HC Deb 24 June 1889 vol 337 cc562-82

Considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 1.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

MR. HENEAGE (Great Grimsby)

On the Second Reading of this Bill I think an almost unanimous desire was expressed for a Minister of Agriculture rather, than a Board of Agriculture; but as the First Lord of the Treasury has given no notification that the Government will concede what is the unanimous wish of hon. Members, I must say a few words in favour of the Amendment which I have placed on the Paper. I will ask, does the First Lord mean that the Board shall be a real Board, or a stillborn Board, or, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds has called it, a sham Board? The First Lord has said the Board of Agriculture is to be similar in constitution to the Board of Trade and the Local Government Board; but I should like to point out to the right hon. Gentleman—it may, perhaps, be a mere matter of detail—that the Board is not, in point of fact, the same in constitution as the other Boards. Unless I am entirely wrong there are several distinguished persons on these Boards of Trade and Local Government who are not on the present Board of Agriculture—such, for instance, as the Archbishop of Canterbury and Mr. Speaker. This may be a mere matter of detail; but I must point out that these Boards have never been called together for consultative purposes, and that to all practical intents they have been absolutely useless. But the First Lord of the Treasury has also stated that he expects that this Board will form part of the Government of the country. Now how, I should like to know, can a stillborn Board be a part of the Government of the country, and also when and how is it to be called together for consultative purposes to assist a Minister? I want to know how the First Lord reconciles these two statements? Either the Board is to be a real Board, or it is not to be a real Board. If it is to be a real Board, then it will take away from the responsibility and authority of the Minister of Agriculture under whatever name he may be called; and if it is not to be a real Board, then it is to be a sham. One or the other it must be, for I do not see how the First Lord can use both these arguments—in one breath tell the farmers throughout the country that the Board of Agriculture, as created by the first clause of the Bill, is not after all reality, but merely a form of words, and that really what is created is a Minister responsible for agriculture, while in another breath he assures them that it is to be a Board of experts. My desire is that there shall be a responsible Minister, that he shall be accessible to deputations and to all who wish to see and consult him, and that when he has stated his opinion and made an answer to a deputation that answer shall be carried out. We have had several instances in which the nominal Minister of Agriculture—namely, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—has been unable to carry out promises made. Especially was this so in 1883, when Mr. Dodson, then Chancellor of the Duchy and a Cabinet Minister, agreed to the shape in which a Bill in regard to cattle diseases was to be brought forward; but when the Bill came before the House it was found to be entirely different, and only after the defeat of the Government in the House was it restored to its original shape. I do not, however, now wish to go into the subject at length, because it was so thoroughly discussed on the Second Reading, and I believe the speakers then were unanimously in favour of a Minister instead of a Board. But I wish to dwell upon one or two of the arguments which have been advanced against the proposal embodied in my Amendment. I have been told, in the first place, that the word "Minister" is unknown to the law. That argument, I cannot help thinking, is mere pedantry; but I am perfectly willing to see another word substituted—Chancellor, for instance, or any other term that the ingenuity of the Treasury Bench may devise. I cannot, for my part, see any difficulty in accepting the designation of Chancellor of Agriculture, just as we have Chancellors of the Duchy of Lancaster aria Chancellors of the Exchequer. But, in the second place, I am told that a Board is preferable to a mere Minister, because in the latter case there would be no one to do the work should the Minister of Agriculture be himself away. I may, however, ask how is the work of other Ministers done when they are away, and how did my right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford do the work of Postmaster General for three months when the late Mr. Fawcett was ill? The fact that such arguments are used against my proposal is, I think, an evidence of the poverty of the objections raised. In the Amendment, as it now stands upon the Paper, I do not wish in any way to add a new office of profit to the Crown. The salary will be as laid down in the Bill as now drawn, and, under the powers of the Bill as asked for by the Government, I do not wish to add another such office of profit, because I believe the money may be easily saved by amalgamating the Office of Board of Works, or that of the Lord President of the Council, with that of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. So far as I am concerned I do not, as I have said, care what title the new Minister is given. I have never been able to see why the simplest way would not be to have a Department of Agriculture with the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster at its head. There is nothing, in my opinion, in a name; but what I do want is a really responsible head of the Department, and not a Minister who will be hampered by any other individual. I also desire that there shall not be a Board which he will be bound to consult. I shall be very glad to hear what are the objections hold by the First Lord to my proposal.

Amendment proposed,

In Clause 1, page 1, line 5, at beginning, after (1), insert— It shall be lawful for Her Majesty to appoint a Minister in charge of the interests of agriculture who shall hold office during Her Majesty's pleasure; and there shall be paid to such Minister of Agriculture a salary of two thousand pounds per annum.

* MR. W. H. SMITH

I am exceedingly glad that the right hon. Gentleman has had an opportunity of making a statement as to the differences between us. I understand him to be of opinion that a Board of Agriculture, I which is to be constituted in the same way as the Board of Trade or the Local Government Board are constituted, will differ from them, inasmuch as there will be something which will destroy the absolute responsibility of the Minister, which certainly exists in the case of the heads of the other Departments. I wish entirely to disabuse the mind of the House of that idea, and to assure hon. Members that the President of the Board of Agriculture, if the Bill now before the House passes into law, will be individually as responsible as are the First Lords of the Admiralty and of the Treasury and the Presidents of the Local Government Board and the Board of Trade. In each case the Minister presiding over those Boards is responsible to Parliament for the conduct of the business and for the policy of his Department. The right hon. Gentleman says the objection to the use of the term "Minister" is mere pedantry. But I should be 10th to introduce a term altogether foreign to English legislation, and surely there is something in precedent in dealing with these matters. We have no Minister in the true sense of the term; and the introduction of the term "Minister" would be an undesirable innovation in our official phraseology. I understand the object of the right hon. Gentleman to be to secure that the heads of the Department shall have complete and undivided responsibility. The right hon. Gentleman says that in the absence of a Minister any other Minister can discharge his duties. But in the absence of the head of a Department his duties can be discharged only by some one legally authorised to discharge them; one Secretary of State can act for another, and the Lords of the Admiralty may act in the absence of the First Lord. If in this case you create a Minister, and provide no one to act for him in his absence, the business of the Department will be suspended; but if there is a Board, any of the persons constituting it may act for the President in an emergency. Surely it will be an advantage to a President to have persons whom he can consult from time to time. In the President the hon. Member has the responsible Minister he desires; in the Board there are persons who can act for him if necessary. The Bill follows a precedent which has worked well in other Departments; and for all the reasons I have assigned I regret I cannot accept the Amendment.

SIR LYON PLAYFAIR (Leeds, S.)

I should like to have an explanation from the First Lord of the Treasury on one or two points arising under this clause. The Amendment of my right hon. Friend is not a novel one, for exactly the same words are to be found in the Secretary for Scotland Act. But there is one point peculiar to this clause, and to this I should like to direct his attention. It is that apparently by this clause the members of the Board need not necessarily be Members of the Privy Council. In other Departments where similar Boards exist the members have to be members of the Privy Council, but here there is no such provision; and what would happen would be this—that in the absence of the President a person, who is not a Privy Councillor, nor even a Member of Parliament, would be able to transact the business of the Department. I think that that is an anomaly and a serious innovation, and I should like to have an expression of opinion upon it from the First Lord of the Treasury.

* MR. W. H. SMITH

Undoubtedly it would be a serious innovation if a person, not being a member of the Privy Council, and not responsible to this House, were to be allowed to exercise executive functions. I was under the impression that it would not be competent for him to do so. If the words suggested by the right hon. Gentleman are required I will adopt them, in order to make it clear that the intention of the Government is that only members of the Privy Council or Members of this House shall discharge executive functions in connection with the Board.

* MR. CHANNING (Northampton, E.)

Before the right hon. Gentleman decides on that point I would ask him to consider whether it is not desirable, in the interests of agriculture, that there should be included in this Consultative Board gentlemen who may not be members of the Privy Council, but who may be able to contribute valuable information and opinions with regard to agricultural subjects.

* MR. W. H. SMITH

That is precisely what I said just now. I have already stated that it is desirable that the President of the proposed Board should have an opportunity of consulting persons of great experience in agricultural matters; but I felt the force of the objection raised by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, as to the undesirability of allowing them to undertake executive duties. I do consider that that is an objection which is reasonable, for it is not intended that persons who have no responsible position in this House or under Her Majesty should undertake executive functions.

Amendment put, and negatived.

Original Question again proposed.

* MR. CHANNING

I have now to propose the insertion of words which will secure that persons holding office as Land Commissioners at the date of the passing of the Act should be members of the proposed Board. As the very large powers of the Land Commission are to be handed over to the Board under this Bill I think it is very desirable that the services of the Land Commissioners should be secured upon the Board. It would materially strengthen the hands of the President if that were done, for it would enable him to deal with the questions coming before him more efficiently and more economically.

Amendment proposed, Clause I page 1, line 10, after "Scotland,'' insert "any person who holds office as Land Commissioner at the passing of this Act."

* MR. W. H. SMITH

I think that the hon. Member has not fully weighed the provisions of the 9th clause of this Bill, for it distinctly contemplates the possibility of the Land Commissioners being members of the Board. I think it would be exceedingly inconvenient and contrary to precedent if gentlemen in the position of Land Commissioners were to be transferred to this new Board whether they like it or not. I trust that the hon. Gentleman will not press his Amendment.

* MR. F. S. STEVENSON (Suffolk, Eye)

The powers exercised by the Land Commissioners are of so extensive a nature that it is most desirable there should be a more definite guarantee than the right hon. Gentleman has just given us, that those powers shall continue to be exer- cised in the same manner as they are now exercised. Surely, unless you definitely enact that these Land Commissioners are to form part of the new Board of Agriculture, you will have no guarantee that these powers will continue to be exercised on the same basis of experience as in the past.

* MR. W. H. SMITH

The Government have the highest opinion of the services rendered by the Land Commissioners, and will be only too anxious and too glad to avail themselves of their services in the future in a manner which is found to be in the interests of the country.

* MR. CHANNING

Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that the Chief Land Commissioner is certainly to be added to the Board? If he says that, I will not press the Amendment; but I do wish to point out that the Chief Land Commissioner is one of the greatest authorities on agricultural topics in this. country.

* MR. H. H. FOWLER (Wolverhampton, E.)

I am afraid that the proposition which my hon. Friend has made to the Government would, if accepted, leave undone the very thing he wants to do. We all know that there will be no Consultative Board any more than there has been a Consultative Board at the Board of Trade or at the Local Government Board. Nor is that what the agricultural interest desire. They desire that the Minister shall be individually responsible. The Leader of the House has, with perfect candour, told us that the new Minister is to occupy a precisely similar position to the President of the Board of Trade and the President of the Local Government Board. Well, we know that neither the President of the Board of Trade nor the President of the Local Government Board consults anybody. I believe it is true the Board of Trade includes the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Speaker of this House, and a great many other distinguished individuals, but the Board has never met, and I suppose it never will meet. I am desirous that the Land Commissioners should continue to render their great services to this country. I want to secure positively that the existing staff shall continue to serve the Board; but to put them on the Board would practically be removing them from the Public Service.

SIR R. PAGET (Somerset, Wells)

Agriculturists do not want to have a Consultative Board, and undoubtedly it would be a great satisfaction to them to have the distinct assurance of the Leader of the House that the position of the President of the Board of Agriculture will be precisely analogous to the position of the President of the Board of Trade and to that of the President of the Local Government Board. I think that may best be secured by leaving out the words in a sub section which——

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order! There is an Amendment now under discussion.

SIR R. PAGET

The hon. Member's Amendment now before us embodies the principle of having a Consultative Board, and my Amendment, which I hope to bring forward presently, will be in opposition to that principle. I hold very strongly that we should have an assurance from the First Lord of the Treasury that there shall not be a Board to share the responsibility of the President, but that that Minister shall be alone responsible for the new Department.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SIR R. PAGET

I beg to move the omission of the words— And such other persons (if any) as Her Majesty the Queen may from time to time think fit to appoint during Her Majesty's pleasure.

MR. HENEAGE

I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accede to this Amendment. He has distinctly stated that this Board is to remain a Board. What we want to provide is that any other persons of authority may be attached to the staff of the Department, so that the Minister may consult them, and not that they may be attached to the Board, which he will not consult.

* MR. W. H. SMITH

I would prefer to retain these words for further consideration. I think it might be valuable to have it in our power to appoint persons on this Board. But I will consider the question previous to Report, and will then state what course I propose.

SIR R. PAGET

I should like the Committee to take the course most convenient to the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee, and I am prepared to accede to the proposition for the withdrawal of the Amendment.

* MR. CHANNING

I should like to record the opinion that it will be desirable to retain these words.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

* MR. CHANNING

In line 14, I beg to move after "Privy Council" to insert "who shall be elected to the House of Commons." As there will be no Parliamentary Secretary to the Board it would be indispensable that the President should have a seat in the House of Commons so as to be really and directly responsible to the House.

Amendment proposed, Clause 1, p. 1, line 13, after "Council" insert who shall be elected to the House of Commons."—(Mr. Channing.)

* MR. W. H. SMITH

I hope the hon. Member will not press this Amendment. It is entirely a new proposal to give a, direction to Her Majesty as to the position her Ministers should occupy. I am not aware that there is any provision of that kind with reference to any Minister whatever, although of course there are customs which are always followed. I can state my own belief that the President of the Board would, as a matter of course, be a Member of the House of Commons, but I hope the hon. Gentleman will see that it is not necessary or desirable that a provision of this kind should be introduced into an Act of Parliament.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1, added to the Bill.

Clause 2.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

SIR G. CAMPBELL (Kirkcaldy, &c.)

I should like to move the insertion of the word "horticulture" after the word "agriculture" in line 28. No doubt in this Bill "agriculture" is made to include "horticulture," but I want to emphasize and accentuate the duty of the Board to deal with questions of horticulture. My view is, that the duties of the Board will be much more important as regards horticulture than as regards agriculture. Agriculture is in this country pretty well able to take care of itself. We have in this country, perhaps, the finest agriculture in the world, and it is well looked after by great Societies and by Parliament. As far as I can see, all that is necessary is that the more backward people of the southern counties in England should go to Scotland to learn the system of agriculture that prevails there. As regards horticulture, however, I think we have everything to learn from foreign countries. In the culture of garden produce, vegetables, eggs, and produce, we are exceedingly backward.

Amendment proposed, Clause 1, page 1, line 28, "After 'agriculture,' to insert 'horticulture.'"—(Sir G. Campbell.)

* MR. W. H. SMITH

I trust the hon. Member will not consider it necessary to press this Amendment. Horticulture is in the Bill distinctly included in agriculture, and we are quite satisfied-that the Bill will he as careful of horticulture as of agriculture.

MR. CHAPLIN (Lincolnshire, Sleaford)

I should like to point out that the expression "agriculture" expressly includes horticulture.

MR. F. S. STEVENSON

Whether the Amendment be necessary or not, I trust the new Department will give careful attention to the subject, and will endeavour to promote the object which the hon. Gentleman has in view. In the American Department of Agriculture, I may point out that there is one division which is specially devoted to botany, another which devotes itself to obtaining seeds from different parts of America, and encouraging their cultivation.

SIR G. CAMPBELL

I quite admit that horticulture is technically included, and, therefore, I cannot press the Amendment if the Government will not accept it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SIR G. CAMPBELL

I now beg to propose the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Munro Ferguson), to leave out "and forestry." If the clause stands as it does now, a more prominent position will be given to forestry than is given to horticulture.

Amendment proposed, Clause 2, page 1, line 28, to leave out "and forestry."—(Sir G. Campbell.)

* MR. W. H. SMITH

I cannot accept the Amendment.

MR. MUNRO FERGUSON (Leith)

My object in putting this Amendment on the Paper was to point out that very insufficient consideration had been given to the Report issued by the Forestry Committee some two years ago in relation to this Bill. That Committee recommended the provision of machinery by which the instruction of forestry should be properly undertaken. Under this Bill some half-dozen of the hardest worked servants of the State are nominated to take charge of forestry education in this country. I think that some more serious attention ought to be given to the subject than it is likely at present to receive. Unless we have an assurance that some further provision will be made in the interest of forestry in this country, I do not think any good purpose will be served by leaving the word "forestry" in this clause.

COLONEL COTTON (Cheshire, Wirral)

I hope this word will be left in, because one of the most important functions the Board will have to perform will relate to forestry. This is the case in which experts will be of most use, and will best promote the interests of forestry.

* SIR J. LUBBOCK (London University)

I quite agree with my hon. Friend below me (Mr. Munro Ferguson) in pressing on the Government the desirableness of giving more effect to the recommendations of the Committee, on which both he and I had the honour of sitting. At the same time, while concurring in what he said, I do not arrive at the same conclusion. I should be sorry to leave out the word "forestry" because, by so doing, we might fall between two stools. The Bill does not do all that we could wish, but if we let the word "forestry" stand I hope that under it some at least of what was recommended by the Committee may be effected.

MR. MUNRO FERGUSON

The provision made under the Bill for the instruction of forestry is so inadequate that it seems to me it would be almost as well to omit the word "forestry" altogether. But I am quite prepared to withdraw my Amendment if we have some assurance that special provision will be made for the teaching of forestry as indicated by the Chairman of the Forestry Committee.

* MR. W. H. SMITH

I think it will be seen that this sub-section gives a practical direction to the President of the Board of Agriculture to pay special attention to forestry. He is to undertake the collection and preparation of statistics with reference to agriculture and forestry, and is to provide for the inspection of and reporting on schools in which technical instruction on these subjects is given.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

* SIR EDMUND LECHMERE (Worcestershire, Bewdley)

I beg to move, in page 2, line 1, the insertion after "any" of "examining bodies or." I happened to be a member of the Committee on Forestry, and the Amendment I propose bears on the question of making the Forestry Department as useful and practical as possible. I do not suppose that 10 per cent of the men who are engaged in the practical work of forestry derive any benefit from the present agricultural colleges. I believe myself that unless we have some system of examination carried out under the auspices of a Forest Department of the Board of Agriculture, very little progress will be made in practical forestry. The Committee strongly recommended that there should be a Forestry Board, which should provide for examinations and grant certificates, and I may say that those recommendations have been endorsed by no less than eight very important societies and bodies, such as the Royal Agricultural Society, the Highland and Agricultural Society of Scotland, the Royal Dublin Society, and the Office of Woods and Forests. I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name, and which I believe is calculated to give effect to those recommendations.

Amendment proposed, Clause 2, page 2, Sub-section 2, line 1, after "any," to insert "examining bodies or."—(Sir E. Lechmere.)

* MR. W. H. SMITH

I understand that the object my hon. Friend has in view is to secure that recognition shall be given to any competent body which is capable of conducting examinations in forestry. I should have thought that the terms of the clause as they stand would have secured that object, but in order to remove any doubt on the subject, I would suggest the addition after "forestry," in line 7, of the words "and the inspection of and reporting on any examination in agriculture and forestry." The result of introducing those words would be that if there was any competent body constituted to conduct examinations with reference to forestry, it would be the duty of the Board to inspect and report upon such examinations. I do not think we could ourselves undertake to set up an examining body. It has not hitherto been the practice of the State to undertake duties of that character, but it is a very useful function of the State to inspect and report upon schools and bodies constituted for the purpose of conducting examinations or giving instruction. I, therefore, hope my hon. Friend will accept my suggestion.

* SIR J. LUBBOCK

I do not think the words suggested would quite carry out the proposed object, unless it is clear that they would enable the Board to aid the institutions referred to. A Forest School stands in a totally different position from any other school, and every other civilized country in the world has a Forest School. You cannot teach forestry unless you have access to a forest of considerable extent. We have not the words before us, but I hardly think the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion would have the effect intended, and I would suggest that he should consider the matter before the Report.

* MR. W. H. SMITH

I think the hon. Gentleman has hardly mastered the true meaning of the words which would precede those I suggest, and I believe my proposal would have the effect which the hon. Gentleman desires.

MR. BEADEL (Essex, Chelmsford)

I should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman could see his way to accept the Amendment.

MR. MUNRO FERGUSON

The object which the Committee on Forestry desired to secure was that the subject should receive the attention of a special Department. The next best thing is that it should have the attention of a special sub-Department, such as is provided for by the Amendment. I think it is much to be regretted that forestry is to be a detail of the work of the Minister for Agriculture, as in my opinion it requires special attention. There ought to be some specific recognition by the State of its intention to undertake the direct encouragement of forestry.

DR. FARQUHARSON (Aberdeenshire, W.)

I think we ought to undertake to give instruction to what I may call the small men. The object of the Amendment is to encourage the attainment of a certain amount of knowledge on the subject, by providing the means of examination. If opportunities are given for study, men will go through a practical course, following it up by examination at the hands of a recognized body. As the Amendment tends in this direction, I shall be glad to support it.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

The subject of forestry is one in which I take a great deal of interest; but I confess I have read the Report of the Committee, of which the hon. Baronet the Member for London University was Chairman, and I never read a Report by a Committee so entirely contradicted by the evidence taken. As I read the evidence the witnesses throughout declared their opinion that a school of forestry was not wanted, and would not be of use. Lord Seafield's forest was alluded to; but all the evidence tended to show that it did not offer the opportunities for study that would make the establishment of a school of forestry useful. That was the impression produced on my mind by the evidence before the Committee. I understand the First Lord does propose to require that forestry shall be a matter to be taken into the cognizance of the Board of Agriculture, and very properly so. Those who as woodmen or land agents wish to qualify themselves for examination in forestry will do so as they best can, and the Board of Agriculture will give certificates on examination under such rules as they may provide. That is a far more practical and economical way of dealing with the subject than if you attempted to establish a great school of forestry. I doubt if you could ever do so, for you have not wide extents of forests to deal with as in France and Germany. It is quite proper that the subject should be recognized by the Board of Agriculture enabling persons to get certificates of knowledge.

* SIR JOHN LUBBOCK

I am very much surprised at what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman. I speak in the hearing of several Members of the Committee, and I may say our Report was arrived at quite unanimously, and certainly they were not under the impression which the right hon. Gentleman seems to have derived from the evidence. I do not think this is the occasion to go into a discussion of the reasons for the establishment of a school of forestry; but I may say that while, no doubt, persons can train themselves for woodmen in large woods, such as those of Lord Seafield, that will not educate them in the higher branches of the subject. Every other great European country has a forestry school. The proposal however now before the Committee is of a narrower character. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that the words "in aiding" will govern the latter part of the sentence. Perhaps he will make this quite clear on Report. That being so, I think the hon. Baronet will have gained his object, and might be content to accept the suggestion of the Leader of the House and withdraw his Amendment.

* SIR. EDMUND LECHMERE

My object is simply to provide that a recognized examining body should carry out the work of examination in forestry, but I am perfectly willing to accept the modification proposed.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed (Mr. W. H. Smith). Line 2, at end to insert— And the inspection of and reporting on any examination in agriculture and forestry.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed (Sir E. Lech-mere). Line 11, at end insert the following sub-section— The Board of Agriculture may further constitute a Departmental Committee for Forestry.

* MR. W. H. SMITH

I would suggest to my hon. Friend that this addition is quite unnecessary. No doubt the Board of Agriculture has the power to any extent of appointing Departmental Committees, and it will be the duty of the Board to appoint such Committees where necessary, and my hon. Friend will have full opportunity of obtaining full information from the Board when constituted.

MR. MUNRO FERGUSON

I think that this sub-section might be so amended as to provide that the Board of Agriculture shall constitute such a Departmental Committee. Those who are in favour of securing better attention to forestry desire that there should be some special recognition of this subject. I believe, as was pointed out by the right hon. Member for Derby, that, so far as the present instruction in forestry goes, the opportunities offered in our forests are of an extremely limited character; but I believe if the subject were properly taken up, there would be large additions to the planting for the raising of timber. I would amend the Amendment by inserting "shall," instead of "may."

* MR. LAWSON (St. Pancras, W.)

It seems to me that naturally after the passing of this clause the Board will be bound to appoint a certain number of trained officers to perform this part of the Departmental duties, and the Amendment is quite unnecessary. The Department will work out its system like any other.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

MR. T. ELLIS (Merionethshire)

May I ask whether it is proposed to include under this clause the management of Woods and Forests and Crown Lands?

MR. W. H. SMITH

I imagine that the Department of Woods and Forests being a Government Department it is naturally within the power of Her Majesty in Council to transfer to the Board of Agriculture any duties She may judge will be more fitly discharged by the Board than by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 4.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

* MR. H. H. FOWLER

On the Second Reading of the Bill there was a general understanding to which the Government assented that we should not create a new and expensive staff in creating this Department. What we are doing is to utilize existing machinery, bringing it together and putting it under one head responsible to Parliament. Under Clause 8 there will be transferred to the new Department the officers attached to the Privy Council Department of Agriculture and also to the Land Commission. These will constitute a costly, numerous, and, I believe, a very efficient staff to discharge the duties of the new Department. Now, the clause empowers the Board to appoint a Secretary and such officers and servants as the Board may determine; but I want to save the First Lord from the trouble and anxiety that will arise, and the gentle pressure that will be put upon him—and I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman near him will not be one of his tempters—to provide some gentleman with the post of Secretary. I have no fear of the Government so far as officers and servants generally are concerned—no doubt they will utilize the existing staff of clerks—but I have some fear in regard to the appointment of Secretary. I think, however, that in the existing staff of the Privy Council or the Land Commission there could be found many gentlemen admirably qualified to discharge the duties of Secretary to the new Department. It is to save the First Lord from the pressure that may be put upon him, to find a new appointment for some gentleman whose claims, no doubt, may be well supported, that I move this Amendment, which will apply in the first appointment, not in subsequent appointments.

Amendment proposed, in line 37, at end, to add— Such secretary, officers, and servants shall on the first occasion be appointed from the persons transferred and attached to the Board of Agriculture under the provisions of this Act.

* MR. W. H. SMITH

I have no reason to complain because the right hon. Gentleman wishes to save me trouble and anxiety in the discharge of my duty to the country. The right hon. Gentleman is well aware that it falls to the lot of the First Lord of the Treasury to make such appointments, and in the discharge of this duty, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and myself have taken a good deal of trouble in past years. But I am able to state, with some satisfaction, that with one or two exceptions necessary under exceptional circumstances we have prevented the entry into the public service of any first-class clerk during the past two years. Vacancies have, in 25 instances, been filled by transfers from other Departments, thus securing a distinct economy in the administration of the Public Service. I mention this, not as claiming any amount of undue credit, but as indication of the spirit in which we intend to proceed in what w e consider our duty. The right hon. Gentleman's Amendment points specifically to the Secretary of the new Board of Agriculture; and I wish to assure him and the Committee that the Government will endeavour to the utmost of our ability to provide the Secretary from the staff of the existing Departments. I believe there is no Gentleman to whom greater credit is due in discharge of duties, sometimes of great responsibility, under the Privy Council, duties of a nature similar to those that will devolve upon the new Department, than Mr. Lennox Peel, Secretary to the Privy Council, and if we can induce Mr. Lennox Peel to undertake the responsible duties of Secretary, the Department will greatly gain from his services. I mention this name, and I might mention others, but I think the Committee will see that to make it absolutely imperative on us to find a Secretary from those Departments might possibly place us in considerable difficulty. Our object has been to fill up vacancies as they occurred by transfer, and we have done so in almost every case. In these circumstances I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept my assurance that, if possible, we will carry out the spirit of his Amendment, and that no effort shall be wanting on our part to respect economy combined with efficiency. I hope he will not press his Amendment, but accept my assurance of a bonâ fide intention to give effect to the suggestion he makes.

* SIR J. LUBBOCK

I quite concur in the spirit which prompts the Amendment, but I would venture to point out that if it were adopted as it stands we should have nobody connected with the Department knowing anything about forestry. The Committee have already decided that there should be no special provision for providing a Department of Forestry, because the Board will have the power of instituting such a Department, but if we limit the power of the Government, and insist on their taking the secretary and staff from the existing Departments, I am afraid it would be almost impossible to obtain that special knowledge of forestry which is desired. We all agree with the general spirit of the Amendment; but it will probably be better to leave the matter to the discretion of the Government.

* MR. H. H. FOWLER

The spirit of the right hon. Gentleman is all that I could expect or desire in answer to my Amendment. I think the pledge he has given is quite as sufficient as if formal words were inserted in the Bill. Certainly, I can bear testimony to many cases which have come within my knowledge, in which the right hon. Gentleman has prevented the filling up of sinecure offices in the Civil Service, and has effected economies by transfers, and I hope the system will continue and be carried out, and more extensively. I am quite satisfied with the undertaking which the right hon. Gentleman has given, and I wish to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4 agreed to.

Clauses 5 to 7 agreed to.

Clause 8.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

* MR. H. H. FOWLER

In this clause I propose to substitute the word "all" for the words "such of the." I wish the transfer of the staff to be complete. If a discretion is vested in the Board of Agriculture or the Treasury, there will be a number of clerks and other servants who will ask for pensions or retiring allowances instead of continuing service under the new Department.

Amendment proposed, line 29, to leave out "such of the" for the purpose of inserting the word "all."

* MR. W. H. SMITH

There is some difficulty in adopting this Amendment precisely. There are officers who are engaged both in the Department of Agriculture and in the ordinary duties of the Privy Council Office, and to adopt this Amendment would mean to transfer gentlemen who would not have a sufficient amount of work.

* MR. H. FOWLER

That objection might be met by the words "all persons exclusively employed." But I do not wish to spring an Amendment on the right hon. Gentleman without consideration. Perhaps he will consider the point between now and Report? I see the difficulty he indicates, and will not press the Amendment now.

* MR. W. H. SMITH

If it appears necessary in the public interest that our hands should be strengthened as the right hon. Gentleman suggest, I will introduce these or other words for the same purpose on Report.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

* MR. CHANNING

The intention of my Amendment is obvious, and I need only move it formally to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not desirable that the new Board should be consulted upon the transfer of officials. I think the President of the now Board should have a voice in the appointment of officials in his Department.

Amendment proposed, line 32, after "as" insert "the Board of Agriculture with the assent of."

* MR. W. H. SMITH

I think the responsibility of selection must be left to the Privy Council and the Treasury, and it will be better so than to throw it upon the new President, who perhaps may have little knowledge or experience of the Department, and might be subjected to influences to which it is extremely undesirable he should be exposed.

* MR. LAWSON

This discretion would be most dangerous. The President would be able to pick and choose among existing officials. Those rejected would retire upon abolition terms, as has been so often the case upon the reorganization of Departments, and the Exchequer would have another shameful addition to its burden of pensions.

* MR. CHANNING

I may point out that the responsibility would remain with the Privy Council and the other Departments. I simply asked that the new Department should be consulted as to the selection of its officers, but I do not wish to press the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 8 agreed to.

Clause 9.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

* MR. H. H. FOWLER

I must press the second Amendment of which I have given notice, to substitute "shall" for "may." The proviso is to the effect that any person who holds office as Land Commissioner for England at the passing of this Act may be assigned such position in or under the Board of Agriculture as Her Majesty may direct. I wish to raise the question whether the Land Commissioners are or-are not to be attached to the Board of Agriculture. I want to put it beyond doubt. The right hon. Gentleman will see it is not a matter for discretion in regard to these highly paid servants of the State; it should be a clearly expressed intention not open to question. I, therefore, now move that the word "may" be struck out before "be assigned," and the word "shall" substituted for it.

Amendment proposed, page 4, line 12, to leave out "may" and insert "shall."

Question proposed, "That the word proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

* MR. W. H. SMITH

I am not indisposed to accept the Amendment. I think we practically mean the same thing. The right hon. Gentleman is aware that a vacancy on the Commission has not been filled having this Bill in view. As regards the use of the word "shall," I was always under the impression that "may" did mean "shall" in such cases. I do not like to use stronger terms than are necessary. It is the intention of the Government to assign this position to the Land Commissioners now serving the Crown, a position adequate to that they have held in the past. I fully recognize their services, and I hope they will be content to occupy this position. I do not know if, under the circumstances, the right hon. Gentleman thinks it necessary to make the verbal alteration. We have the same intention.

Question put, and negatived.

Question, "That the word shall ' be inserted;" put, and agreed to.

Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.

Remaining clauses agreed to.

Bill reported to the House; as amended, to be considered upon Thursday; to be printed. [Bill 285.]