted the word "economically," the Government professing to be quite unable to understand its meaning. In the second part of the clause, which deals with compulsory powers, the Amendments went a little further, because in addition to inserting that word "economically," there were two substantial alterations made. One was that the person called upon to investigate must be satisfied that the land was in a grossly neglected condition, and that by reason of that fact it could not be satisfactorily and economically used for agricultural purposes, instead of the Minister being the person to be so satisfied. Secondly, your Lordships inserted a provision that one of the objections which could be taken to a notice requiring the execution of works of maintenance on the land, was that the requirements were unreasonable having regard in particular to the cost of the works of maintenance, and the return that might be expected from that expenditure. I am not going to re-argue the merits of these proposals, but I think it is important that we should bear in mind what the suggestions were. The suggestions were, first, that the reporter should be satisfied that the land could be properly used if put right, and secondly, that one of the relevant factors in the notice which had to be given should be that the requirements should not be unreasonable having regard to their cost.
§ I have said that I believe those four subject matters are separate, but I cannot tell your Lordships that I am quite certain that they would be regarded as separate subjects. For instance, Clauses 2 and 3 have later on in the Bill only one joint expenditure—namely, £1,000,000—and there are other arguments which 1063 might be used for dove-tailing the proposals together. Further than that, as to the reasonableness of the notice with regard to its cost, it is a matter which probably deals with the condition, or may be held to deal with the condition, of a grant. The Government have told us quite frankly that if it should be held in any of these respects that a question of Privilege was involved, they would be unable to advise the House of Commons to waive Privilege. I agree with Lord Buckmaster that whether the House of Commons accept the Government advice is a matter for them, and them only, but we have the fact that the advice to waive Privilege will not be given.
§ We have, therefore, to consider Part I having regard to the fact that we may have to come into conflict with another place or else see Part I passed wholly or partly in its original form, and in its original form Clause 3 allows the Minister to give any notices, however extravagant and however impossible to justify economically, and, in default of compliance with the notices, compulsorily to acquire the land and then proceed himself to spend money which could not possibly be a remunerative or economic investment. I am not prepared to give this Government or any Government, but certainly not this Government and this Minister, that particular power, and I am less prepared to give him that power because I have had the privilege of reading his speech upon our Amendments. I do not know whether your Lordships have studied the report in The Times newspaper, which I beg to assure the noble Earl is not a follower of mine or of my Party. He will, however, find in The Times, in the very accurate reports which that newspaper generally furnishes, a report of what Dr. Addison thought it right to tell his constituents with regard to our Amendments.
§ The report appeared in The Times of Saturday, April 25. Dr. Addison said this: I must say that, more than once, listening to the debate and hearing more than one backwoodsman bleating out his prejudices and objections, evidently scarcely having any understanding of what the thing was really about, and knowing the months of labour and effort by a large number of people of good, will that have gone to the fashioning of these proposals and piloting them through the House of Commons, 1064 I felt that this picturesque pantomime was a discredit to an intelligent community. I wonder whether the noble Earl in charge of the Bill thinks that that is a fair description of our discussions in Committee. I am speaking in the presence of the bulk of your Lordships who were present during the Committee stage. I am not going to mention names, but you will remember that those who took part in that debate included men who had been Ministers of Agriculture, men who had been Chairmen of county councils, men who had taken a leading part in our great experimental studies in farming and agriculture, men who, if Dr. Addison had chosen to consult anyone who knew what he was talking about, he would have been told that they were the leading authorities on agriculture in this country. When Dr. Addison talks of "more than one backwoodsman bleating out his prejudices and objections" and "scarcely having any understanding of what the thing was really about," I say, without hesitation, that either Dr. Addison when he said that said what he knew to be untrue, or else his ignorance of the subject which he professes to administer is so great as to show that he is absolutely unfitted to continue to be allowed to administer it. He can choose whichever form of the dilemma he likes, but a man who says what he has said is a man either so ignorant or so dishonest that he cannot be trusted to administer agricultural affairs at all.
§ There is another passage in the speech to which I would like to call attention. Dr. Addison was referring to the Amendments to Clause 3, and he said this: This clause has been so encumbered with qualifying Amendments that, as it stands, it is practically unworkable, for it would appear that the Minister of Agriculture might have to prove in advance that he or somebody else would derive a profit from what was done, and the person who is to have the final word on this matter is not to be the Minister, or Parliament, but some outside arbitrator. Dr. Addison regards that as a very shocking state of affairs. That he, the Minister of Agriculture, should be called on to consider whether or not the alterations which he commends are economically reasonable seems to him to render the whole clause unworkable; that he should 1065 be called upon to justify to some independent and qualified person the giving of those notices seems to him such an outrage as to destroy the whole value of the clause. If that is so, then I do not think he is fit to be trusted with the powers in the clause without those limitations. And, so far as I am concerned, having given the matter the very best consideration I can, it seems to me that, since we are confronted with the alternative of rejecting the clause as it originally was, or of accepting it as it originally was the alternative must be in favour of its rejection.
§ I would only add this, that your Lordships have, at some considerable pains, amended the clause into such a condition as to render it—not without misgiving, but still in tie opinion of most members of this House—a clause which could safely be passed. It is still open to the Government, if they see fit, to make such Amendments, in answer to our rejection of this Part of the Bill, as to bring it into conformity with its present condition. Whether or not they choose to do it, do not let them say that I am challenging the Government or the House of Commons. It is entirely a matter for them whether they will propose such Amendments. It is open for them to do it if they wish. If they do not, if they prefer to say that we have to take or leave Part I as it originally stood, then I, for my part, say unhesitatingly that I feel bound to give my vote in favour of its rejection. Having come to that conclusion, it seemed to me to be my clear duty, since I feel that there rested on me some responsibility at least for the Second Reading of the Bill being passed In this House, to put down the Amendment which stands in my name and to ask your Lordships to agree to leave out Part I of the Bill in its present form.
The Motion is to leave out Part I of the Bill. In order to save other Amendments the Question I will put is that Clause 1, as far as the word "selling" in line 15, page 1, stand part of the Bill.
My Lords, I do not intend to follow the noble and learned Viscount in his speeches anticipating, as they do, the General Election, nor into the personal abuse with which he has been so lavish in regard to my right hon. friend Dr. Addison. I am only relieved that he so far kept control of himself that he did not suggest that Dr. Addison should share the fate of others with whom he disagrees, and be shot in the back in the street. I think what perhaps we should have been interested to hear from the noble and learned Viscount is what has happened since the Committee stage of this Bill which has caused him to change his mind about Clause 3. On that occasion, after a very long discussion, we found ourselves in this House in very general agreement on the principle contained in that clause—namely, that, somehow or other, it was necessary to devise machinery whereby the thousands and hundreds of thousands of acres—I think the noble Lord, Lord Ernie, on the Second Reading said over a million acres—of derelict and neglected land in this country should be brought hack into a proper condition of cultivation. On that general contention, and indeed on the general machinery which this Government have adopted to deal with the situation, there was complete agreement not only by your Lordships in general but by the noble and learned Viscount.
I remember, as ho stood up at that box, how I envied him the eloquence and the fervour with which he argued the case for Clause 3 as it stood then, and as it stands now. Let me repeat some of his words: If we refuse to pass this clause, then all we are, in fact, doing is to say that we will not allow the Minister, where he ran acquire land by agreement which can be economically reclaimed, to do so, and that we will not allow these people whose land is grossly neglected, and which can be put right by financially sound expenditure to be interfered with, and that we will not allow that land to be put right by buying it at a fair price when people will not put it right themselves. And he went on—and I will ask your Lordships to excuse my making such a long quotation, because these are very important words—to say: I think that if we were to take up the position of championing these few black sheep among the vast land-owning community 1067 it would be a position that would be a very unfortunate one to adopt, and one which does not in the least agree with the practice or theory of the great hulk of your Lordships' House. And later on he concluded: I hope your Lordships will now pass this amended clause, because I believe it would be a mistake to throw it out. What has happened since then to change the noble and learned Viscount's mind f One thing has happened, and one thing only, and that is that the Government have refused to bargain away in this House the Privileges of the House of Commons. Surely the noble and learned Viscount has not changed his mind about the black sheep. Surely he has not changed his mind in so short a time in thinking that it is right for your Lordships to refuse to allow the Minister, where he can acquire land by agreement which requires to be reclaimed, to do so. No, one thing has happened, and one thing only, to change his mind, and that it is that it is now clear that this Government in this House are not prepared to take any action which will impinge upon the Privileges of the House of Commons. This, therefore, must quite clearly be the cause.
The noble and learned Viscount made perfectly clear in his speech the reason for his change of attitude. He threatened it in Committee, and he is carrying out that threat by moving the deletion of this Part of the Bill. He said in Committee quite definitely:— If there is any risk of that"— "that" being that the House of Commons should not waive their Privileges— I shall put down an Amendment to leave out Part I of this Bill on Report. That is to say "Unless you, the Government, undertake to use your influence to compel the Commons to waive their Privileges you will not have these clauses." I want to make it quite clear that the debate at the present moment is not upon the merits of this clause. Your Lordships have already approved the principle of this clause. A vote in the noble and learned Viscount's favour will quite definitely be a vote for reopening the whole issue of House of Commons control over finance. It is a challenge which, as a Government, we are perfectly prepared to accept; but I would suggest 1068 to the noble and learned Viscount that it is a barren and reactionary issue to raise at the present moment, and an issue that can lead to no productive result, either for this House or the nation as a whole. For this reason, apart altogether from the merits of the clause, on which the noble and learned Viscount has already pronounced, I ask your Lordships to reject this Amendment.
My Lords, this Bill has one disadvantage. I think the more closely you examine it the less likely you are to approve of its provisions. But this House did unquestionably approve of Clause 3 in Committee after prolonged discussion, and is now being asked to undo what it then accomplished. I must say that for the first time in the whole of this debate, I have heard a statement from the Government Bench with which I am in agreement. I think that the only explanation can be that this is the action which the noble and learned Viscount thinks must be taken since the Government have refused to accept the offer he made, and I find myself unable in those circumstances to vote in support of his Amendment which, without those considerations, I should have felt strongly inclined to support. I think it is very important that we should leave this Bill now as it left us in Committee, subject to any necessary Amendments that have been overlooked or matters to make its provisions more effective.
Every drastic step that we take now can only be attributed to the failure of this offer which the noble and learned Viscount made to the Government and which they refused. Surely, that is the most dangerous ground on which you can possibly tread. Leaving the Bill as it is. Clauses 1 and 2 as originally drafted are excised. I am bound to say that I should be prepared to accept at any time and in any place a challenge upon our action in that respect. It seems to me incredible that people do not realise that what we did then was done not only not in the interest of members of this House, but directly against the interest of a very large number of those of your Lordships who are privileged to hold land, and for this reason. You could not possibly have been injured by having £1,000,000 spent in attempts to make farms. That could not have hurt you. But the people who 1069 were going to buy were always, to the extent of two-fifths or four-fifths and only to that extent, people who knew anything about what they were buying. The remaining people might have come from anywhere and you, whose land had been bought, would be in the position of selling to people half of whom only were experts, and who were dealing not with their own cash but with the nation's money in making the purchase and to whom, if there was any failure, no responsibility would attach. I cannot help thinking that your Lordships and your agents would be able to make extremely good bargains in those circumstances, and no one can by any possible suggestion say that your Lordships acted in your own interests in throwing out Clause 1.
I agree that your action has been criticised. It has been called an antisocial act, but I do not think the Minister who used that expression knew any more than. I do what it meant. As far as I can gather, it is swept from the threshing floor of Russia and means something there for which you can be sent to prison. Over here it has no meaning at all. We have been subjected, no doubt, and shall be again, to misrepresentation, to misunderstanding and even to positive falsehood with regard to what we did. None the less, I am satisfied that there we are on sound ground. But I am not satisfied that we should be on sound ground if we now rejected this clause. I think the ground would be most unsound, and I would humbly suggest that your Lordships would be acting most imprudently if you were now on this stage of the Bill to undo what you did on the Committee stage, when nothing has happened in between excepting that the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House has definitely turned down the bargain which was offered to him by the noble and learned Viscount.
My Lords, the noble Earl, speaking for the Government, and the noble and learned Lord from the Liberal Benches have ascribed the Motion of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Hailsham, as due to the fact that certain suggestions which he made across the floor of the House were turned down by the Government. I do not for one moment believe that to be the case. I believe that his Motion is due to the fact 1070 that if you leave in the Bill one half of a Part of the Bill, the rules of Privilege will apply to the whole of the Part and the whole Part will be returned to you in exactly the same condition as it formerly reached your Lordships' House.
The noble and learned Lord has told us that he objects very strongly indeed to Clauses 1 and 2, but desires us to pass Clause 3. With that I should absolutely agree if it were possible; but is the noble and learned Lord prepared to accept as the price of passing Clause 3, the retention of Clauses 1 and 2? That I believe to be the position which we have to face and it puts me in an extraordinarily difficult position, because I am anxious to retain Clause 3, or Clause 1 as it is in the Bill as it stands. It is the only clause in that Part of the Bill which has anything to do with employment. The operations under the first subsection will certainly mean the employment of labour in the country districts, and although I know it cannot be a large amount of labour, yet I would not for one moment oppose anything which helped the rural labourer, whose position in the depressed state of agriculture must be one of difficulty in the future. But are we as the price of that to retain the original Clause 1, which is the very reverse of Clause 3 because it will actually reduce the number of labourers? If your Lordship; could be persuaded that we could retain our present Clause 1 without having also the earlier Clause 1 forced upon us, I should really not vote for the Amendment of the noble and learned Viscount; but so long as the reverse is the case I shall be bound to support him in the Lobby.
My Lords, I intervene with considerable diffidence, but it seems to me that we are drifting into an unnecessary squabble and one which I think must become increasingly bitter. I agree with the observations which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, made just now, that if this relatively small squabble to-day were to drift along and increase and magnify, and if eventually we found ourselves embroiled in a General Election, the verdict and the result of that Election might in the opinion of most of your Lordships he exceedingly disastrous. I have said that I think we are drifting into an unnecessary squabble because when I 1071 listened to the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Hailsham, and the noble Earl on the other side, it seemed to me that there was a misunderstanding.
I understood the noble and learned Viscount to say that in his opinion the Government have refused to waive the question of Privilege in another place and, therefore, we shall have the original clause back again. As I understood the statement from the Government Benches it was that they could not promise to ask the House of Commons to waive Privilege. The Government refused to disclose the nature of its action and the advice it would offer in another place. But as I understand it the Government might accept Amendments either here today or in another place. In fact, I notice that there is on the Paper an Amendment in the name of the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, as well as one standing in the name of the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, and others which I am convinced would make this clause better than it has already been made in its passage through Committee.
I venture to point out that we may easily land ourselves in an exceedingly difficult position. If we carry this Amendment now, we shall be knocking seven pages out of the Bill. It is true that they all refer to one point, but we shall be knocking out three clauses over and above the three clauses which we have already taken out of the Bill. I myself reluctantly shall be bound to vote for the retention of Part 1. If we reject Part 1 what are the alternatives? Either the Government return this particular clause in an amended form, something on the present lines, in which case we shall not be better off than we are now, or they can send back not only the original clause but the whole original Bill. They might turn nasty. I am afraid that the position—and that is what I have in mind—then might be very serious. Either we should have to accept the original Bill, which I agree entirely with your Lordships was a far worse Bill than the Bill as it has now been amended, or we have to hold it up under the Parliament Act. The effect of that, it seems to me, might be far-reaching. It would be in the nature of a red herring right across the political arena. The public mind, which is not now being devoted as seriously and whole- 1072 heartedly as it should be to the great economic and international problems which are awaiting solution, would be confused by the cry, which would undoubtedly be raised, of "the Peers against the People" and the old cries about the land.
It seems to me there is one thing which the Government are anxious to have, and that is some alternative topic for the electors to talk about other than the failure of the Government to deal with unemployment. I have no doubt, if we were to have an Election to-morrow, the great issue would be the failure of the Government to carry out their pledges to deal with unemployment. If, however, we throw out any considerable number of the clauses of this Bill, and if the Bill comes back in its original form, and we do not feel we can pass it in that form and we hold it up, undoubtedly at the next Election, whether it comes this year, or next year, or two years hence, the public mind will be confused by the cry of "the Peers against the People," and the old cries that we have heard before. It is no good living in the clouds. It is no good shirking the fact that there would be a great deal of unnecessary misrepresentation. The Government think that they lost the last Election by the Zinoviev letter, what. they call the "Red letter." Do not let us enable them to win the coming Election by giving them a red herring.
My Lords, speaking as one of the "bleating backwoodsmen" who must have been described by the right hon. gentleman (Dr. Addison) when he occupied and ornamented the steps of the Throne, I would like, if I may, to give some evidence that the terms of this measure are of deep interest to me by supporting, so far as I am able, the wise words, if I may be permitted to say so, that fell from my noble friend Lord Clinton. To those of your Lordships who deeply desire an improvement not only in agricultural conditions but in the conditions which apply only too often to agricultural land, it is a fact that the old Clause 3, the now amended Clause 1, is a clause which would be very acceptable to us, and it is a matter of regret that it is impossible under present conditions to retain that clause in the Bill.
1073 Before elaborating that, I would like, if I may, to deprecate and disown the attribution which was made to agricultural landlords by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, who appeared to think, if only for a moment, that we were in some way animated, either now or at any time, by considerations of the value to ourselves of any clause that might appear in a measure put forward by a Socialist or by any other Government. I readily and most gladly admit that the noble and learned Lord was at pains to point out to your Lordships' House that no accusation could rest upon the agricultural landlords amongst your Lordships, that rejection of that clause was in any way in your own interests. I admit that gladly, but I think it somewhat unfortunate that the subject itself should even have been mentioned, because never within my recollection has any consideration of personal interest entered into any action taken by your Lordships while I have had the honour of a seat in this House.
But passing from that, is it not yet possible, when this Part of the Bill has been rejected, as rejected it must be, that the Government, as many of us do, would wish to insert the standing Clause 1 by way of amendment in another place? If they are so overwrought by partisan spirit as to prefer that the useful provisions of that clause should go by the board, it is for them to say, but if they should choose to reinsert the clause as we have amended it, or in some such form, in another place, and bring it back to us in due course, I feel quite confident that the majority of your Lordships would welcome that action, and would be glad to see that clause form part of the Bill. I am not entitled to speak for anyone but myself, but, having been encouraged by what has already fallen from my noble friend Lord Clinton, I could speak for agricultural Peers in giving that undertaking for what it is worth. It is a matter of regret that the new Clause 1 has to be sacrificed, but I cannot think that there would be any noble Lord sitting on this side of the House, or many noble Lords sitting upon the Liberal Benches, who could contemplate the reinsertion of the original Clause 1. That clause is one which was riddled with objections. and received the very minimum of support. Barely did it 1074 get much explanation. We cannot have that clause back in the Bill. Unfortunately, the old Clause 3 has now to go, but it remains always in the power of His Majesty's Government to bring back this clause by way of amendment, and I sincerely hope that on reflection that will be the action they will take.
My Lords, as a not very experienced member of this House, I confess I become more and more mystified by the arguments to which I have been listening. I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Clinton, how he thinks that by rejecting this clause you are going to prevent the reintroduction of Clauses 1 and 2. It is perfectly clear to me that if you reject Clause 3, or Clause 1 as it now is, you are gratuitously offering the very chance to the Government which your Lordships know that they are seeking. It would surely be infinitely more wise to return to the House of Commons the amended and improved Clause 3 than to reject it altogether. I cannot see that you will gain any advantage whatever in taking the course which is suggested. You are simply gratuitously issuing a challenge which is exactly what the Government want. If you pass this clause in an amended form there is some chance of the Government accepting some of the Amendments and returning the clause in a form in which it might be accepted. By rejecting it altogether, it will come back with the original Clauses 1 and 2 re-inserted by the Commons purely on the ground of Privilege, and raising an issue in the country. I urge your Lordships to pass this clause in its amended form and so avoid the challenge which, in my judgment, every member of the House seeks to avoid.
My Lords, I am only going to say a few words and I say them because I think there is a misunderstanding in some of your Lordships' minds Owing to the necessary intricacy of the question of procedure. The noble Lord who just sat down said that he could not understand why my noble friend Lord Clinton said that by rejecting the amended Clause 1, originally Clause 3, it would prevent the reintroduction of Clauses 1 and 2. Of course, it would not, but you would prevent their reintroduction on the ground of Privilege. If your Lordships will bear with me while I venture 1075 on rather a technical explanation, it is quite clear, I think, beyond argument that your Lordships can quite safely reject Part I of the Bill without infringing any Privilege of the House of Commons. I do not think there is any possibility of the House of Commons being otherwise advised by the Speaker. It may be that we can reject one or other clause of Part I without infringing the question of Privilege; but it is by no means certain that we can. They all form part of Part I of the Bill. The financial clauses are dovetailed together and Part I of the Schedule covers the whole of Part I.
It is at least arguable, it is at least a possible view, that you cannot amend Part I. Reject it you certainly can. Amending it may be held to be a breach of Privilege. My noble and learned friend Lord Buckmaster said he was prepared anywhere to face the challenge of the action of this House in rejecting Clauses 1 and 2 as they originally stood, but I wonder whether he would be prepared to face the challenge of the Government and of another place of our having infringed the Privilege of the House of Commons by rejecting those two clauses? Your Lordships will appreciate that if you pass Clause 3 and reject Clauses 1 and 2 you may be infringing the Privilege of the House of Commons, or may be said to be infringing the Privilege of the House of Commons, because it may be said that you are amending what is one subject matter—namely, Part I. That you cannot do. If, therefore, you pass Clause 3 and reject Clauses 1 and 2—certainly if you pass Clause 3 in its amended form—you may very well find that the answer comes from another place: "We hope you will not insist on rejecting Clauses 1 and 2 because that is a breach of the Privilege of the House of Commons." What would the noble and learned Lord do then? Would he take up the challenge, of a breach of Privilege? I hope he would not. I certainly would not.
My noble friend Viscount Astor said the Government may send back the original Clause 3 in its present form, and he said if they do that we are no better off than we are now. He is quite right in saying they may send it back in that form, but I hope he will forgive me for saying that I think he is profoundly 1076 wrong in saying that we should be no better off. If they were to do that and we then accepted that suggestion, the Amendment of Part I will have been made in another place where obviously it cannot give rise to any question of Privilege. We can then accept the proposed Amendment without risk of any question of Privilege being raised. I had hoped that we might have reached the same position by a short cut by getting the assurance which I asked the Government to give. They have not seen their way to give it, and, as I have said, I make no complaint of that.
It seems to me that there are only two alternatives before your Lordships' House. Either you pass Clause 3 as it now stands—the present Clause 1—with the risk that thereby you are compelled to accept Part I as it originally stood or else to quarrel with the House of Commons on the ground of Privilege, or you reject Part I as it now stands, in which ease it is still open to the Government, if they think fit, to put it back in its original form. If they prefer to lose the Bill they are at liberty to insist on the original Part I and to compel your Lordships either to agree or disagree with that insistence on pain of losing the Bill. I hope I have made the position clear in what is rather a technical matter. I hope I have answered the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, when I point out that if the Government in another place reinstate Part I the position is not the same as it is to-day, because in that event it is the Government which is amending the original Clauses 1 and 2 and not this House. Therefore, there can fie no question of this House having infringed any Privilege of another place by having struck out part of Part I and not the whole.
My Lords, I should be glad if the noble and learned Viscount will explain something that I cannot understand. I cannot understand why the question of Privilege arises if you reject Clauses 1 and 2 and does not arise if you reject Clauses 1, 2 and 3. I cannot understand why the question of Privilege varies.
I am much obliged to the noble and learned Lord and I will try to answer him. The rule, as I understand it, is that your Lord- 1077 ships' House cannot amend provisions relating to the limitation of the grant. You can reject such provisions altogether. If there are in the Bill different subject matters which are wholly separate your Lordships can reject any one but you cannot amend any one.
Then you can reject Clause 1?
§ Resolved in the negative and Amendmant agreed to accordingly.
§ I am not confident that he would. Clauses 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 together form Part I of this Bill. If they are separate subject matters we can throw out one, but if not—the decision rests with the Speaker—we cannot throw out one without throwing out the Whole. I hope, at any rate, I have made my position clear. It is because of that risk that I have been constrained to take up the attitude that I have taken to-day.
§ On Question, Whether Part I of the Bill as far as ("feuing") in line 15 shall stand part of the Bill?
§ Their Lordships divided—Contents, 31; Not-Contents, 82.
Sankey, L. (L. Chancellor.) Buckmaster, L. Monkswell, L.
Parmoor, L. (L. President.) Dickinson, L. Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.
Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.) Rathereedan, L.
Buxton, E. Gainford, L. Ritchie of Dundee, L.
De La Warr, E. Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull.) [Teller.] Rochester, L.
Astor, V. Ker, L. (M. Lothian.) Snell, L.
Mersey, V. Kirkley, L. Stanmore, L.
Marley, L. [Teller.] Wargrave, L.
Bedford, D. Bertie of Thame, V. Harris, L.
Sutherland, D. Bridgeman, V. Hastings, L.
Wellington, D. Churchill, V. Hothfield, L.
Hailsham, V. Hunsdon of Hunsdon, L.
Camden, M. Plumer, V. Jessel, L.
Exeter, M. Scarsdale, V. Kinnaird, L.
Zetland, M. Addington, L. Latymer, L.
Banbury of Southam, L. Lawrence, L.
Balfour, E. Bayford, L. Leigh, L.
Bradford, E. Biddulph, L. Middleton, L.
Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.) Phillimore, L.
Lauderdale, E. Clinton, L. Queen borough, L.
Lindsey, E. Conyvers, L. Rayleigh, L.
Lucan, E. [Teller.] Cornwallis, L. Redesdale, L.
Midleton, E. Cottesloe, L. Sackville, L.
Morton, E. Cranworth, L. Somerleyton, L.
Mount Edgcumbe. E. Cushendun, L. Southampton, L.
Peel, E. Danesforf, L. Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.
Sandwich, E. Dynevor, L. Templemore, L.
Selborne, E. Ellenborough, L. Teynham, L.
Stanhope, E. Fairfax of Cameron, L. Trenchard, L.
Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.) fairhaven, L. Treowen, L.
Yarborough, E. Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.) Wavertree, L.
Allenby of Megiddo, V. Gage, L. (V. Gage.) [Teller.] Wynford, L.
§ On Question remainder of Part. I disagreed to.
§ Power of Minister to provide small holdings with financial assistance for unemployed persons.
§ Provided that no compensation shall be payable under Section forty-three of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908, or under the provisions of this Act relating to compensation for loss of employment, to any person for whom a small holding is provided under this section.
§ EARL DE LA WARR moved, in subsection (1), (a), to leave out "and has the necessary practical experience to enable him." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this concerns an Amendment that was discussed in Committee and was inserted without the Government accepting it, but on the promise of further consideration. We have looked into the matter and we find that it is necessary to ask your Lordships to take out the words that have been inserted—namely, "and has the necessary practical experience to enable him"—because those words cut across subsection (5), which deals with training. It is quite obvious that we shall not want powers for training men who have the necessary practical experience, and for that reason I would ask your Lordships to consent to omit these words.
My Lords, is it not a fact that the training that it is proposed to give to these men would provide them with just the experience which the terms of the Bill require that they should have? I am sure that this was in the mind of the noble Lord who moved the original Amendment. It was not intended by any manner of means to exclude from the occupation of small holdings persons who in the first instance 1080 had no practical training, but merely to exclude them until they had received practical training. I shall be very glad to hear what the noble Earl has to say on that point, because a great deal depends on it.
My Lords, I am informed that the effect of the words is as I have said, and that the noble Lord's point is covered by the words "is able." Many of these men will not be able to cultivate holdings until they have been through a course of training. The clause as it stands does undoubtedly preclude the Minister from training men who have not already obtained practical experience.
My Lords, I hope the noble Earl opposite will look at this again before the next stage. I am very doubtful whether the word "able" goes as far as he thinks. Surely it might merely mean that anybody who was physically able qualified for a holding. I do not know what the legal interpretation is, but I am doubtful whether any definition of the word "able" goes as far as he thinks. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Lauderdale, who moved the Amendment in Committee, had the same intention as the noble Earl, which was that we should not put a person on a holding until he has sufficient training to make it a success. This made it a duty of the Minister to keep a man at his training until he is satisfied the man has had sufficient training to make a success of it. It may well be that those words do not carry out the effect which is intended, in which case I am certain that my noble friend would be quite willing to accept other words at a later stage of the Bill; but I think it requires a little more consideration than the noble Earl has given it, for otherwise we may be leaving out something which will be useful.
My Lords, as I moved this Amendment, and the noble Earl in charge said he would reconsider it, perhaps I may speak on the matter. I understand that he has modified it slightly. My only object was that no man should be put on the land who was unfitted to go there. If he had had sufficient training it would meet the purpose, but if he goes there without any knowledge of farming he is unlikely to be a success.
My Lords, I think the disagreement between us lies in this—that while noble Lords opposite are saying it is a matter of principle, I am saying it is a matter of drafting. We have been into this matter very carefully with our legal advisers, and these are the conclusions that we have come to. We think that the word "able" does cover the point raised by Lord Stanhope. If you consent to drop these words, I will reconsider the matter and, if desired, we can have further discussions between now and the next stage; but I must say that the matter has been very fully discussed with our advisers, and we are satisfied that the words as they stand do have the meaning which I say, and that the word "able" does meet the point.
I do not know whether the discussion mentioned by the noble Earl has included discussion with the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. May I suggest that the noble Earl should be good enough to include in his further counsels the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, if he has not already done so? Without pretending to have gone into the matter deeply, it does look to me as if the words of subsection (5) must mean that the one qualification which they do not possess is that mentioned in paragraph (c) of subsection (1). I do not wish to express any concluded opinion, but I venture to suggest to my noble friends that we should accept the Amendment, accepting also the noble Earl's assurance that he will go a little further into the matter, in order to satisfy our doubts.
I will certainly do so. I had myself raised the point, and that is why I was sure of it.
§ LORD CRANWORTH moved, in subsection (1), to leave out paragraph (e). The noble Lord said: My Lords, you will remember that in the Committee stage I moved paragraph (e) in somewhat different words, and the noble Earl said he objected to paragraph (e) because he thought that it threw on the county council the duty of "vetting" the man as well as the land. The Amendment, therefore, was slightly changed and the words "as respects each holding" substituted for "in each case." I under- 1082 stand that having looked into this, the noble Earl is still of opinion that this paragraph (e) does still cast upon the county council the duty of "vetting" the man as well as the land. I think possibly he may be right, and therefore I have ventured to suggest to the noble Earl,, and to your Lordships, that what we wish to effect by paragraph (e) is effected by the words of my next Amendment, and I am also legally advised to the effect that should that be passed it is quite certain that the county councils will only have the "vetting" of the man and nothing to do with the choosing of the land. This Amendment is moved solely with a view to the clause being a success. One of my objects was to prevent the wasting of money and another the breaking of the heart of a man by putting him on a holding which he could not possibly make a success. May I hope, therefore, that the noble Earl will accept my Amendment in the spirit in which it is offered, and will agree, if paragraph (e) is removed, to accept the words which appear in. my next Amendment?
My Lords, I am afraid I cannot give the noble Earl the assurance that he asks for. We fully realise that this Amendment, although we feel most strongly about it, is not designed as a wrecking Amendment, but does express a real desire to make the clause more workable. For that reason I hope your Lordships will permit me rather to raise again the whole question of the principle of this Amendment, because we do regard it as a most vital question of principle which goes to the very root of what remains of the Bill. I think we should remember that no extensive effort has been made in this country to settle unemployed people on the land until now, and as the bulk of the unemployed reside in towns, where the local authorities have no experience of this work, and as the county councils in their various small holdings powers have not been called upon to carry out this work, it seems natural that it must be carried out as part of a national effort by the Government itself.
1083 This has nothing to do with Clause 10 of the old Act, but is entirely new work. The success of the county councils' efforts in the past has really been due largely to the knowledge of their own applicants, coming from their own areas, but the problem of settling the unemployed is a totally new problem. For example, an unemployed man in Newcastle may come from agricultural stock in Yorkshire. He may have kept poultry, or have cultivated an allotment, and therefore show signs of being the type of man required. The Government are of opinion that there should be no geographical limitation to this scheme, and that men should be provided with holdings in whatever district it is felt that they will have the best chance of success. In the case of poultry holdings, efforts will be made to group the small holdings round centres of population, or round an egg-packing station. Many packing stations already exist. Similarly in the case of market garden holdings, land will be required for the most part outside towns, where the produce can find a ready sale. Holdings will be grouped, and every endeavour will be made to secure that produce is marketed in the most efficient manner. It is intended to arrange, wherever practicable, for special stores to be opened at local markets in connection with existing local bodies, women's institutes, and so on.
I have gone into the subject at some length, because the more one goes into it and the more one discusses the type of scheme that is likely to be put into operation, the more one realises how little it has to do with the county councils, with their experience, or with any experience of any form of settlement they have had in the past. Not only have they not dealt with the unemployed from the towns, but on the whole it is perfectly fair to say that they really have not settled men to any extent at all on this system of group planning. I think, therefore, we really ought to ask ourselves once again whether it is reasonable to say that the Minister shall not take action under this clause unless the county council—which, as I have already said, has no knowledge of handling the unemployed, and practically no experience of co-operative group settlement—is willing, as it must be under this Amendment, to share the responsi- 1084 bility with the Minister by making a report as to the creation of each individual holding.
I think we ought to ask ourselves really how the requirements set out in this proviso are going to work in practice. Quite clearly the holding is not to be created until a report is received, yet the council has to know all about the holding before it is able to make a report. The noble Lord shakes his head. That is how it must work out in practice. The noble Lord surely would not suggest that the Minister should invest a great deal of national capital in a holding, and then have it turned down afterwards by the county council as unsuitable. The only practical way is that the consent should be obtained before the money is expended. I think your Lordships must admit that either of these suggestions is absurd, and yet one of those suggestions has got to be carried out under this new proviso. If the holding does not yet exist, how can the county council express an opinion upon it?
What is to happen? Is the Minister to write to a county council and say: "I am thinking of buying such-and-such a farm for settlement? Will you please tell me before I do so whether a man might be able to make a living on a selected five acres of this land"? Is that how we have to proceed? What will be the effect? We all of us know that purchasing land is always a difficult matter, and the greater the machinery of inquiry the more expensive that land will be. The owner of the land will know about it, and it is very possible that the Minister will have to give an increased price for it. And, if the report of the county council is favourable, of course the price of the land will go up immediately. On the other hand the county council could say: "How can we judge what sort of holdings this farm is going to split up into until we have actually either seen the holdings or all your plans and specifications"?
Therefore you come to this position, that the Minister has to have all his plans and specifications approved by a county council, which has no responsibility whatever for the policy. Apart from the impossibility and undesirability of making national policy dependent on the whim of a local body, there is nothing 1085 more likely to bring about friction between the Minister and the county council. If this proviso were adopted it would lead to the most extreme cases of division of responsibility. Delay would occur with regard to every acquisition, and all opportunities of private negotiation with owners would disappear. The cost of every piece of land would probably be increased, and the scheme unnecessarily enlarged. For that reason, as I know that the noble Lord does want this scheme to be a workable scheme, I would ask him to recognise that this is a part of a national effort for which the Minister who is responsible to Parliament must be officially responsible in all the aspects of the scheme.
My Lords, the noble Earl has made out the best case he could for the refusal of this Amendment, and he asks your Lordships to visualise how the matter is worked out as between the Minister and the county council concerned. The noble Earl himself has told the House that these new small holdings will be established almost entirely on the group system. That, of course, is well understood. It is not suggested by the noble Earl surely, nor would it hardly be believed by the House even if he did suggest it, that the Minister will have to ask the county council in respect of any individual holding, for the very good reason that the Minister is not going to take any one individual miner and move him across the country and deposit him upon one individual holding in some other county. Of course not. He is going to move his people in groups. How, then, would the Minister proceed? The noble Earl asked, could be not create the holding before communicating with the county council Of course he could not. Why should he? All he has to do is to write to the county council and say: "My Ministry propose to establish one hundred small holdings of poultry farmers in a particular area. Can you please recommend to us the best land on which they could be established?" The county council then go out to look, not for the best grazing or vegetable land, but for nice, light land, with a certain amount of grit that will do the fowls good, and they recommend that. When the noble Earl talks about the price going up, surely he knows that these matters are 1086 settled by the local valuation officers. They always have been, and they always will be. There is no question of the local landowner being able to put up his price against the Ministry. The Ministry have their remedy, and they will apply that remedy.
No, the whole purpose of this Amendment is not to interfere in any way with the powers of the Minister or the success of the scheme; its purpose is to help the scheme. A very large number of officials have to be created, necessarily created, to implement this scheme. They cannot be possessed of the knowledge that the county councils already possess—are, indeed, almost in painful possession of, because nearly all of them have made mistakes. Nobody does anything much without making mistakes first. They have found out where their errors are arid they are now in a position to give to the Ministry of Agriculture the benefit of their previous errors. And if there could be any question of its being proposed to establish a one-man holding, and so hanging up the Minister and irritating the county council, of course we should not press this Amendment. But the very fact that the noble Earl has impressed upon the House that the system will be one of group settlements is surely the strongest possible argument that could be used for the Amendment. I hope the noble Earl will realise that there is no intention on the part of any noble Lord to make it more difficult for the Minister to give effect to his scheme.
My Lords, might I reinforce what my noble friend has so well said? There is no question of trying to block the scheme at all. I think the noble Earl rather got swept away by the arguments put before him, with the result that he sometimes rather answered his own arguments which he had put earlier against this Amendment. For instance, at one moment he talked about the question of group settlement, and said that no county council has ever done anything of the kind before. That is quite true; but from the way he put it he obviously implied that the county councils would be brought in to consider the question of the individual. There is no question of the individual under the Amendment of the noble Lord at all. It is a question of the site. When the 1087 noble Earl says that the county councils have had no experience of this kind of settlement, we admit it; but has the Minister? The Minister has had no experience of these things at all. The county councils at any rate have had very considerable experience of small holdings, and some of them have put small holders in groups in various parts of the country and have, therefore, had great experience of how group settlement works.
There is a further very strong argument. The noble Earl suggested that there was a difficulty about the Minister sending the plans to the county council. Why? When the Minister decides to set up a group of small holdings, surely he will make up his mind whether he is going to have poultry holdings, ordinary general small holdings, fruit small holdings, or whatever it may be. The county councils have had experience of all those types of holdings. If he decides that he wants to have a certain number of poultry farms in a certain county, are not the county council able to tell him that the best land for the purpose an the county is in such a district? They can tell him more than that. They can tell him that the market for poultry for that part of the county is already well supplied; that if any further poultry small holders are placed there they will flood the market and make it more difficult for the existing small holders to live; and that there will be no chance for the new and inexperienced men to come in successfully. The county council has great experience not only of poultry small holdings but with regard to fruit and other things and the possibility as to markets. The same is true of their officers. But the officers of the Ministry have not had experience either of that land or the markets, nor will the new men appointed by the Minister to carry out this work have anything like the experience of the other officers. I suggest to the noble Earl that if he really wants to make a success of this thing, he will use the county councils for all he is worth, and make them responsible for finding the site for him and seeing that the plans are sent down to them so that they shall have full consideration before he plunges in and spends public money.
My Lords, your Lordships are obviously so keen not to upset this scheme that I rather insist 1088 upon trying to persuade you not to insert this Amendment. I think you are under a slight misconception, because noble Lords have spoken as though our officials will never get into contact with the county councils unless there is some compulsory provision in the Bill. The contact is already of the very closest, and obviously we are going to avail ourselves of all the experience of the county councils with regard to the land in their area which they are able and willing to give us. But that is a different matter from putting it in the power of the county councils to say, as they really would be able to do under this proviso, that they will not have any settlement in the county at all.
My Lords, I hope the noble Earl will forgive me for interrupting him, but in giving power to the county councils he would also give power to the Minister which he would not have of making the county councils do what he wants them to do unless those words were in.
I do not know whether I quite appreciate that point for the moment. What I was going to say was that supposing there is a county council that is not at all necessarily hostile to the principle of this scheme, but feels that it does not want to accept any responsibility for more settlements in its area: possibly its members are local farmers who think that they have enough small holdings in the county and are not going to have any more. Perhaps your Lordships think it is right that they should have that power. But for what might turn out to be semi-political reasons, a county council might actually refuse to give consent to any scheme, and definitely there is that power in the Amendment. I would say that we do intend to act in the very closest cooperation with the county officials and the county councils, but I would ask your Lordships not to make the initiation of a scheme dependent, as this proviso does, on the consent of the county council.
My Lords, I find myself put in a rather difficult position by what the noble Earl has said. If I accede to his wish and keep in paragraph (e), the county councils will have all the power that they are given under this Amendment and more. I think the 1089 noble Earl is perfectly right in what I understood to be his apprehension that under paragraph (e) they have the right to "vet" the man. But if the noble Earl would prefer paragraph (e) with all that it implies, it is not for me to deny it to him. I must, therefore, ask leave to withdraw my Amendment, which I do with great reluctance because I wish to meet the noble Earl in a helpful spirit as I said before.
Does the noble Lord withdraw his Amendment?
I am not quite sure of the position of the noble Earl. I would prefer to stick to the Amendment. But if I have to withdraw it I shall move to substitute the words which are on the Paper. I understood him to say that he would prefer paragraph (e). Perhaps he would tell me which he prefers.
We would like the noble Lord to leave out paragraph (e) and not to make the new insertion. That was the point of my speech. But if the noble Lord will not do that, it is a matter of indifference which he puts in, but I think on the whole that his new insertion is better.
I take it that the noble Earl, not perhaps very graciously, accedes to my endeavour to help him in what he formerly said was his wish. I, therefore, will not withdraw my Amendment, but will stick to it.
§ LORD CRANWORTH moved, in subsection (1), immediately before the proviso, to insert: Provided that no holding shall be provided under this section unless the council of the county report to the Minister in writing in respect of each holding that a person possessing in the opinion of the Minister the qualifications mentioned in paragraph (c) of this subsection may reasonably be expected to earn a livelihood on that holding. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the insertion of this proviso about which we have already spoken at some length.
My Lords, the next Amendment is drafting. I beg to move.
§ VISCOUNT ASTOR moved to leave out "as a member or ex-member of His Majesty's Forces, who" and to insert "being or having been a member of His Majesty's Forces." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is a purely drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
My Lords, we have already accepted the principle of this Amendment and our position remains the same.
§ LORD CRANWORTH had given Notice to move to leave out "but is needed for the purposes of small holdings." The noble Lord said: My Lords, since I placed this Amendment on the Paper I have received a letter from the noble Earl in charge of the Bill explaining, to my satisfaction at all events, the reason why these words are in the measure. It is not my intention, therefore, to move this Amendment.
§ Application of Small Holdings and Allotments Acts to powers of Minister.
§ 8. For the purpose of exercising the powers conferred on, him by the foregoing provisions of this Part of this Act, the Minister shall have the like powers as may be exercised by a county council with respect to small holdings under the Small Holdings and Allotments Acts, and the provisions of those Acts relating to the acquisition, use or disposal of land by a county council and to small holdings provided by a county council shall apply with the neces- 1091 sary adaptations to the acquisition, use and disposal of land by the Minister and to small holdings provided by him under this Part of this Act, but subject to the modifications that the Minister may sell, or let for other purposes any land acquired by him for small holdings which is in his opinion not needed for the purposes of small holdings, or exchange any such land for land more suitable for small holdings, and may pay or receive money for equality of exchange, and paragraphs (b) and (c) of subsection (1) of Section twelve of the Land Settlement (Facilities) Act, 1919, shall not apply with respect to any such land.
§ LORD DYNEVOR moved to leave out "other purposes" and insert "purposes prescribed by regulations under this Part of this Act." The noble Lord said: My Lords, I might remind the House that on Committee stage I had the same words on the Paper, but my noble friend Lord Clinton had an Amendment on the same lines, and I thought his Amendment was much better than mine. Therefore I did not move mine. There was a considerable discussion on my noble friend's Amendment, but it was not pressed. Therefore, as I did not move my Amendment then, I have put it down again now. This Amendment refers to small holdings, and when we come to the allotment question in Clause 11 I have a similar Amendment which I am proposing to move then as regards allotments.
§ As the Bill stands, land acquired by the Minister for small holdings might be sold by him for any other purpose, say, for a factory. The Amendment will enable the Department, by regulations which, under Clause 17, have to be laid before Parliament, to specify the purposes for which the Minister really requires power for the disposal of the land. As the Bill stands, the Minister could sell all the surplus land, not only to companies for private purposes, but for purposes which might be most objectionable to the countryside. I assume that he might do so also to a Government Department who wanted a site for their purpose, which might destroy the amenities of the countryside. If the Minister, as I propose, has to specify, by regulations laid before Parliament, the purpose for which he requires power for the disposal of the land, there would be some opportunity to raise objections. I beg to move.
My Lords, this clause, as drafted, proposes to give the same powers to the Minister as the county councils at present possess in regard to dealing with land which they have acquired for small holding purposes. The purpose of this Amendment, as the noble Lord has informed your Lordships, is to restrict the power of the Minister to selling the land, to letting it, or dealing with it in such a manner as is prescribed by regulation. It is quite impossible to prescribe in advance the best and the most economic manner in which to deal with the small parcel of land that may not be required. The reply to this point is very much the same reply as we gave to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton, on his Amendment. You cannot prescribe. It may be, as frequently happens now with county councils, that possibly a large farmhouse, or even a mansion house, may have to be purchased in buying an estate for small holdings, and you cannot prescribe exactly to what use those buildings are to be put. It depends in every case on the merits of the particular buildings. You might let them as a school, or private hotel, or as a private residence.
One does not know ahead; but, surely the noble Lord would agree that what is really necessary is that the Minister, as the representative of the Government and as the guardian of the taxpayer, should be in a position to get the best economic return for the land or for the building that is possible. It is most surprising to have from Lord Dynevor, who has been so much concerned all through with economy, or what he has considered the lack of economy, in this Bill, limitations on the Minister as regards the most economic disposal of land or buildings. I do hope the noble Lord will not press this Amendment. The county councils have had this power since 1908. Surely there is no reason for refusing to entrust the Minister with such power as the county councils have now exercised for over twenty-two years.
§ LORD HASTINGS moved to add the following proviso:— Provided that if, after a local inquiry has been held in accordance with the said provisions with respect to any order whereby the Minister proposes to acquire land compulsorily, any objection to the order which has been presented is not withdrawn, the order shall not be confirmed except by means of a Provisional Order made by the Minister and confirmed by Parliament, and for that purpose the Minister may submit a Bill to Parliament for the confirmation of any such Provisional Order.
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is one of some substance. It was agreed generally by the noble Earl in charge of the Bill that in certain circumstances provision must be made for appeal from the Minister to some person other than the Minister himself. It was also agreed that the words which were then put down were somewhat clumsy, and I am glad to say that agreement has now been reached whereby words have been found which, I believe, will commend themselves to noble Lords on this side of the House, and equally commend themselves to the noble Earl in charge of the Bill. I am happy to think these words are satisfactory to all parties, and meet what is certainly a matter of some urgency. I beg to move.
My Lords, in accepting this Amendment, I think I might say that we are still of opinion that the demand for its insertion rests upon a case that is more theoretical than real. At the same time, we are quite prepared to accept the Amendment.
My Lords, the noble Earl having given expression to that opinion, I must add another word, and that is, I hope the noble Earl and his Minister in the House of Commons are going to keep these words in the Bill when it gets there.
If I accept an Amendment, naturally we stand by it.
§ VISCOUNT ASTOR moved, after Clause 10, to insert the following new clause:— . Before proceeding with the erection of any dwelling-houses or buildings under 1094 this Act or approving the erection of any such dwelling-houses or buildings, the Minister or county council shall be satisfied that the design of the proposed buildings and the materials to be used for their construction are, so far as practicable, such as will be appropriate for the site and harmonious with the surroundings.
§ The noble Viscount said: My Lords, on the Committee stage I indicated that on the Report stage I would move an Amendment dealing with a point which we then discussed. The object of my Amendment is to see that when colonies of small holdings are made in any part of the country due regard shall be had to the surroundings and to local amenities; that the small holdings should as far as possible be in harmony with the surroundings. We want to avoid anything like a stereotyped style of building being planted down in the country. I regret to say that too often we find municipal housing schemes give us an example of what should be avoided. I do not want in any way to suggest that the Ministry themselves have not considered amenities. One of the best lots of small holdings which I visited last winter was in the ownership of, and had been developed by, the Ministry. I do not want to take up your Lordships' time in explaining the Amendment. I hope my object is quite clear, and I hope the Government will agree to the Amendment and that your Lordships will support me if they do not.
My Lords, as I said in Committee the Government are in full sympathy with the idea behind this Amendment. There is another Amendment dealing with the same point standing on the Paper in the name of Viscount Gage and perhaps I might mention that at the same time. The effect of this Amendment would be to provide that one type of land equipped by a Government Department should be dealt with in a particular way. Obviously if there is a problem with regard to Government buildings on Crown land it ought to be dealt with on a general basis. Therefore I suggest that as there is another Bill, the Town and Country Planning Bill, which we hope will shortly come before your Lordships' House, 1095 which contains general provisions for dealing with Crown lands and the buildings thereon, it would be much better, if your Lordships are not satisfied, to move Amendments to that Bill rather than try to deal with the matter by a side-wind on a very small point with regard to buildings belonging to the Ministry of Agriculture. My only reason for opposing this Amendment is really that the point is not applicable to this particular Bill, and that there is a Bill coming before your Lordships very shortly when the matter can be dealt with.
§ Power of Minister to provide allotments not exceeding one acre for unemployed persons.
§ 11.—(1) The Minister shall have power, without prejudice to the powers and duties of the council of any borough, urban district, or parish, or of any county council acting in default of such a council as aforesaid, to provide allotments not exceeding one acre in extent for unemployed persons, and for that purpose the Minister shall have the like powers as may be exercised by any such council with respect to allotments under the Small Holdings and Allotments Acts and the provisions of those Acts relating to the acquisition, use or disposal of land by any such council and to allotments provided by any such council (except subsections (1) and (2) of Section sixteen of the Allotments Act, 1922, and Section four of the Allotments Act, 1925), shall apply with the necessary adaptations to the acquisition, use and disposal of land by the Minister and to allotments provided by him under this section, but subject to the modifications that the Minister may sell or let for other purposes any land acquired by him for allotments which is in his opinion not needed for the purposes of allotments, or exchange any such land for land more suitable for allotments, and may pay or receive money for equalty of exchange, and Section thirty-two of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908, and Section eight of the Allotments Act, 1925, shall not apply with respect to any such land.
§ (2) The powers conferred on the Minister by the last foregoing subsection shall include power to provide allotment gardens for persons who are not in full time employment as well as for those who are wholly unemployed.
§ (5) Any of the powers and duties conferred on the Minister by this section, except the power of acquiring land or of disposing of it otherwise than for use as allotments, may, by arrangement between him and the council of any county, or of any borough, urban district or parish, or with any society 1096 having as its object or one of its objects the provision or the profitable working of allotments, be exercised and performed by the council or society as agents for the Minister.
§ LORD HASTINGS moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "allotments not exceeding one acre in extent" and to insert "allotment gardens." The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have again put down the same Amendment that stood on the Paper in my name on the Committee stage. I have not followed it up by putting down consequential Amendments, because my purpose in putting it down was to afford opportunity for a discussion more than anything else. The noble Earl in charge of the Bill has been good enough to correspond with me on a very large number of points raised in debate at the Committee stage and this matter really can be brought down to one point. If this Amendment is passed and inserted in the Bill the effect would be that neither the Minister nor any local authority—we are not concerned now with local authorities, so I will confine myself to the position of the Minister—will be able to supply any applicant with any land ranging between a quarter of an acre in extent and one acre in extent. That is to say he would be limited to supplying applicants with what is statutorily defined as an allotment garden, that is up to one quarter of an acre, or, under the small holdings scheme, to supplying applicants with from one to fifty acres. It would definitely cut out land between one quarter of an acre and one acre in extent. That, I think, puts the Ministerial side fairly.
§ On the other hand, if you give the Minister of Agriculture authority to supply land between the areas of one quarter of an acre and one acre you at once establish a new class of market gardeners with a certain degree of State aid. That is really the whole issue. Is it better to prevent the Minister from supplying anybody with land between a quarter of an acre and one acre in extent, or is it better to run the risk of interfering with the existing class of market gardeners, which could be done, and would be done to a certain extent, by permitting the extension of allotments to one acre as is proposed in the Bill? That is really the whole issue. It is hardly to be wondered at that the existing class of market gardeners do fear that their livelihood will be made less easy—or should I put 1097 it that it will be made snore difficult?—than it is now by reason of the establishment of a new class of competing market gardeners. They point out that this new class, although not strictly speaking subsidised, is yet put in a position of entering upon land under more easy conditions than those which prevailed when the sitting class of market gardeners entered upon their land. They would undoubtedly enjoy some measure of State support. That is really the issue. Is it better to prevent the Minister from establishing this class of market gardener, or is it better that he should have a free hand in supplying any area of land? I will not press the matter either way. The noble Earl and I have debated it through the post. We understand the situation perfectly well, and I think the noble Earl will agree that I have endeavoured to put his point of view as well as my own. I leave it entirely to your Lordships. If you think better to supply any area I will withdraw my Amendment.
My Lords, I do not think I need detain you long because the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, has put the matter so very clearly and so very fairly and completely before your Lordships. The real point is the question of possible unfair competition with existing holdings. I would suggest to the noble Lord that he has chosen a particular class of holdings where there is the least danger of competition, because it is on land between one and five acres in extent that you would really get State-aided competition. There, I think, undoubtedly we have to face the fact that there is that risk. We have to choose between taking that risk and leaving these men to go on living on unemployment benefit and not giving them a chance to make good. We believe in the Ministry that, with the co-operation of local authorities, it should be possible to find parts of the country—we know one or two now—where industrial areas are getting poor supplies of vegetables, and that we could find parts of the country where the question of competition would not arise to any great extent. There- 1098 fore, I ask your Lordships not to make this gap in the scheme, because that is what it would do. We attach a certain amount of importance to this not because of the number of men we want to put on these holdings—we do not believe it would be very great—but because we believe that in some cases (and I am speaking from a certain amount of experience) this type of small holding would be very useful in training men and testing men. We should like, therefore, to have this in our scheme.
My Lords, I think, on the whole, that I rather agree with the noble Earl opposite. I quite see the point about competition, but I must confess that we are only touching the fringe of the question if we knock out allotments between a quarter of an acre and one acre, because, as the noble Earl said, there is more competition in the country between holders of from one to five acres. We have had to face throughout the whole of the Bill the fact that the Government are going to make a specialised class of small holding and allotment holder, and it will be all the more specialised when we realise that only the holdings on private lands will probably he liable to the new tax proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whereas the new ones will probably be exempted.
With your Lordships' permission, I will withdraw the Amendment.
§ LORD HASTINGS moved, in subsection (1), after "have" ["the Minister shall have the like powers"], to insert "(subject as hereinafter in this section mentioned)." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this and the following Amendments are new and did not appear on the Paper on the Committee stage. They have been put down in response to a degree of representation which almost surprised me in its volume and extent. They look complicated, but I can explain their purpose very easily. Under the Bill at present the Minister of Agriculture takes power to acquire land for allotments by voluntary purchase, by voluntary hiring, by compulsory purchase and by compulsory hiring. The purpose of my Amendments is to cut out compulsory purchase, leaving the 1099 Minister the power to acquire by agreement land on purchase, or to hire by agreement, or to hire by compulsion. He will not have power to purchase by compulsion. I think a very great deal can be said in favour of depriving the Minister of that particular power. In the first instance, he is likely to want to use it very seldom, because it is inconceivable that, if he were offered land voluntarily, he would proceed to take powers of compulsion. That is a ridiculous supposition. It is also exceedingly unlikely that the Minister will be desirous of compulsorily purchasing land when he has the power of compulsorily hiring. It is not impossible, but it is unlikely. The landowner, knowing that the Minister has the power of compulsorily hiring, is not likely on many occasions to make it necessary that this compulsory power should be exercised.
§ This question really touches only the fringes of growing towns. Is it considered desirable that the Minister should have the power of compulsorily acquiring land on the fringe of such towns, upon which to establish allotments in perpetuity? Having to purchase land for the establishment of allotments, he is obviously going to be subjected to tremendous pressure by the sitting allotment holders never to part with that land, and this power might very well create a fringe of permanent allotments round land which, for the moment and perhaps for some years to come, might be best put to that purpose, but which, if they were established in perpetuity, would react to the immense disadvantage, not of landowners or anybody of that kind, but of the corporation in charge of the town, who would not be able to develop in the direction that they desired.
§ It must also be remembered that, if land has been compulsorily purchased at the price which such land is worth to-day, it will possibly not be built over for twenty or twenty-five years, thus withholding the long-deferred expectation of betterment and, when the time arose that the increased value accrued to the land, provided always that the Minister was able to hold it for allotments in perpetuity, he would be placed in the position of himself profiteering in land, just as other landowners have been accused of doing for a period, if not of centuries, at least of years. That is not an alto- 1100 gether desirable position in which to place a Minister. I do not think that the Minister, in the propagation of his allotment schemes, can possibly suffer any disadvantage through the passing of these Amendments. He has ample power of compulsorily hiring, and cannot be held up in the establishment of allotments. I do think—and this is impressed upon me by large sections of persons who have given considerable thought to the matter—that to invest the Minister with compulsory powers of purchase would react to the disadvantage of towns in the neighbourhood of which these allotments would be established. I do not think that I can explain the matter any further, however long I speak. I beg to move.
My Lords, the noble Lord put the matter to your Lordships very clearly. He has told you that he has received a great number of representations on the matter, but I am not sure whether he realises what a hornet's nest he is rousing on this question of the purchase of land and the security or otherwise of the allotment holder. I rather dread to think of the sort of interview that we should have to have with allotment societies if the Government accepted this Amendment. Throughout the country the one thing that the allotment holder really feels bitterly about is the question of security. He feels—and I have a great deal of sympathy with him—that the one way in which he can be secure in the holding of his allotment is that the authority supplying that allotment should have purchased it.
The noble Lord holds up certain dangers to your Lordships of the land being required for other purposes later, and the allotment holders being able to exercise pressure on the authorities against their eviction. For my part I again find myself rather in sympathy with the allotment holders. I hope very much that, if they get established, they will exercise pressure against being turned out, unless, of course, the local authority, as they always could, provided them with other suitable land. The noble Lord also mentioned the question of increased value. I know that we are touch- 1101 ing a matter that will be dealt with much more completely at a later date, but I would say that all objection to betterment and the increased value is obviously removed if the public authority and the public who created that value receive value in return when it comes to fruition. But I think that is really a side point. The real question is the best means of starting these schemes and seeing to it that there is full security of tenure for the allotment holders. We attach great importance to this power of purchasing the freehold of the land, as being the best means whereby that security can be given.
The next Amendments in my name to this clause are consequential, and the first Amendment having been withdrawn it is unnecessary to move the others.
§ LORD HASTINGS moved to insert the following proviso in subsection (1):— Provided that if, after a local inquiry has been held in accordance with the said provisions with respect to any order whereby the Minister proposes to acquire land compulsorily, any objection to the order which has been presented is not withdrawn, the order shall not be confirmed except by means of a Provisional Order made by the Minister and confirmed by Parliament, and for that purpose the Minister may submit a Bill to Parliament for the confirmation of any such Provisional Order.
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is the same as one which I moved in the previous clause, and which the noble Earl accepted on behalf of the Government.
My Amendments at page 14, lines 2 and 15, are consequential upon others which have been withdrawn, and I therefore do not move them.
§ THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE moved, in subsection (5), before "object," to insert "main." The noble Earl said: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Lindsay brought this question forward in Committee, and the noble Earl in charge of the Bill was rather sympathetic towards it, but instanced the fact that the Society of Friends would be affected. 1102 There is no reason why the Society of Friends should not form a society within itself. Of course these societies are provided with funds by the Government, and we cannot be too particular in having the right class of society dealing with this matter. Otherwise, we shall have a large number of mushroom societies cropping up.
My Lords, there is no fear of mushroom societies cropping up. Obviously, it is for the Minister to decide which societies he will deal with. I think we owe a great deal to the Society of Friends, and I do not see why we should impose upon them an obligation to form another society. We dealt with the matter fairly fully in Committee, and I hope your Lordships will not go back upon your decision.
§ Power of Minister to make grants for assisting in the provision of seeds, fertilisers and equipment for unemployed persons.
§ (2) The Minister may constitute a committee, of whose members at least one shall be a woman, for the purpose of advising him as to the exercise and performance of his powers and duties under this section and for the purpose of performing such other functions in connection with those powers and duties as he may direct, and the expenses of the committee (including the remuneration of any officers of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries appointed to assist the committee) shall, up to such amount as may be sanctioned by the Minister with the approval of the Treasury, be defrayed as part of the expenses of the Minister under this Act.
§ VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME, on behalf of the Earl of Iddesleigh, moved in subsection (2), to leave out "of whose members at least one shall be a woman." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, neither Parliament, county councils, nor juries, nor suchlike bodies, are compelled to have even one woman member, and. I do not see why this Committee should be forced to have at least one woman; member. No doubt Lord Astor's motive is to give equality to the sexes, but this gives a special right to women. I have also consulted masters of the English 1103 language, and I am advised that the clause, as amended in Committee, is not good English, and it is one of your Lordships' proud boasts that Bills must leave this House in English which is as impeccable as possible. I hope, for the reasons that I have stated, that you will strike out these words.
The clause as it stands compels the Minister to appoint at least one woman on this committee, which is going to deal with finance, and the purchasing of manure, and of seeds and fertilisers, not one of them a very proper subject for women to decide. Presuming these words are left out, there is nothing to prevent the Minister from appointing a whole committee of women, but why should the Minister be told that he must appoint at least one woman? The whole thing seems to me to be absurd, but probably it emanates from the Women's Equal Eights Association, or some nonsense of that sort, and I hope your Lordships will accept the Amendment.
My Lords, I am not going to work myself up in the way in which Lord Banbury has done. The Amendment really is not a vital one, one way or another. I was asked to put it forward in Committee by people who have no organisation, but who have been very much interested in and concerned with allotments and small holdings, and so forth. I understand there are already, as a matter of fact, two ladies on this committee, and so there is nothing very unreasonable in the Amendment. The reasons which induced me to put the Amendment forward in Committee was that, as a matter of fact, these ladies have been of great help in the matter of allotments. As to the point that my Amendment was not grammatical, it seems to me that the proper way of dealing with it was not to reject it altogether but to put it into good grammar.
As I am not in favour of the noble Viscount's proposal, I am not proposing to do his drafting for him.
I think this is a matter for a free vote of the House, but as I accepted Lord Astor's Amendment in Committee, if the matter goes to a Division I shall vote for the retention of these words.
§ Duration of powers of Minister.
and any such legal proceeding, arbitration, remedy or investigation may be instituted, enforced or continued as if the powers aforesaid had not expired.
§ LORD BAYFORD moved to leave out "powers conferred on the Minister by this part of this Act may be exercised by him during" and to insert "provisions of Sections four, five, and six of this Act, and, so far as they confer power upon the Minister to provide allotments or to acquire land therefor, of Section eleven of this Act, shall have effect for." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this and the following Amendments are merely drafting Amendments of a clause that was put in on my Motion.
As this is drafting, we raise no points, on the clear understanding that we do not admit the principle.
§ EARL DE LA WARR moved to add the following subsection: (2) No compensation shall be payable under Section forty-three of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908, or under the foregoing provisions of this section, to any person for whore a small holding is provided under Part II of this Act. The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is consequential on a former Amendment.
§ VISCOUNT HAILSHAM moved, in subsection (1), to leave out paragraphs (a) and (b). The noble Viscount said: My Lords this is consequential on what has been done already.
§ Application of Town Planning Acts to land acquired by the Minister.
§ ". Land acquired by the Minister under this Act shall be subject to the provisions of the Town Planning Act, 1925, and any enactment amending that Act in the same manner and to the same extent as if the land had not been acquired by the Minister."
§ The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this point has been answered by the noble Earl on Clause 10. I understand that it raises a legal question which would perhaps not be suitable for discussion on this Bill, but nevertheless perhaps the noble Earl would give me an assurance that the Minister, in carrying out any of these schemes, will conform as far as possible to town planning regulations that may be enforced locally, because nothing sets a worse example to landlords generally than infringement of what has been approved by a Minister or Government Department.
My Lords, I certainly appreciate the point which has been raised, and will willingly give the assurance asked for.
My Lords, I do not move.
§ (e) Subsection (1) of Section four and Section five of this Act shall not apply, but the department shall have power to provide, in accordance with the provisions of the Small Holdings Colonies Acts, 1916 and 1918, or of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Acts, 1886 to 1919, on land belonging to the department, a holding for an unemployed person within the meaning of the said subsection (1) or for an agricultural worker, notwithstanding that such unemployed person or agricultural worker would be unable to cultivate the holding unless the facilities set forth in subsection (2) of the said Section four were extended to him.
§ (j) Subsections (8) and (9) of Section one, and Sections six, seven, eight, ten and fifteen, and Section nine so far as it re- 1107 lates to small holdings, and paragraph (c) of Part I of the First Schedule shall not apply.
My Lords, this, again, is consequential.
My Lords, the next Amendment is also consequential.
My Lords, the next two Amendments, in paragraph (e), are consequential.
§ EARL DE LA WARR moved, in paragraph (e), after, "1919", to insert "either". The noble Earl said: My Lords, this was a point which your Lordships dealt with in Committee, and I raise it again because I find that considerable importance is placed upon the principle that is embodied in your Lordships' Amendment. I ask your Lordships, therefore, to reverse your decision. Since the Small Landholders (Scotland) Act, 1911, became law, the Department of Agriculture for Scotland have had power to constitute small holdings on the lands of private proprietors. This power has therefore been in operation for twenty years. With the exception of 1108 certain powers of acquisition conferred upon the Congested Districts Board for schemes in the congested districts of the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, it was not until the passing of the Small Holding (Colonies) Act of 1916 that any other method was suggested, and the full alternative policy of purchase of land by the Department for small holdings schemes was not authorised by Parliament until 1919, by the Land Settlement (Scotland) Act, and even this Act contained provisions for the continuance of the 1911 Act procedure adjusted to secure expeditious and effective action by the Department side by side with the Colonies Act procedure. Accordingly the Department of Agriculture have always proceeded with schemes on the lands of private proprietors and in recent years with schemes under both codes of procedure. Machinery being thus set up for procedure under both codes, it follows that the maximum result in the minimum time can be achieved by using this machinery as it is being used now.
§ It is possible that the movers of the Amendment had not considered the full extent to which a landlord is protected by the 1911 Act. The following provisions are important in this connection. First, a new holder shall not be duly qualified for registration as a small holder otherwise than by agreement (that is, agreement with the landlord) unless he satisfies the Board as to his ability to fulfil the obligations incumbent on him. Secondly, the Board shall give reasonable consideration to objections stated by a landlord to any applicant for a new holding, and ceteris paribus shall give a preference to applicants preferred by the landlord. Those two items, I think it will be agreed, give considerable protection to the interest of the landlord. Accordingly if the Amendment is allowed to stand it is really attacking the policy agreed to by the House of Lords in 1911 and confirmed by them in 1919. At present the Department are not debarred from settling unemployed persons or agricultural workers on private estates so long as they comply with the provisions already quoted. I want to make it quite clear that they have to comply with those provisions. The Bill as originally drafted did not add to the Department's statutory powers, but merely made provision under which certain applicants at present 1109 barred because of lack of capital would become qualified by grants of initial capital.
§ The Amendment carried in Committee reduces the Department's powers to settle applicants who may become qualified by removing one of the two methods now open to them under Statute. The argument of the movers of the Amendment suggested that the terms of the Bill represented a departure from previous practice inasmuch as it authorised the settlement on the lands of private proprietors of a new type of applicant without experience of agriculture. That is not so, because the Act of 1919 was primarily for the settlement of ex-Servicemen of all occupations. Many instances could be given of men with no experience whatever of agriculture who were actually settled under the 1919 Act. In this respect, the Bill now under consideration contains no departure whatsoever from the Act of 1919.
§ Apart from those considerations, it is obvious that the same amount of initial capital expenditure will settle more men on private estates than on Government-purchased estates. It is true in the long run that the subsequent rental receipts On Government-owned estates bring the valued cost of schemes under both codes very near to equality; but with the present difficulty of raising money the amount of initial capital expenditure per man is, undoubtedly, of some considerable importance. If this is removed from the Bill, undoubtedly the initial expenditure per man will have to be increased in Scotland. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will consent to the insertion of this Amendment, which I beg to move.
My Lords, if I understood the noble Earl, he said that the landlord would be consulted before any unemployed small holders were put on his land, and there would be some power of objection on the part of the landlord.
Yes, the same statutory power as is contained in the Act of 1911 in respect of all applicants.
No greater power than that?
That is a pretty full power.
The noble Earl really based his arguments for this Amendment on the fact that for twenty years the Government has had power to instal small holders on private property. He quoted the fact also that ex-Service men without previous experience of agriculture had been put on to land. I understood that all those ex-Service men had practically been failures, and I do not think that is an example to be quoted in support of any extension of the principle. I may be wrong, but I am under the impression that they have turned out to be useless as farmers. I would also like to ask why, if this power to put small holders on private land is to be given in respect of Scotland, it should not obtain also in England. One great disadvantage to landowners of such a scheme was mentioned by my noble friend the Duke of Buccleuch in Committee. Supposing the land becomes derelict and the buildings useless, the liability rests on the landlord. I had one of my own farms taken for the purposes of small holdings. If those holdings are deserted, I am saddled with the liability for the buildings upon them and have to make good to the Government the money spent upon them. It seems very unfair that such a burden should be placed on a landowner. I would also point out that a Committee which sat in 1927 reported adversely to any extension of small holdings in the Lowlands of Scotland. Therefore, I do not see why these powers should be sought. If the Government want to acquire land for this purpose it seems to me that they should acquire it and not inflict new burdens on landowners.
My Lords, may I point out in regard to the Small Holdings Act that, whether this Amendment is accepted or not, the Department can go on taking land in the same way as before. The Committee which enquired into the matter reported strongly against this system of small holdings, and there is a Bill in your Lordships' House at the present time which embodies a considerable number of the recommendations of that Committee. I cannot see why the Government should not accept their recommendation in this respect as well. As I have said, the 1111 Amendment does not affect the Small Holdings Act, so I think the noble Earl's argument falls to the ground and that the Department can go on in the same way as in the past.
No case has been made out as to why land should be taken under one system in Scotland and another in England, and if under the powers of the Bill small holdings are to be constituted in one way in England, they can equally well be constituted in the same way in Scotland. If they are to be constituted on this large scale, it ought to be at the public expense and not at the expense of the private owner. Your Lordships may not be acquainted with the fact that the safeguards to which the noble Earl alluded are really illusory. In fact, they are not safeguards at all. A landowner agrees with the Board of Agriculture that certain land shall be taken by the Board. The landowner thinks it is all right, that he will get his rent and there will be no trouble. Not a bit of it. The Department of Agriculture proceeds to erect buildings and carry out other works on those small holdings without asking his leave. The holdings are then let to tenants, but the assumption is that the Department has not paid for the buildings but has lent the money to those tenants. That is a perfect farce, though unfortunately it is legally correct.
In one case with which I am aquainted, buildings were put up by the Board, but the owner of the estate objected on the ground that they were much worse than any buildings that had been erected on the estate for the last fifty years. The matter went to the Land Court, and the Court expressed sympathy with the owner because, although they considered that the buildings were fit for use, they were obviously inferior to what it had been the custom of the estate to erect. These buildings are not built to last, and there is a very small sinking fund on them. If the holding is given up by the smallholder, the landlord becomes responsible to the Board for the whole of the money expended on those buildings, which the Board regards as having been lent to the holder and has not been repaid when the smallholder goes out. 1112 It really means that this land is taken from him, the buildings are erected upon it without asking his leave. They may spoil it or they may improve it; but he has nothing whatever to say in the matter; and if, in the end, it is a failure, it is thrown back upon his hands and he has to pay the expenses. Is that a system which should be extended? If the Bill remains as it is, it does not affect the small holdings so far as concerns what is done by the Department of Agriculture under past Acts, and there is no reason why this excessive burden should be put upon one class of landowner in Great Britain any more than it should be put on those in the southern part of England. I beg to support my noble friend, and hope your Lordships will allow these words to be inserted.
My Lords, may I say a few words in reply? The case of the noble Duke is based on the Report of the Nairne Committee. This clause deals with the whole of Scotland. The recommendation of the Nairne Committee only deals with the Lowlands.
I am sorry to interrupt but I think the Land Report deals with the whole small holdings question in Scotland.
§ EARL DE LA WARR.
Quite so, but their recommendation is clear. It reads: That the creation by the State of small holdings on privately-owned estates should be discontinued in the Lowlands and in other districts of Scotland where conditions are akin to those of the Lowlands. If this Amendment is not inserted then the implication of the Report will not be carried out, and undoubtedly there will be taken away from the Department of Agriculture powers which it has worked upon for a considerable time, thereby decreasing the Department's power to provide small holdings and increasing the capital expenses. I cannot say more than that. I would, therefore, ask your Lordships to insert this Amendment to enable the Department of Agriculture to go on with its work.
§ On Question, Whether the word "either" shall be there inserted?
§ Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 9; Not-Contents, 36.
De La Warr, E. Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull.) [Teller.] Passfield, L.
Gainford, L. Marley, L. [Teller.] Snell, L.
Wellington, D. Mount Edgcumbe, E. Fairfax of Cameron, L.
Exeter, M. Powis, E. Faringdon, L.
Bertie of Thame, V. Heneage, L.
Cawdor, E. Hailsham, V. Jessel, L.
Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.) [Teller.] Kinnaird, L.
Harrowby, E. Bayford, L. Latymer, L.
Iveagh, E. Biddulph, L. Lawrence, L.
Morton, E. Dynevor, L. Phillimore, L.
§ VISCOUNT ASTOR moved to add to paragraph (e) "or for a person who, being or having been a member of His Majesty's Forces, has had a suitable course of training for agriculture." The noble Viscount said: This Amendment and the others following in my name are consequential. I beg to move.
My Lords, the first Amendment standing in my name is consequential.
My Lords, I wish to move the next Amendment which stands in my name in a different form than that which appears on the Paper. There has been a printing error or some mistake of mine in putting down the Amendment. What I wish to propose is to leave out the words in paragraph (j) 1114 after "holdings" to the word "shall." It is necessary to leave in the last words in the paragraph—"shall not apply"—in order to make sense. The Amendment is consequential, but unfortunately it is printed wrongly on the Paper.
My Lords, there are two consequential amendments to this clause. I beg to move.
§ VISCOUNT HAILSHAM moved to leave out the First Schedule. The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential.
My Lords, it has been suggested that the Third Reading of this Bill should be put down for June 9. A considerable amount of redrafting will be needed.
I am much obliged to the noble Earl. That sounds a convenient date.

References: V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 

§ 8

§ 11
 V. 
 V.