§ Motion made, and Question proposed,
§ 1. "That a sum not exceeding £43,959, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st. day of March, 1917, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Board of Agriculture for Scotland, including certain Grants-in-Aid." [NOTE. —£25,000 has been voted on account.]
§ Mr. MACPHERSONI am fortunate in being the first Scottish Member on a Scottish day in the House of Commons to catch your eye, because I desire to express on 1091 behalf of all my Scottish colleagues our delight at seeing my right hon. Friend the late Under-Secretary for War and the present Secretary for Scotland (Mr. Tennant) in his place in control of the Scottish Estimates. I feel sure that my right hon. Friend will bring a deep and sympathetic interest to bear on all Scottish problems. He has Scottish instincts and Scottish traditions, and I feel certain, in view of my own personal experience of his work in the War Office for two hard years, that at the end of two hard years of work in Scotland he will leave his native country and mine a better country than he found it.
Many problems will be raised in the course of this Debate, but I think that no problem has got the same urgency or importance as the land problem. I speak more particularly for the North of Scotland. In many places in that part of Scotland not to touch the land is not to touch life. It is the main industry of the North of Scotland. Almost every single person in the North of Scotland is connected with it directly or indirectly. I think, further, that important as it is at the present moment, it will be infinitely more important after the end of this War. I have here the Report of the Land Court of Scotland, and I would like to read one quotation which I am glad to think refers to my own Constituency, and particularly to the Island of Lewis, in connection with the question of land settlement in Scotland. I will read one short paragraph:
The importance of such settlements from the national point of view may be illustrated by a brief statement, showing how the settlers of Aignish have responded to the call for men since the commencement of the War. From the hook 'Loyal Lewis," containing a 'Roll of Honour' for each township in Lewis, recently published, we find on examination of the names that the thirty-two holdings in Aignish have contributed fifty-three men for the defence of King and country, distributed among the various branches of the Services.I think that what is true of that little hamlet in the Island of Lewis is largely true of every village of the North of Feet-land, and those facts were true long before we heard of any Military Service Act. From the same Report one is able to judge of the work which is being done in connection with the land problem in the North of Scotland. I frankly confess that this Report is largely a story of work undone, well told. Those of us who have taken an interest in the question knew the difficulties. Two distinct bodies were created under the Small Landholders Act —the Land Court and the Board of Agriculture, In estimating the success of 1092 either, you have to remember that the Land Court had its principles and its groundwork long established by the Crofters Commission, while the Board of Agriculture was a new body with no established principle or groundwork and with much leeway to make up. It had, moreover, to endure a good deal of criticism, many of its critics believing that, handicapped as it was, it would prove incapable of performing its duties. When one looks at the Report one is bound to confess that this has been the case. I have already said how necessary it is to have people settled on the land in Scotland, yet we find in this Report that, particularly in the last year, the Board of Agriculture has seen its way to suggest to the Land Court to dismiss schemes which were prepared for the furtherance of the question of dealing with the land. I cannot compute, offhand, how many acres were thus dismissed from the various schedules; but this has got to be said for the Board of Agriculture, that since the War began it has been handicapped to a tremendous extent by the fact that the £200,000 which had been allocated to it under the Act has been taken from it, and you find scheme after scheme in the course of operation has now been finally given its quietus, because of the fact, as we are told, that no money is forthcoming to spend for the purposes of this Act. No country in the United Kingdom has done so much for this War as Scotland has done. It is a curious fact, when looking through the statistics, particularly in regard to the North of Scotland, that the main support there of the British Army and the British Empire came from those very small landholders.And we were told, and are being told anew, so far as I know, that we are not to get this £200,000 with which to settle people on the land. It is curious that there has been no reduction so far as I know with regard to the Grant for agriculture in Ireland, and. quite recently, we find a scheme put forward at the suggestion of what is called the Verney Committee to give £2,000,000 for the settlement of soldiers in England, yet we who have long been alive to the importance of settling people on the land in Scotland have been deprived of this miserable £200,000. The first proposal I make to my right hon. Friend is that he will see to it —and I am perfectly certain he will have the support of every single Scottish Member—that we are not any longer to be 1093 deprived of a sum which is legitimately ours, and also that we shall have all the arrears paid to us, so that we may give effect to the proposals of the Act. The next proposal which I know will be discussed, and which bears directly upon the Vote of the Board of Agriculture, is the question of afforestation. I have the honour to belong to the Advisory Committee on Forestry in Scotland, and quite recently, and even previously, but quite recently particularly, I have taken deep interest in this question of afforestation, and I may frankly tell the House that I have always, openly, been opposed to any scheme of afforestation which did not carry along with it the question of small holdings as a complement. I rarely, particularly in the Highlands of Scotland, met any people who were interested in the question of afforestation as afforestation, but I do sincerely believe now that if my right hon. Friend would undertake to consider the proposal first of all for small land holdings, plus afforestation, as the complement to small holdings, he will not find a single dissenting voice among the Scottish Members. All of us know that on a Scottish croft it is exceedingly difficult to make both ends meet. The people there are deeply attached to their crofts, which have belonged to their fathers and grandfathers, which have belonged to their families generation after generation, and it is extremely difficult, with these people, however poor their circumstances, to induce them to leave the crofts. It is the old story, give a man secure possession of a rock and he will turn it into a garden. You may see from time to time in Scotland, on bleak pieces of moorland, carefully cultivated green patches, which are due to the devoted attachment of those people to the soil of their country, and this is the class on which this country has been greatly dependent during the whole course of this War.
Recently there was a scheme adumbrated by friends in Scotland, and particularly by Dr. Mackay, with whom there were associated landlords, military officers, and men of all shades of opinion. They all combined to foster and to make progress with a scheme by means of which disabled soldiers may be trained at a certain centre where are the Highland regiments, in order to enable them, after they have received such training, to make the best possible use of the land. I wish to impress, and I am sure my hon. Friends on 1094 all sides of the House will desire to impress on my right hon. Friend, that not only must they give those who are already equipped and ready to take a piece of land and work it, an opportunity of going back to the land, with the full co-operation of all parties, but he must particularly in the case of wounded and disabled soldiers, who are still able to work, do everything he can in favour of this scheme of training which has been adumbrated. We never had a better chance or opportunity of solving the land problem in Scotland—a problem which we have always with us. Everybody, both landlord and tenant, and would-be landlords and would-be tenants, is sincerely desirous at the present moment of solving this problem. We have gone a long way towards solving it, and I think that with the hearty co-operation of all parties, under the guidance, good will, and, if I may say so, affection, of my right hon. Friend, we might probably solve the problem now. I need not add anything more, save again to impress upon my right hon. Friend the points to which I have drawn his attention; and I trust that my hon. colleagues on the other side of the House will give their support to the suggestions which I have made.
§ Sir GEORGE YOUNGERI join very cordially in offering from hon. Members on this side of the House their congratulations to my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland, who is now in his place. I have often said that the man who becomes Secretary for Scotland finds, if he did not know it before, that he has become a Jack-of-all-Trades. That is the unfortunate position of every Secretary for Scotland. Every other Minister has one particular occupation; the Secretary for Scotland has a very great variety. He will find it very difficult to overtake all the duties which fall to his office, but he will have the satisfaction, I am sure, of the assistance of hon. Members in this House in carrying out his difficult duties. I have listened to the speech of my hon. Friend opposite, and I agree with everything he has said, except on one question. I hope, with him, that some day or other the Grant for small holdings will be restored, and that the country will be well enough off to pay up arrears. I rather gather that the hon. Gentleman deplores the fact that this money is not being paid now, and the necessity that has been caused of dropping the constitution of small holdings at the present moment; but this has been forced 1095 upon the Board of Agriculture as a war measure by the economic conditions of the times. The increase in the cost of buildings, in the cost of fencing, drainage, road making, and anything of that kind, is enormous, making it perfectly impossible for small landholders, if we imposed upon them the payment of any kind of annuity, to accept such a burden. A great many of the holdings which have been constituted have not been economic, according to the sense of that word, and to attempt to constitute them now would, I think, not only be futile, but would be fatal, both in the interests of those who are placed on the holdings and equally in the interest of the British taxpayer. That is the only exception I can find to what the hon. Gentleman stated, and with that reservation I think I practically agree with every word the right hon. Gentleman has said. I do not want to be too critical in saying anything about the Board of Agriculture just now, and we cannot speak of that body without referring to the Land Court, nor can we speak of the Land Court without associating with it the Board of Agriculture. In regard to the proceedings during 1915 in the formation of small holdings, we have correspondence going deeply into the work of the landlords in regard to the scheme which the Board of Agriculture laid before them.
There is evidence of a great deal of work by the Board of Agriculture. No one can complain that they have not performed their duties with assiduity. They have done their best in difficult circumstances, and, with an extremely difficult Act to work, to carry out the duties imposed upon them. Some of the schemes do not seem to have been altogether suitable. I have never believed, and I do not believe now, that the present Landholders Act should have been applied to the South of Scotland. The conditions in the South are very different from those in the North. I thought that the gravest difficulties would arise in the South, and that practically the Act would break down. I do not think anybody in the South will deny that it has broken down there. I am not at all surprised—I do not think anybody is—that hon. Members opposite have a desire to consider this matter de novo—to, if possible, take the actual facts with which we have to deal, and to have some land settlement which will be more 1096 economical and work more successfully. I am sure if they can place before those who sit with me any reasonable or fair suggestions which are likely to be of advantage to be successful, we are quite willing to consider them carefully and deal with them, I hope honestly and generously, and to see our way out of this wretched impasse if we possibly can. Everybody who says a word about the land system thinks that the Act as it stands will not do, and that it is desirable, if at all possible, to have some alteration. I do not want to deal critically with the suitability of the schemes which have been submitted. I notice there is a complaint of small schemes being issued on the ground that they are expensive and do not add many landholders. I think it would be desirable to have large colonies as far as possible planned, and in that way you would get the whole advantage of the system, and it would also be more economical. We had no discussion of these Estimates last year. I think we expressly avoided any Debate last year on the Board of Agriculture or land. We did not want to raise old controversies and we thought the safest way was to hold our tongues. The present Financial Secretary asked whether we would wish a discussion and we decided we would not ask for it. We have now, therefore, knowledge which we did not possess last year of the actual position with regard to the Lindean case decision. The House of Lords has made it perfectly clear that our views were correct. It is perfectly fair that compensation should be paid and that is nothing more than the promise which Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman gave. But that some better means should be found of dealing with these matters is equally true. In the Lowlands of Scotland we should try and purchase the land and deal with it in that way. If some people want to lease it, let them do so; and if people want to buy, let them buy. We should all try to get rid of difficulties which, if we go on with the system on a large scale in the future, will unquestionably retard matters. I notice that the Board refer to the advance in the cost of material, building, fencing and so forth, with the view of emphasising the situation, and, although they do not say so in so many words, indicate that it is their desire to rest on their oars in the meantime.
In dealing with some of these schemes the Board have been very critical. For 1097 instance, they point out cases in which the land is unsuitable for small holdings while adjoining land is suitable, and that land of inferior quality is sometimes taken. All that may be very true, and it shows the difficulty which confronts the Board in trying to discover schemes and in putting them forward. I am not disposed to lay too much blame on them, and, although they have made mistakes, they have certainly done their best under the circumstances in which they are placed. The dispute of long standing as to whether or not the establishment of small holdings depreciates or appreciates the value of an estate has, I think, been practically settled by the experience at Ballancrief, where a farm was offered for sale, and the case of two farms in East Lothian, near Drem. There is the question, for instance, as to whether small holdings are satisfactorily farmed, and difficulties may arise from the fact that the right class of tenant has not been chosen. Some most extraordinary tenants have been chosen, and not the kind which Parliament thought would be settled on these holdings. There is a case of a contractor who has received a holding for himself and one for a son and another for a daughter. There are cases of market gardeners, and one man with a distillery—there is no brewer yet—and there is a case of an aerated water manufacturer, and a jeweller. Those are not the class of people for whom those holdings were intended.
§ The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Tennant)May I ask where the hon. Baronet obtains the particulars as to the status of various persons on the land?
§ Sir G. YOUNGERI think those particulars were given to me by the Land Federation of Scotland in Edinburgh.
§ Sir G. YOUNGERI give those instances to emphasise the fact that the class of person whom we expected to settle on these holdings do not come forward. I do not blame the Board for selecting the best class of tenant and substantial people who will be able to pay the rent, but those are not the class of people who were expected to settle in the South.
§ Mr. W. YOUNGThere are over 5,000 cases.
§ 5.0 P.M.
§ Sir G. YOUNGERAn extraordinary number have been found to be unsuitable. 1098 Some day or other, when there is more time at the Board of Agriculture—and I am sure they are overworked now—we ought to have a Return of these holdings, the class of tenants, the fertility of the soil, and particulars of that kind, which would enable us to know where we are. I confess we have really no accurate information at present. That is why I do not want to make any charges or be too critical. I rather want to find excuses for the Board than to make any complaint of them. I quite sympathise with them in the difficulties they have to deal with. It is all the better to point out the difficulties, to emphasise the position in which the land question is in Scotland, and the desirability of, if at all possible, mending it and improving it. I am a little sorry that there has not been more go on the part of the Board of Agriculture in pushing the kelp industry. We had a discussion in the House, and there was mention of certain experiments and of inquiries being made by a professor. I am sure that very valuable work could be done in the way of obtaining potash and iodine from kelp if only more vigorous efforts were made to push the industry. Although there is a very interesting part of the Report which deals with that, and although I see that the matter is still having the assistance, to a certain extent, of the Board of Agriculture, I should be very glad to think they were a little more active in the matter, a little more pushful and a little more venturesome in the way of giving money to assist the increase and the extension of that particular industry, which is of immense importance where it is in operation, and which may be largely extended with great public advantage. Similarly, I am glad to see they are taking steps to improve, if at all possible, the production of dyes. One of the most important matters which I hope they will deal with and always keep in view is the question of forestry. I know at the present moment it is impossible to do anything in the way of forestry schemes. I should not think of it at present. There is no labour, and there are difficulties of every sort and kind. But we are cutting down our timber in Scotland at an appalling rate, and much immature timber is being cut for pit props. I do think the Government ought to look into this matter very closely, and, if at all possible, make some kind of arrangement under which landowners can at least get labour 1099 to replant what has been cut down. I do not put it higher than that. I do not want at present to press for more than the replacing of what has been cut down.
As far as I can see, the only way in which it can possibly be done is by using German prisoners for the purpose. I cannot see why that should not be done, seeing a certain number are now being used to cut down timber in the North of Scotland and other places. I think the Government might well extend the operations of these people and utilise them for the purpose of replanting all these great stretches of wood which have been cut down during the past two or three years and are still being cut down. I myself have tried very hard to see whether it is possible to get any kind of labour to replant a certain portion of forest which has been cut down. I cannot get any, nor can anyone else. Why these Germans who are in prison and who are living on the fat of the land should not be made to work, as the Germans make our people work, I cannot understand. Of course, the Secretary for War would probably have a much better answer to that than anyone else can give. The right hon. Gentleman knows the difficulties in the way of the use of German prisoners for this purpose, and he may be able to tell me that my suggestion is impracticable. I hope it is not. I cannot for the life of me see why it should not be done, and I press upon the right hon. Gentleman very strongly to consider most carefully and most sympathetically this suggestion, because the position is really extremely unsatisfactory. If we could only replant as we go along after a certain interval which is required, we should be doing a most valuable public and national service. I have only one further remark to make. To some little extent, I hope not seriously or unfairly, I have criticised some of the actions of the Board of Agriculture, and I want before I sit down to pay them a compliment. I am a member of the Central Appeal Tribunal along with my right hon. Friend opposite. I desire to say in this House that the Board of Agriculture in Scotland have provided us with most excellent reports when we have asked for them from time to time upon certain difficult cases with which we had to deal in regard to the future of labour in Scotland. We have sent many cases to be reported upon, and they have been most admirably reported upon by the various officials. The 1100 reports have been of the very greatest possible assistance to us, and I believe I may say—and I think my right hon. Friend will agree with me—that so far the cases sent to the Central Tribunal have been dealt with not only consistently, but with due regard to the supreme necessity of maintaining as far as possible the full production of these lands.
§ Mr. WILLIAM YOUNGI agree with most of what was said by the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) in his speech. We all, I think, share his aspirations and ideals in regard to the question of land reform in Scotland, but the difficulty is to find a solution for that problem. He omitted to tell us what his solution would be. I suppose he would have been out of order if he had attempted to do so. I was glad to hear the sympathetic response to that speech from the hon. Baronet who sits opposite (Sir G. Younger). I agree also with many of the suggestions which lie has made. I do not propose to follow them in detail, because I think that if I were to do so I should be out of order. I ask the indulgence of the Committee only for a very brief space to draw attention to the Report of the Board of Agriculture and to the complete failure of the Board, so far as I have been able to see, to show any real appreciation of the problems in connection with land arising out of the War. These problems are bound to profoundly affect agriculture and the whole of the land system. I quite agree with the hon. Baronet opposite that in developing any land policy under the existing Landowners Act, 1911, the Board have had to meet with extraordinary difficulties, and with very great handicaps. The unwise and, in my opinion, shortsighted withdrawal of the Grant of £200,000 last year makes it perfectly clear that something very drastic will have to be done in Scotland if land reform is to go forward there, and if Scotland is ever to get the benefit of the spirit and intention of the reform which is embodied in that particular piece of legislation. In the first appendix to the Report, the only part, in fact, which throws any light upon the Board's administration on the land settlement Section of the Act, we find this amazing record of failure: "Since the Act came into force in 1912 there have been in all" (this is from the Report of the Board of Agriculture) "some 5,749 applications for new holdings" (that is up to the end of the 31st December last), "and only 504 applicants 1101 had been settled upon the land at that time." That is not one in ten—not even one in eleven.
To judge from the statements in the Report of the reasons which prompted this confession of failure, it would appear to be very improbable that the balance, or any of the balance of those 5,749 applicants will ever have their demand satisfied at all. Yet the Report contains not one word, or even a suggestion, that this question of land settlement after the War has been even seriously considered or entered upon by the Board of Agriculture. This lethargy and laissez-faire of the Board if I may so characterise it, is the more apparent in that the Report contains not one suggestion or even an indication that the Board itself has taken any steps to provide for the demand for land which is bound to ensue as a result of the War. We know that all over the country an active propaganda has been pushed with the object of inducing disbanded soldiers and ex-Service men to emigrate to our Oversea Dominions. Nothing, so far as I am aware, has been done by the Board of Agriculture to combat this extraordinary proposal. Even the Board of Agriculture for England has at least had the imagination and the initiative to set up a Committee to inquire into the problem of settling ex-soldiers and sailors on the land, not in Rhodesia or in some other far away country, but here in our own country on our own land. So far as I am aware, however, and notwithstanding the fact that questions were put to the former Secretary for Scotland by myself and one or two other Members of this House, no inquiry of any kind has been set on foot by him in order to ascertain what ought to be done for the purpose of establishing men on the land after the War or before the War terminates. I do not think it is an exaggeration to say, that owing to the War the effective male population of Scotland is bound to be very greatly decimated, and it is more than probable that thousands of men who have been fighting at the front, and who were formerly engaged in sedentary occupations, will, or, at any rate, a large majority of them will, prefer to settle upon the land if they can get sufficient inducement in their own country to do so.
The War, I think, has demonstrated to us and to the whole country the vital need for an increase in the home production of food, and it is a well accepted fact that a properly administered and established 1102 system of small holdings is the best stimulant for the home production of food, and likewise it is the best guarantee of the stability and the prosperity of our own country. I do not wish particularly to refer to Germany, but I would ask where would Germany have been to-day but for her legion of small cultivators? I have not seen it so stated, but I believe Germany's fostering of small holdings within her own borders was as much a part of the preparation for this gigantic War as the building of her fleet or the forging of her big guns. It seems to me that under these circumstances, and with all these considerations in view, we might have expected the Board of Agriculture at least to have come forward with some suggestions in regard to this great question. For such a policy of ineptitude and inertia as that which I have indicated this branch of Scottish administration is responsible. I certainly do not blame my right hon. Friend the new Secretary for Scotland, and his promotion to the Scottish Office I feel sure we all welcome. But I must say frankly that I believe his predecessor was, at any rate, in part responsible, and I think that I may add the Scottish Members themselves have been to some extent to blame. The small attendance of Scottish Members here now is an example of what has too often taken place. There has been a tendency to leave things too much in the hands of the Scottish officials, or perhaps it would be more true to say that the Scottish Members' faculty for criticism has been rendered almost innocuous by the s/stem of bureaucracy which exists in the present Scottish Office. At a time when Members of Parliament and Scottish officials should not only be looking ahead but thinking ahead, this state of things it seems to me cannot possibly be allowed to continue. As the hon. Baronet (Sir George Younger) opposite said, we are all at one in desiring some effective solution of the land question— Unionists, Labour Members and Liberals or Radicals, or whatever designation you give them, all are at one upon this question. It appears to me, therefore, that unless we get some tangible information from the Scottish officials that they are alive to their responsibilities, Scottish Members must themselves form a National party and band themselves together for the purpose of carrying out land reform as well as other great social reforms pertaining to Scotland. We ought to take a lesson from our friends in Ireland. We 1103 see that by combination and persistent effort they at least have got their own way as a rule, while we who are Scottish Members have to be thankful, apart from the interminable discussion on Irish affairs in this House, to have only a few hours on one day in the year to discuss our affairs. I know it would be out of order if I made any definite proposals for carrying out a policy of Land Reform, but I hope I may be allowed to add this: that Scottish Liberal Members have come to the conclusion that the time is now ripe for action in the matter of what I shall call a war emergency scheme of Land Settlement. They have appointed a Committee for the purpose of investigation and reporting on proposals for the settlement of large numbers of suitable ex-Service men on the land immediately after the War, or it may be during the progress of the War.
May I point out to the Secretary for Scotland that the matter is urgent? Any scheme to be of real value must be carried into effect with as little delay as possible. I therefore appeal to my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland this afternoon to give us an assurance that this new Land Settlement Committee will in its deliberations and work have his sympathy, and not only his sympathy, but his support, and that it will have the sympathy and support not only of the Scottish Office, but the officials there and also of the Board of Agriculture in Edinburgh. I believe that this Committee, working in sympathy with the Unionist and Labour Members, will be able to evolve some kind of non-controversial scheme which, even though it may not form a complete and final solution of the land question, will at least result in the speedy settlement on the land, in large areas in Scotland, of a prosperous and contented peasantry. The right hon. Gentleman has a great opportunity ready to his hand. I hope he will show that he has imagination, and the necessary courage to grasp the existing opportunity for a favourable settlement of this great question. It was well said the other day, in an issue of the "Pall Mall Gazette," in an article dealing with the land question, that "the revival of our rural life is the biggest task awaiting us after the War is over." I believe we must tackle this task now. If the Secretary for Scotland will give us his support and encouragement, as I am confident he will, he will gain the lasting 1104 appreciation and gratitude of Scotland— of the country whose interests are, for the time being, under this charge.
§ Mr. MOLTENOI concur in the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend who has just sat down in regard to the desirability of the Board of Agriculture for Scotland taking into careful consideration and, if possible, giving us some indication to-day of the plans which have been maturing, or, at any rate, which have been considered for settling ex-soldiers upon the land in Scotland. I ventured the other day to put a question upon this subject to the late Secretary for Scotland. Some of us were anxious when so much had been done for England and Wales, as to which the Committee made a speedy and admirable Report, that something of a similar character should be done for Scotland. The reply was that the matter was undergoing very careful consideration by himself and the Board of Agriculture for Scotland. I hope it may be possible for the Secretary for Scotland to-day to divulge the secret which has hitherto been so jealously guarded in his breast—if not in his breast, in that of his predecessor. May I, for the moment, first offer my congratulations and best wishes for the success of the right hon. Gentleman who now occupies the office of Secretary for Scotland? Anything in the nature of a critical attitude that I may take up will refer to matters in the past, and therefore not personally referring to himself. We are, therefore, in the very pleasant position of saying more or less what we wish without running the risk of offending the right hon. Gentleman who occupies the distinguished position of Secretary to-day. The Member for Ayr Burghs, in a portion of his speech, rather indicated that there was difficulty in getting suitable tenants for farms under these schemes. I have read all the reports very carefully, and I have never seen any indication whatever of that. On the contrary, as the facts show, there are an enormous number of suitable applicants. What the hon. Member stated is contrary to the opinion of the Board of Agriculture, who have themselves stated in the Report which we are now considering that the difficulty of administering the Act has not been the condition of things when you once have got the land and put the small holders on it. The great difficulty under this Act has been to get to that stage—to get to the position of putting men upon the land. When they have got there nobody has ever said that they 1105 were unsuitable, or that they were not a success. I want to make that point very clear. In support of it I would like to read several paragraphs from the Board's own Report:
From reports which have reached the Board these occupants of holdings constituted under the Act have made good progress; and few difficulties have arisen with them so far as the Board is concerned. In the main the holders have applied themselves industriously to the cultivation of their land, their annuities in respect of building loans have been punctually paid, and, so far as the Board are aware, they have not allowed their rents to fall into arrear. The men who obtained entry before the War commenced were favourably situated in the sense that they obtained their stock and equipment at normal rates, and subsequently reaped the benefit of the rise in prices consequent on the outbreak of the War. But even in the ease of those who secured entry after the War commenced and who had thus a heavier burden at ingoing, the results generally appear to be satisfactory.That is a very satisfactory account of what has happened up till now. We all know that the chamber of agriculture have their own opinion on this matter, though many of them since have admitted that a different state of things to what they expected was found, and that the indications were that these holdings would prove a distinct success. It is not their fault if, as the hon. Member indicated, there has been some difficulty about getting suitable holders. The difficulty is in getting the holdings to suit the holders.I should like to say a few words in regard to the Report itself. I regret very much that the Report is so varied in its character from preceding Reports. It almost seems to have been taken in hand by those who took no interest in the proceedings of the Board for Scotland, because when once you become accustomed to a certain form of information you like to have continuity in it, otherwise you cannot find out your information, and comparison is difficult. It is not an easy matter really then to keep a clear idea whether or not progress has been made. Let me be somewhat more explicit. I refer to the fact that there is no account published in the present Report of the Agricultural Fund of the Board of Agriculture for Scotland. That is very unsatisfactory. We ought to have had, as in previous years—for it only occupied two pages—a report clearly showing the state of that fund. Finance in matters of this kind is all-important. It is, indeed, the whole question which we have had to debate so much in regard to the Grants. To leave it out altogether is a matter I would ask the Secretary for Scotland to look into. If possible, I trust he will give us an 1106 assurance that in future Reports that account will be included. We know, of course, that there are considerable difficulties owing to the War—depletion of staff, and so on—but in a small matter of this kind, really, it is not sufficient to give the War as an excuse. There are other features in the Report of the same character. For instance, we have no account of the management of the estates of the Board. The Board has considerable estates, and draws a considerable revenue, and naturally incurs a considerable expenditure. Up till now we have had accounts of these estates. There is no account in the present Report. I shall be very glad if the Secretary for Scotland will consider that, and again, if possible, give an assurance that these Reports will have some continuity, and give the same full information as before, so that we may be able to judge of the proceedings of the Board.
The Report certainly discloses very great delay and very great difficulty in the creation of small holdings. The hon. Member for Ayr Burghs has alluded to the difficulties. I am sure he is well aware of them, because he has knowledge how some of these difficulties have arisen. I hope, however, there is to be a better disposition to meet the opinion of our country on the part of all parties in this House and elsewhere in this matter. The Report does show that the Board has had to act under very great difficulties and restrictions I, therefore, certainly make every allowance for that in regard to the matter to which I have just alluded. Enormous compensation, the Report shows, has been paid both to proprietors and tenants in connection with the creation of small holdings. It does seem to me that we have reached a time in the history of our country when prejudices ought not to be put forward by landowners or tenants, for it means the taking from the State literally of enormous sums simply because there is a prejudice against national small holdings. The time has come when we ought to be proud of a larger population being planted upon the land. The hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty has drawn attention to a very interesting case in the Report of the Band Court of the patriotism of the men. Thirty-two small holdings produced no less than fifty-three men for the service and defence of their country. The hon. Member did not mention—and I should like to do it—the fact that these thirty-two small 1107 holdings, which were established in 1905, were upon land extending only to 125 acres of ordinary land and 70 acres of land in the Island of Lewis, showing what can be done by putting men on even a very small area of land. It is very wonderful. Fifty-three persons were got from these 195 acres! Why the whole rural population of the right hon. Gentleman's county, and of the three neighbouring counties, is only 22 per 1,000 acres cultivated, which gives an idea of the extraordinary depletion of the population, and what could be done if that land were made available for a large number of people to be settled down in holdings. The success of the holdings constituted by the Board has been very great, and that is a very gratifying feature in the Report.
I wish to draw attention to a feature in the Report which I very much regret, and that is the part relating to "Loans to existing landholders, under Section 9 of the Act of 1911." I very much regret to see that the operations of the Board under that Section, and under Section 7, have been enormously restricted, and I do not think I have been fairly treated with regard to this matter. Last year, on the discussion of the Scottish Estimates, I drew the special attention of the Secretary for Scotland to this Section, and to the fact that there was a suggestion that assistance should be limited. There are two kinds of assistance given, one by loans for the improvement or rebuilding of dwelling-houses or other buildings on new holdings, and assistance can be given to existing landholders. Where the loans have been granted the instalments have been paid up to the very hilt, and no more beneficent work could be done by the Board than the granting of loans to these men who are anxious to improve their holdings. When I drew the attention of the late Secretary of Scotland to the suggestion that these loans should be curtailed, he gave me his personal assurance in this House that that should not be done. But that has been done, and I want to show how serious the restriction has been. It is not a matter of form, but it is a very grave and serious matter that those facilities should be withdrawn. Under Section 9 of the Act the amount granted in 1913 was £5,159, and in 1914 £8,223, but in 1915 the amount was reduced to £509.
§ Mr. WATSONThere was a considerable reduction in the number of applicants.
§ Mr. MOLTENOOwing to the War, and other causes, the number of applications was reduced to seventy-eight, but only nine of the applicants were allowed to benefit under this Act. I do think that is a very unfortunate thing, and it is still more unfortunate when you consider that we are told in an earlier part of the Report that the Board has £250,000 invested in Treasury Bills. The money was never given to the Board of Agriculture to be used in Treasury Bills, but it was given to be used for the agricultural needs of Scotland, and one of the greatest needs of Scotland is the rebuilding of the homesteads, and when the holders undertake to do it at their own expense by way of loan it is a serious matter to put a stop to that progress, and it is in direct violation of the undertaking given in this House by the late Secretary for Scotland. I hope the present Secretary for Scotland may find it possible to allow that system to be resumed in full vigour in future. I go so far as to say that Scotland has been deprived of rights under this Small Landholders Act of 1911 by the administrative act of the Secretary for Scotland. The purposes of the Act are not being carried out, and, as I have just pointed out, it is not because of lack of funds. It is confessed in the Report that they have £250,000 invested in Treasury Bills, the most liquid form of assets, and when we know the great needs of Scotland, why should not the money be spent? I want to ask this important constitutional question: What right has the right hon. Gentleman —he knows I am not putting it personally —to suspend the operation of an Act? He is there, just as the whole Cabinet are there, to carry out the purposes of this Act. They are bound to do it. It is their duty to this House and to the country to carry out the law. Why are they suspending the operation of the Act?
Something has been said about the number of applicants. The total number of applicants for small holdings up to the date of the Report was 5,473 for new holdings and 3,857 for enlargements, a total of 9,330. Those figures have not decreased owing to the War, but have risen to a total of 9,794. That is since the commencement of this Act. What number of those have been satisfied? If we take the table in the Report we find that the total number, including those of last year, was 504 new 1109 holdings and 342 enlargements, or a total of 846 out of 9,794. I say that is a substantial denial to the people of Scotland of their rights. What happened last year? There were only seventy new holdings and 103 enlargements, or a total of 173. Last year the Secretary for Scotland held out the hope that we should have in the year 507 new holdings and 316 enlargements, or a total of 823; and of these, as I say, only 173 have been granted. I wish to go a little further. I would ask the Secretary for Scotland a question which I put to the late Secretary which he never answered. I have been informed that a decree has gone forth that no further small holdings are to be created. I put that question definitely and categorically, and asked for a denial. I have had no answer to that question. I, therefore, ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is true that an order has been issued in the Department that no new small holdings are to be created. There is, apparently, a very unsympathetic attitude towards the creation of small holdings. There is difficulty in getting information or assistance in regard to this question. It has been said that the cost of getting small holdings where compensation has to be given is prohibitive. I am not going to defend this compensation. I think the Lindean case outrageous, but there are many cases where agreements have been established, and I put that to the late Secretary for Scotland. I gave him those particulars, and he then made inquiries and found what I said was perfectly correct. A number of farms have been obtained and settled under agreement without any resort to law.
§ Mr. TENNANTThis is rather important. I want to know whether the hon. Member and those who act with him agree that you can come to an agreement upon the question of compensation?
§ Mr. MOLTENOI think so. If the compensation were reasonable I think certainly.
§ Mr. TENNANTI understood there was a school of thought which would not admit any compensation.
§ Mr. MOLTENOI do not take up that attitude myself. There may be cases in which compensation is perfectly legitimate and which ought to be given, but, of course, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, there are cases where holdings have been settled by agreement. I should like to mention a case in which an intended 1110 small holder died, and the Board had on its books twelve other small holders who applied for the small holding, so that there is a very appropriate demand if the holdings can be got. The greatest difficulty is found in getting any decisions of the Board as to whether land is suitable or not, and, when a decision is got, no particulars are afforded as to why it was not suitable. Scotland is not being treated as it ought to be, and as this House intended it should be treated under the Act of 1911. I think it is a question of machinery. The present Secretary for Scotland, as the previous Secretary for Scotland, has my greatest sympathy in the difficult task placed upon his shoulders. As my hon. Friend (Sir George Younger) said, he has to be a Jack-of-all-trades; he does not get a fair chance, because he has too much to do, and some special representative for Scottish agriculture is needed in this House. We have it in the cases of England and Ireland, and we ought to have it for Scotland. We ought to have it in justice and fairness to the Board of Agriculture and to the Secretary for Scotland. He ought to be relieved of this enormous work of detail of great intricacy, a work which would need the presence of the Secretary for Scotland in Scotland far more than can be the case owing to his duties. Therefore, if we are ever to get this problem properly dealt with it will only be when we have a representative of the Board of Agriculture in this House I say it is not fair to the Board itself, because, however energetic our Board of Agriculture may be, if they have not someone who is able constantly to push their view and keep closely in touch with them, and realise what is to be done, with the energy which comes from personal knowledge and association and determination to carry out a scheme, however good their schemes are and their desire to carry them out, they will not get carried out.
Everybody knows what goes on with regard to Ireland. There they have an enormous advantage from having a representative of the Board of Agriculture in this House. With regard to Scotland, the problem is more urgent than it is in Ireland, and yet in Ireland you have 500,000 holdings, whilst in Scotland we have only got 78,000, or about one-eighth the number you have in Ireland. In England and Wales you have over 500,000 holdings. You have to face the extremely difficult problem of putting these men on new 1111 holdings, which is far more difficult than improving existing holdings, and without better machinery we cannot hope to succeed in Scotland in this matter. We shall have coming home at the end of the War a very large number of men quite suited for small holdings, and therefore further provision is urgently required. Scotland has contributed a greater proportion of men to the Colours than either England or Ireland. I will take a very low estimate as to the number of small holdings which will be required. Scotland has contributed some 500,000 men to the Colours, and if you place the number requiring small holdings at 5 per cent. you will want 25,000, and the people of Scotland will expect some arrangement to be made to satisfy the aspirations of these men. These men have fought magnificently in the trenches, and they have come forward in Scotland in greater numbers than they have in any other part of the Kingdom, and, therefore, we ought to be ready, when they are ready after the War, with some machinery that will provide that the aspirations of these men can be realised.
In Scotland the Grant to the Board of Agriculture in 1914–15 was £244,000, but it was reduced last year to £66,500, and the Estimate for 1916–17 is £68,900, or an increase of £2,400, and that still shows a decrease of £175,100 on the sum voted in 1914–15. We all recognise the sacrifices which it is necessary to make in war time, but I think in matters of this kind it is a question of vital importance, because every penny spent in this way brings adequate return. Now what happened in regard to England? I think in a matter of this kind the sacrifices ought to be equal and should not be confined to one portion of the United Kingdom. Take the case of England. The Grant to the Board of Agriculture for 1916–17 was £335,160, or a reduction of £8,840 upon the Vote of £344,000 in 1914–15. With regard to Ireland, you have a total sum of £1,071,838 voted for similar purposes, and that is a reduction of £6,527 on the Vote for 1914–15 before the War. The position we are in is that while England is asked to sacrifice £8,840 and Ireland £6,527, Scotland is asked to sacrifice £175,000 out of a Vote of £244,000. As there are £250,000 of Treasury Bills readily available for the creation of small holdings, I think the small holders of Scotland ought to have facilities for loans, improvements, and rebuilding. We have a right to demand that the funds which do exist 1112 should be used for the purposes for which they have been granted. We all know that it takes time, because land cannot be acquired at once, and has to go through a long process; but unless we begin to act very soon we shall not be able to do anything to meet the demand that must come from the soldiers when they return from the front. I think we ought at once to take this matter in hand earnestly, and make preparation and provision for these men.
§ Mr. WATSONI do not want to say much on this particular Vote, but I would like to join in the general expression there has been of a hope that we may now unite on all sides of the House at arriving at some fair and adequate land settlement scheme for Scotland. I am sure that those who have been political opponents of mine, and who may become opponents again, will believe that I am sincere in saying that I have always favoured the making of small holdings. I know we have had very diverse opinions as to the best and most effective methods by which any such scheme could be carried out. Such questions as compensation and other matters connected with the land question have provided subjects of dispute and great practical difficulty in carrying out the Act of 1911. Undoubtedly the problem is showing itself in two main directions. The first direction is, as has already been commented on by more than one of the previous speakers, the problem of the returned soldiers who have been serving in the field, and who, after having been discharged from the Service, either before or after demobilisation, desire to settle on the land as the best way of earning a living. Undoubtedly they will have first claim, as all such persons must have, on our country, and on Scotland in particular. In the second place, there is another new element which has not been adequately recognised, and it is the carrying out of the existing Act as applied to the Lowlands of Scotland. At the present moment it is more important than ever that we should produce as much of our own food as possible in this Kingdom. The Lowlands of Scotland provide a very large amount of the corn and other cereals that are grown in that country. In considering the question of small holdings in the Lowlands of Scotland you are up against the question as to whether, by proposing to break up farms rather than maintaining the big farms, you are not injuring the economic and adequate production of food for this country. We shall have to 1113 consider that. There is much that may be considered controversial about that subject, and I do not wish to engage in anything controversial at the present time. That, however, is a very important problem in relation to the Lowlands of Scotland. You do not meet with the same difficulty in the Highlands. It has always been considered that the Highlands were particularly favourable for a settlement in the way of small holdings, and that is more true now, when the question of afforestation has come to the front, and the combination of small holdings with afforestation. Undoubtedly that is a point which the right hon. Gentleman will require to consider very carefully and very speedily, because the question of afforestation is one which should not be delayed, as it must necessarily take some time to work out. The amount of money spent upon afforestation before the War has produced very little result. I am not blaming anybody for that, but it does prove that it takes a long time to settle what is the best method and the best place for such experiments.
6.0 P.M.
Reference was made by the hon. Member for Dumfriesshire (Mr. Molteno) to the advantages, financial and otherwise, which Ireland enjoys in this respect. As regards Ireland, and the money Ireland is getting, the problem there is much simpler, because it is far more often there a question of taking over a farm as it exists, and not a question of sub-dividing at all. The difficulty in regard to a small holdings scheme in Scotland is, in the first place, the getting of labour, and, in the second place, the enormously increased price of the materials required for the purpose of making the necessary improvements and buildings which are necessitated by the sub-division either of the farms you take or the portions of the farms which you take. That presents a very different aspect to the question of carrying out small holdings in Scotland and the settlement of people on the land under the purchase system in Ireland, which has proved very successful in that country. I wish to say a few words on the general aspect of the question, and again I speak of the Lowlands. It is clearly obvious that the big schemes pay the best. In the first place, you are not so apt to be splitting up existing farms, and, secondly, you are getting a large group of small holders settled together, which means greater ease in the co-operation which is essential to get your goods to the market and for 1114 getting the materials required for production. Clearly it is easier for them to work their holdings by lending each other their ploughs and horses, and in a hundred and one other ways. Consequently the whole problem is a very much easier one, and, when you are dealing with land which requires high cultivation, co-operation is rather a necessary thing. Again, I would ask that this question of the settlement of our returned soldiers should be specially dealt with in whatever method is considered appropriate. From recent experience I think the Scottish Board of Agriculture would do well to take a hint or tip now and then from the procedure of the English Board of Agriculture, and they might do it very well as regards this particular matter of setting up a Committee to consider how best our returning soldiers may be settled upon the land. This might have been done a great deal earlier in regard to sending representatives to assist tribunals under the Military Service Act to settle what was necessary, and what was the absolute minimum required to run the farms in a particular district. I do not take any great credit for it, but I did suggest to the late Secretary for Scotland, having read about it in Lord Selborne's speech in the House of Lords, that he should appoint military representatives. He did so, but unfortunately they only appeared before the Appeal Tribunals. It would have been more serviceable if they had appeared before the local tribunals, and several appeal tribunals expressed regret that had not been done. It may have been done in a few odd cases, but it certainly was not generally done, and of course it may not have been practicable in many cases. The English Board of Agriculture had appointed their representatives several months before, and had sent them to the tribunals with very excellent and successful results, because after all they were the people who could be most useful in telling the tribunals what was the genuine minimum amount of labour required on any particular farm to keep up the national food supply and the industry of agriculture going. The hon. Member for Dumfriesshire referred to the passage in the Report about loans to existing landowners. I have rather a difficulty in understanding that passage. The statement is that, in view of the necessity of conserving their funds, it was decided, with the approval of the Secre- 1115 tary for Scotland, to limit the assistance to those classes of loans specified in the Third Report, which properly fall under Section 7, Sub-section (7), of the Act, and to cases where the loans previously granted were insufficient, owing to the rise in prices, to complete the buildings in course of construction. I should be very pleased if the right hon. Gentleman could tell us what cases were excluded, as the result of that decision. I am rather anxious to know, because if they were cases which genuinely needed assistance I entirely concur in the suggestion of the hon. Member for Dumfriesshire that it is a matter for great regret that any restriction of that kind should be imposed in these times. The amount required is not large, and, if it is really necessary either for the proper maintenance of buildings, or to put up further buildings which are necessary for the holdings, then it is a great pity that such assistance should be refused, and I would suggest that the decision should be reconsidered by the right hon. Gentleman and the Board. The passage is a little mysterious in its language, and I am not quite sure what it means. I shall be very pleased to learn.
The question of afforestation is one of the most important in this country and in Scotland, more particularly since this War began. I do not know whether it is true, but I am told that if the War goes on for three years and we continue cutting at the present rate, particularly matured timber, we shall not have a stick of timber left in Scotland. We shall then get back to the days of the Borderers when Sir Walter Scott regretted that there was no timber in Scotland except the Ettrick Forest. He did a good deal in getting timber planted, and there were a good many woods planted in Peeblesshire. It has proved very good timber both for shelters and other purposes, and a lot is being used at the present time. It would be a matter for regret if this question were not taken up as an urgent one. I refer not only to the general question of planting further areas which existed before the War, but also to the question of replacing the timber which we are taking away at the present time. We know from reports that have been circulated either in this House or outside that there are acres and acres, particularly of the higher ground in Scotland, which are very suitable for planting, especially the soft woods which are in such 1116 demand at the present time. I understand that it is not entirely the soft woods which are being taken, not only for war purposes, but also for pit props, in regard to which we have suffered so much from a shortage in these times.
There was a deputation up here recently and there have certainly been meetings with regard to this question and the terms on which it would be best to proceed; whether we should have afforestation by the State alone or whether assistance should be given to landowners, of course under conditions, or whether we should have a combination of the two methods. Personally, I have not any very great knowledge on the subject, but it certainly strikes me that it would not be the best way to have afforestation by the State alone. I cannot help thinking that a combination of the two methods would be the most practicable, but it is a matter on which I cannot profess to speak, and I can only ask that it should be taken up urgently and dealt with in a broad way on very broad lines. Money should not be stinted, because it is a matter on which our national interests very largely depend. We have felt the want of it in the course of this War, and we ought to take advantage of the experience we have gained in this, as in many other respects. Before I sit down I would just like to join in the welcome to which others have given expression to the right hon. Gentleman in the post which he now occupies.
§ Mr. MORTONI do not propose to make any attack either upon the Secretary for Scotland or his predecessor. I am glad to see the right hon. Gentleman in this post, and I hope that he wilt have a successful run in the Office, He has not been here long, and he cannot therefore be blamed for anything. You cannot blame the Board of Agriculture, because if you do they turn round on you at once and say, "You have taken away the money. How can you expect us to do anything without money?" That is quite true. The real persons to blame are the Scottish Members of Parliament. Where are they to-day? Somebody suggests that perhaps they are fighting. I expect they are fighting with the waves in some village where the Zeppelins do not come. There is no doubt at all that if the Scottish Members of Parliament stuck together like the Irish or Welsh Members, instead of looking out, I suppose, for Office and that sort of thing, we could get anything of importance we 1117 wanted for the management of Scotland, but that can never be. The moment we have educated an Honorary Secretary up to his work the Government snatch him away. I am not therefore surprised that we do not get, as we ought to get, better government and more efficient administration in Scotland. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will be able to show that some progress is being made in the question of afforestation. I have had a great many complaints from old men and widows that the promise given by the Prime Minister that at least one son should be left to look after the old people and to get in their crops—
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir G. Younger)I am afraid that I must ask the hon. Member not to transgress the rules by going outside the Vote.
§ Mr. MORTONThe Board of Agriculture now deals with this question of somebody stopping at home to look after the food supply. I have submitted the matter to the Board of Agriculture, from whom I have letters on the subject, and they have actually appointed someone to attend the tribunals, and see that the question is not forgotten. I therefore want to ask the Board of Agriculture, through the right hon. Gentleman, to see that the old men and widows are at least left with some of their children to get in their crops for the good of the country generally and of themselves. I want to make it quite clear that I am right in my contention that the Board of Agriculture are looking after this matter.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI am sorry, but I really must ask the hon. Member not to proceed. The only people who have any authority whatever are the tribunals. The Board of Agriculture have nothing in the world to do with keeping people on the land under the National Service Act.
§ Mr. MORTONThe Board of Agriculture appointed a representative to attend each tribunal to see that these agricultural questions were looked into. I have got a letter from the Board of Agriculture, in answer to one to the Secretary for Scotland, and it distinctly says that they have appointed a representative to attend each of the tribunals to look into these very matters. I cannot say more than that, and I do not think it is a wise thing to stop a question of this sort being discussed. We have done well both as regards sailors and soldiers in the Highlands of Scotland and we might spare a few seconds to think 1118 of the old men and widows who are unable to work. I hope that the Secretary for Scotland will give attention to the matter. Nobody can complain of Scotland in regard to the War. We have done everything we could to help the Government. We understood, whether rightly or wrongly, that this £175,000 was an annual Grant which could not be taken away without an Act of Parliament. We have lost it for two successive years, and we do not know when we are going to get it back. I hope that the Secretary for Scotland will look into the legal question as to whether a Grant in an Act of Parliament can be taken away except by an Act of Parliament. The Scottish Members are never consulted in these matters. We heard nothing about the taking away of this £175,000 until after it was done, and we understood that the Secretary for Scotland did not know anything about it either. It was said to have been done by somebody in the Treasury, who struck his pen through the sum of £175,000 and put in £10,000. The Scottish Members ought to be consulted in these matters. The Board of Agriculture say, "They have taken away the money. How can you expect us to go on with small holdings? Where is the land?" There is no question, so far as the Highlands are concerned, where the land is. You have the Report of a Royal Commission in 1895 which maps out for you and earmarks all the land in the Highlands suitable for the extension of crofts, new crofts, and small holdings. Therefore, it is quite clear that there is land. In Sutherlandshire there are 388,000 acres so marked as being fit for this work, and in the whole of the crofting counties of Scotland there are nearly 2,000,000 acres. I would like to say, in regard to what has been said about the Highlands being treated separately, that I hope what I have always said as a humble individual, and what the late Mr. Weir said—and nobody knew more about crofting questions than he did—that you ought to deal separately with the Highlands of Scotland, will not be forgotten. I am glad to be able to acknowledge that the Tory party in the House of Lords, through Lord Lansdowne, in 1908, actually promised to accept the Bill of that year so far as the Highlands were concerned. But the foolish Liberal Government refused to accept it, and, therefore, we got nothing. These are two different questions altogether, and the Highlands and the Lowlands must, in my 1119 opinion, be dealt with separately. But I do not think it is necessary to detain the Committee to-day, because there are a number of other things which ought to be discussed.
What I want Scottish Members and this Committee to remember is the promise that was made to the country in 1905 by the late Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, when he said that we ought to set about colonising our own country. That is what we want the Board of Agriculture to assist us to do, especially in the Highlands of Scotland. Instead of that, at the present moment the Government are doing all they can to damage the Highlands. They have reduced the postal service, they will not give us any land, and they are stopping loans, and all these things, instead of going straight ahead. There is room for double the population that there is now in the Highlands, and they would be able to produce not so much corn perhaps, but sheep and cattle, the best in the country. But, if you will not give them a chance, you are not likely to get anything done. Sheep are turned off to make room for deer. We have got one case where it is said that 40,000 sheep were turned off for the purpose of making a deer forest of the land. The result of that kind of thing is that you have to go to foreign countries for your sheep and mutton. All these things want looking into in the best interests of the country, and the matter was very aptly put by the late Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman when he said that we should "colonise our own country." A Committee was appointed of Scottish Members to consider the questions brought up by the hon. Member for Dumfriesshire (Mr. Molteno). That Committee made a Report. I need not read it to the Committee, because it was quoted just now by my hon. Friend. That Report was signed by myself, by Mr. Molteno, and by Mr. Holmes, and was submitted to the Scottish Liberal Members and agreed to by them. The Report was sent to the Government, and we have had no answer from the Government. I believe we had an acknowledgment, but it has never been presented to us. Who is to blame for this? I do not know. The question is amply set out in the Report. I have got the original documents here, and we should have had an answer from the Government. The secretary to the Committee was instructed to submit copies of it to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and to the Secretary for Scotland, and I suppose he 1120 did so. If there was any acknowledgment we have never seen it. There have been two meetings of Scottish Liberal Members since, and no reply whatever has been presented to them. [HON. MEMBERS: "Read the Report!"] My hon. Friends suggest that I should read the whole of this Report. I should be very pleased to do so but for the fact that my hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Molteno) has quoted a good deal of it, and therefore you might say, Mr. Chairman, that I was out of order in repeating what he said. This is a genuine Report in which we represent our case to the Government, to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and to the Secretary for Scotland, and ask that it should be given their consideration. What we particularly pointed out was the difference between the treatment of Scotland and England and Ireland. If there is any part of the United Kingdom that should be treated fairly and well, it is, in my opinion, Scotland. In fact, Scotland ought to have preferential treatment, considering the position that country always held in the world. My hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) says it is as good as the City of London. All I know is that as regards the City of London there are a good many Scotsmen there, and everybody is glad to see them there. A Scotsman came in the eighteenth century and established the Bank of England, and therefore, of course, Scotland has got something to do with the City of London. And you may find the same thing all over the world. But, joking apart, I do trust that the right hon. Gentleman will consider this Report of the Scottish Liberal Members. There must be a copy about somewhere, and if there is not, as I have got the original here, we can easily give the right hon. Gentleman another copy.
But what I wanted to insist upon is not so much the reading of the document as the necessity of the Government being got to consider it. Somebody seems to have stood idly by and allowed somebody else, not the Scottish Secretary, to take away this money from us without our knowledge and without it being brought before the Liberal Scottish Members in any shape or form. Of course, I can understand the position of the hon. Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir G. Younger). The Board of Agriculture is doing nothing and that pleases him best, and therefore he is in a good humour and thinks things are going on very well. Of course, we have heard something about all parties working 1121 together. I have my doubt about that though. I have my doubts as to whether any good will come of it, because the only probable result would be that we shall pay too much for the land and that they will spoil the whole of the transaction. We had a case at Strathnaver, in the county of Sutherland, where that was so, and in which the late Government bought an estate from the landlord, paid a great deal too much for it, and in the end, after some years, the Government had to take the land over themselves and settle crofters there under the Act. It should never be forgotten that you cannot make these land schemes turn out well if you pay too much for the land. In the Highlands they are quite ready to pay a fair rent. They do not care so much there about purchasing the freehold. What they want is fair rents and fixity of tenure. I fancy it would be out of order to talk about that subject just now, and I am not going to discuss it. But I do hope that the new Secretary for Scotland, who has had considerable experience in this House and has done some hard work, that he will use some of his energy to see that Scotland is fairly treated. It is very unfortunate that the attendance of Members to-day at this Debate is so small. I cannot say why it is, and I do not quite absolve them. Possibly the reason is that this business has been put off so late in the Session. Scottish business does not take up much time of the House. I do not think we had even one day last year, and I certainly think we ought to have two days each Session for the discussion of Scottish estimates.
§ Mr. MORTONMy hon. Friend says we should have three days. Apparently we are glad to get one sometimes. But there is no question which wants more serious consideration than the land question in Scotland. As I have said, there are two different questions arising in connection with the Lowlands and the Highlands. But if you go down to Scotland now and attempt to talk politics it will all result in the question, "What are you going to do with the land?" Of course, I admit that much cannot be done during the War. In the Small Holdings Colonies Bill it is proposed to give 2,000 acres to the whole of Scotland to deal with returning soldiers. That is a ridiculously small amount, and I should have liked to have 1122 seen the Secretary for Scotland opposing the Bill unless they gave us more. So far as I am concerned, I have done my best to help the Government in the War, and I have not taken up the time of the House by asking questions or making speeches during the War. Some of my hon. Friends from Scotland have very properly attempted to do so, and with more or less success. I have never taken up the time of the House, but on this occasion I do wish to call the serious attention of the Secretary for Scotland to the position of land in Scotland. The Government must not break bargains with us as regards grants of money. When it is put in the Act that we are to have £200,000, you ought to stick to it; and when we are told in that Report, which I did not read, that Ireland was to have over £1,000,000—I do not grudge it to Ireland—I do not understand why Scotland should not have a million as well. [An HON. MEMBER: "Two millions!"] My hon. Friend says £2,000,000. Well I am sure that a great deal more will be wanted than £2,000,000. It need not be a question of charity. If the money were given by way of loan at a low rate of interest that would probably settle the matter. I hope that something will be done as soon as the War is ended—I hope it may end successfully soon—to meet the just and proper desires of the people of Scotland.
§ Mr. TENNANTThere are two observations which were made by my hon. Friend who has just sat down to which I ought to advert. The first was his reference to an answer to a document which is apparently locked in his pocket. So far as I am aware it has not been seen by any other Member except by the hon. Member for Dumfriesshire (Mr. Molteno).
§ Mr. PRINGLEIt was written to the Secretary for Scotland.
§ Mr. TENNANTMy hon. Friend who opened the Debate (Mr. Macpherson) was wholly unaware of the contents of the document. I may say that I am wholly unaware of its contents. Therefore I do not feel that I can indicate the line of answer.
§ Mr. MORTONI will read it to you if you like.
§ Mr. TENNANTPerhaps my hon. Friend will let me have the document.
§ Mr. MORTONThis is a matter of honour with regard to the Honorary Secretary. He was ordered by the meeting to send a copy of this document—not the original, which is to be kept—not to yourself, because you were not Secretary for Scotland at the time, but to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and to the then Secretary for Scotland. I think there is no doubt that he sent it.
§ Mr. TENNANTI do not think it is worth while pursuing the matter further, except to say that I will engage to have it looked into in the hope that the document may be forthcoming and that we may find an answer to it. Perhaps the most important part of the hon. Member's speech was his reference to Scots in the City of London. Upon that I am sure the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury), who represents the City of London, who I am glad to see in his place, will agree with me that there are in London not only many Scots but also many what are called "Heids of Departments."
§ Mr. MORTONI will send you a copy of this document.
§ Mr. TENNANTI feel that I ought to apologise for taking up any time in this Debate at all, because I have already on previous occasions during this Session of Parliament had to conduct Estimates upon four or five separate days, and may have to do so on other days. That is almost too much a share for one person.
§ Sir F. BANBURYThat is the advantage of being a Scotsman.
§ Mr. TENNANTI should like to say to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) how grateful I am to him and to other members of the Committee who have made kind references to myself and expressed hopes of my administration of the Office I now have the honour to hold. May I also say to the Committee what I have felt very deeply throughout the strenuous period from which I have now emerged, having left the War Office, under what a deep sense of obligation I am to my hon. Friends behind me for the innumerable services willingly rendered throughout all that difficult and strenuous time.
§ Mr. TENNANTI should like to congratulate the hon. Member upon his happy 1124 linking of land and life in the speech he delivered. I wholly share his view that any Minister who endeavoured to govern to any degree, if he omitted to touch the land problem, would be guilty of an omission which is inconceivable. Undoubtedly the life of the country is bound up with our native land. I should like to join with those hon. Members who have adverted to this subject in saying that we who are in responsible positions and, indeed, the whole country are under a great obligation to our brothers in Scotland for the manner in which they have come forward, particularly the small land-owning class, and showed their patriotism. It has really been a most remarkable demonstration. My hon. Friend went on to deal with the main topic that we have under consideration to-day, and I am very glad that in his opening observations he linked together the work that can be done by small holders from an agricultural point of view and also the work of afforestation. The grouping together of those two things is of great and vital importance. Before I come to the question of placing an increased number of small holders upon our native land perhaps I may be allowed to deal with a few of the subsidiary points raised in the Debate. Upon the general question of afforestation I should like to say, in answer to the hon. Member for South Lanarkshire (Mr. Watson) as to the question of the steps we propose to take to replace the timber which is now being cut and all the questions germane to the detailed working of proposals with regard to afforestation in Scotland, that I cannot pronounce upon them to-day. I would ask the indulgence of the Committee to absolve me from making a declaration of policy to-day, because I really have not had the time to give to the subject and because I am desirous of consulting with my technical advisers, particularly with the Advisory Committee set up by my predecessor, on these very difficult subjects. I hope to be able to arrive at some definite scheme of policy which I shall announce later. That does not mean that I am bankrupt to-day, as my hon. Friend will see when I come to another statement in connection with the complementary subjects of small holdings and agriculture. A suggestion made by the hon. Member for the Ayr Burghs (Sir G. Younger) was that we should utilise German prisoners more in the planting of timber. That has already been carried out by my Noble Friend Lord 1125 Lovat. There is, of course, a difficulty in multiplying the use of German prisoners owing to the difficulty of finding guards, because when they are given outside employment there is always a danger of escape.
I will deal now with the Grant of £200,000 and the fact that it has been in abeyance for two years. All of us who have watched the progress of events and the financial difficulties which are inseparable from the conduct of a great War such as this, must realise that it is not only desirable but that it is the distinct duty of those who are our financial advisers to economise where it is possible. Where you have, as in this case, a certain unexpended balance, it is surely not an improper attitude of mind to adopt for our financial advisers to say, "We will hold up giving you further money until you have spent what you actually have." I apprehend that was the attitude adopted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer towards my predecessor. I am bound to say that until you have expended what you have in hand there seems to be a great deal to be said for that policy. It does not follow that in the fullness of time you will not be able to utilise all the money. I hope we shall be able to do that. I understand that my predecessor made it quite clear that there was no abrogation of our rights but that it was merely a question of a temporary holding up. If that is understood, I hope the Committee will not think that Scotland has been defrauded of her rights.
§ Mr. TENNANTTo say "We do" is not argument. It is a mere statement of opinion.
§ Mr. PRINGLEIs there not a chance of getting it this year, now that your predecessor is at the Treasury?
§ Mr. TENNANTI mast not be taken to hold out too definite a promise, but at the same time I should say there is a very good chance. Although I do not want to make a definite declaration as to the number of small holdings that can be established in a certain period of time, it is not possible for those of us who are responsible to disregard altogether the fact that the buildings which you have to put on the land before you can establish new small holdings are costing and must cost a great deal more money than they did in the past. The hon. Member for Suther- 1126 landshire (Mr. Morton) indicated that in his view it was not a proper proceeding to embark upon new small holdings unless they were going to be provided at a reasonable charge and a proper rent. If, as is the fact, building operations cost 45 per cent. more and fencing operations cost 100 per cent. more than they did in peace time it is very difficult to get away from those facts.
§ Mr. MORTONWe have a great many cases in Sutherlandshire where you do not want new houses at all. We have the houses already, but we want to increase the holdings.
§ Mr. TENNANTIf my hon. Friend will bring me cases of that kind, where we can embark at once, without putting a new small holder down, or without putting an old small holder in a worse position than he was in before, I will give the matter my most careful consideration.
§ Mr. MORTONI will bear that in mind.
§ Mr. TENNANTI would also remind the Committee that this difficulty of the increased cost of building, fencing, draining, and so forth, is not the only difficulty. There are many others. Anyone who looks at the Report will see how difficult it is, particularly in respect of the men who have been sent abroad or have gone of their own free will. There are not only the small holders themselves in many cases, but there are factors and all persons whose presence is required for the conduct of the machinery—very cumbrous machinery I am afraid—of putting this Act in motion. I should like to take note of a very important statement made by my hon. Friend (Mr. Molteno) in relation to this machinery, which, I think it is agreed in all parts of the House is cumbersome. I noticed that the hon. Baronet (Sir G. Younger) observed that some better means should be found than have already been found for settling these contested problems, but I am interested to know that my hon. Friend (Mr. Molteno) thinks that the question of compensation could, and indeed ought, to be settled by agreement—he must mean compensation for depreciation in selling value. If that is so, I should be very glad to see if I cannot institute some kind of arrangement by which agreement shall be made, and I shall look to him and to my hon. Friend (Mr. Pringle) for support.
§ Mr. TENNANTWhether my hon. Friend (Mr. Hogge) will support me or not is another matter. My hon. Friend (Mr. Molteno) asked me a definite question as to whether any order or no order had been made for the total suspension of small holdings. I can answer that question in the negative. No order of that kind has been given. But we cannot altogether disregard the fact, first of all, that the men are absent, and secondly, that the cost is greatly increased, and therefore it is very difficult to proceed as rapidly as you would do in peace-time, in fact, it is impossible. If my hon. Friend will accept that, I think that is really a truthful presentation of the case. The hon. Baronet (Sir G. Younger) spoke about depreciation, and said it was evidenced in the case of an estate at Ballantrae, where farms have been sold which had no small holdings on them, and another farm which had six or seven small holdings found no purchaser.
§ Sir G. YOUNGERThe whole farm has been broken up into small holdings.
§ Mr. TENNANTIt may be true, and I suppose in many cases it is true, that there is some depreciation on a farm owing to the fact that small holdings have been placed upon it. I do not know why, but that seems to be almost agreed. I do not think the illustration given by the hon. Baronet is a very good one because I know, and he must know, many cases of estates which have been sold lately. The Hutton Estate, in Berwickshire, of which I was the tenant for eighteen or nineteen years, was sold this year, and there were no small holdings on it. They are all big farms. They were all put up together at the same time, last November. Three of them were sold in November and four were not. Two or three of them were again sold in January, although one or two were not. It is not because there were no small holdings, because there were no small holdings in any case. There is a preference for one farm as against another. Indeed, the very best of the land on that estate I should have thought would be the Eddington Estate, which is a famous farm of 1,300 acres, and that was not sold until the last. All the others were sold first. I will just touch upon the question of the help given by the servants of the Board 1128 of Agriculture to the tribunals under the Military Service Act. My hon. Friend (Mr. Morton) asked me to look into that. I have looked into it, and it comes to this, that the Board of Agriculture has, with great foresight, set about to ascertain the facts of any individual farm upon which a man has been called up who is seeking to be exempted on the ground of indispensability. The representatives of the Board of Agriculture have gone to the Appeal Tribunal. They could not go to the local tribunal because there was not a sufficient staff. They attended the Appeal Tribunal and gave evidence, and it worked admirably, and I think they have rendered material assistance to the military representatives and to the agricultural population in the work which they have carried on. My hon. Friend (Mr. Molteno) made a complaint that the Report of the Board of Agriculture did not contain a statement as to the funds, and the expenditure of the funds, in the manner in which previous Reports had recorded the facts. There has been great pressure from the Treasury not to occupy large quantities of printing space and to economise in money and in the time of the staff, and in obedience to that appeal from the Treasury the alteration was made.
§ Mr. MOLTENOIt is very inconvenient.
§ Mr. TENNANTI will see if it is one of those economies which is worth making or not. With regard to the limitations of loans, I am informed that loans are not invariably demanded by persons whose demand is one that you want particularly to comply with. Very often loans are asked for by thriftless men and persons who are not deserving of very great consideration. I do not say that is invariably the case, but it occurs. Furthermore, there are about 50,000 small holders in Scotland, and loans for the purpose have been limited to the congested districts. It was feared that if one went further afield and gave indiscriminately, very large sums of money would be taken out by those men, and one did not want to deplete the Agriculture (Scotland) Fund to a very large extent for this purpose unless there was very good reason for it.
§ Mr. WATSONIs not the limitation referred to on page 13 of the Report?
§ Mr. TENNANTI do not like to give an answer off-hand without consulting my advisers, but I should think that that is not untrue.
§ Mr. WATSONI do not understand it.
§ Mr. TENNANTIf that is the only passage the hon. Member does not understand, he is a very fortunate person—I am not referring to any particular obscurities in this Report, I am referring to Blue Books generally. I cannot pass by the speech of my hon. Friend (Mr. Young) in silence. On the contrary, I am much obliged to him for his interesting remarks, with which I am largely in agreement. There is only one complaint he made which I cannot agree with. He thinks it is something almost in the nature of a scandal that we have set on foot no inquiry into the manner in which we can settle persons on the land. It is the business of the Board of Agriculture daily and hourly to think about it.
§ Mr. TENNANTIt is not necessary to have inquiries except by our own officers, but they are inquiring day by day and hour by hour. Before I die, I will give my hon. Friend and the House the fruits of our inquiries. My hon. Friends blamed themselves, the representatives for Scotland, for the fact that no progress had been made in this matter. I do not think they really have any grounds for making any such complaint at all. They say their critical faculties have been silenced. That is due to the brilliancy of the administration of the Department for which I am responsible—not mine, but that of my officials and my predecessor. My hon. Friend went on to say he hoped we should find some non-controversial scheme to create a prosperous and contented peasantry, and he asked for my support. I will give him my support at once with no stinted hand—with both hands. I hope we may find such a scheme.
§ Mr. YOUNGWill my right hon. Friend give this Committee which has been appointed the assistance, not only of the Scottish Office and its officials, but also of the Board of Agriculture? Will he give the Committee his assistance and all the information they may require?
§ 7.0 P.M.
§ Mr. TENNANTI do not really know what Committee my hon. Friend is alluding to, but I shall never deny any assistance which it is in my power to give him. Now I come to the scheme which we have under consideration. There is a scheme alluded to by my hon. Friend (Mr. Macpherson) within his own constituency near Tain. I am not able to announce to-day that that scheme is an actual accomplished fact. It is a scheme for retaining men, and we view it with great sympathy. I am on the eve of coming to a decision, but I cannot possibly announce it to-day because all the materials for which I have asked have not yet been delivered, but I hope, in the course of a very few days, to give an absolute decision on that scheme. We have agreed upon a much larger scheme, which is known as the Craibstone scheme, near Aberdeen. It is an estate of about 2,000 acres. It is hoped that it will be able to employ twenty soldiers or men who are free to undertake the business at once on felling timber, and twenty other men on afforestation generally. Twenty more men may be accommodated on agricultural work. That is the Craibstone scheme, which we want to get on with as fast as we can. I shall be able to give more particulars and details about it later on. Still, that is a scheme by which we shall be able to employ sixty-five men.
I come now to a scheme which is of great interest, because I think it is a novelty, so far as I am aware. I am glad to be able to announce that the Duke of Sutherland has been good enough to offer to the State a gift of absolute conveyance, reserving only to himself and his successors the fishing upon lochs and rivers on the park. This is an estate of 12,000 acres, and these are the terms upon which the Duke of Sutherland has been good enough to make this gift that I have accepted:
The farm is to be used for the settlement of sailors and soldiers who have been on foreign service and who have volunteered without compulsion and have a good record of foreign service. Not less than one-half of the holding shall be allotted to sailors who have seen foreign service or who have served in the North Sea, or elsewhere along the coast of the United Kingdom. The selection of the settlers shall be in the hands of the Secretary of Scotland, with the understanding that he will consult the Duke, at any rate, regarding the first selection. In the selection of the holders preference will be given to men who are in good physical condition, but partially disabled men will not be altogether excluded from consideration. The terms and conditions under which the land shall be held will be left to the Secretary of Scotland, subject to the general under- 1131 standing that the first settlers will be considerately dealt with in view of their services to the country." (That is to say we shall be empowered to charge rent, but to treat the men considerately.) "Part of the land, say, from 5,000 to 6,000 acres, will be afforestered by the State, and the holders will be given employment from time to time in planting and other forest operations. The Duke's scheme, as already stated, is for the settlement on the land of those people who have done service for their country, combined with an afforestation scheme which would provide labour for the settlers out with their actual holdings and within easy reach of them. The existing rights of peat cutting, exercised by tenants on the adjoining lands, will be continued. The existing march fences will be maintained at the sole expense of the State, and the Duke and his successors will not be called upon to erect or contribute towards any new fences that are required by the State upon the marches with his Grace's adjoining land.I ought to say that the Duke was prepared to remove the sheep stock from the farms, but it was agreed, on my representation, that the sheep stock should remain on the farm and that the State should purchase it, and also cattle, horses, and the whole equipment, together with the furniture in the shooting lodge, on terms to be mutually agreed upon. I will come to the finance a little later; but I want it to be clearly understood it was at our request that the stock was left, because we want to proceed with the regular agricultural operations of the farm. It was agreed that acclimatisation should not be an element in the price of the sheep stock. The conveyance of the property and the delivery of the stock and equipment are to take place as at Martinmas, 1916. The Duke of Sutherland agrees that the State may form a light railway between the farm of Borgie and the harbour at Skerray, over the estate of his Grace, subject to the condition that the line will be mutually approved and that the State will compensate his Grace's tenants in respect of the land taken, provided his Grace is in possession of the land if and when the State decide to make the railway.I should like to be allowed to convey to the Duke of Sutherland the very warm thanks of this House and of all parties for his most patriotic and most munificent gift. I do not think I need go into the details of finance, but, roughly, it comes to this, that capital expenditure in the first two years on stock and afforestation will come to about £20,000. After fifteen or sixteen years, returns from the woodlands will begin. Of course, there will be returns from small holders. I ought to say that the equipment and building of twenty holdings is included in the £20,000. After fifteen or sixteen years, returns from woodlands begin. From then onwards there will be a repayment of the capital invested, and 1132 that capital will ultimately be repaid in full, with the addition of compound interest at the rate of at least 4 per cent. If the present price of timber had been taken, the return would have been much larger. I hope the House will agree with me that is a very fine offer, and very promising for the future of forestry and of putting soldiers on the land.
§ Mr. TENNANTIt is a transfer of the duke's property to the State, and, in so far as it is that, of course it is State-owned.
§ Mr. YOUNGCan the right hon. Gentleman get other landlords to follow the example of the Duke of Sutherland?
§ Mr. TENNANTI was just going to say I would extend a very hearty invitation to all the lairds who are my friends, and to all others whom I have not the honour of knowing, to do likewise. We should be glad to spend money in the way we propose to do in this scheme. I am sure it would not only redound enormously to their credit if they did so, but very much to the benefit of the State. I ought to say a word of praise, which I hope will be endorsed by the Committee, of the wide range of the Board of Agriculture's work. I would particularly like to draw attention to their live stock scheme, which has done very good work. The War Office are indebted to the Board of Agriculture for improving the breed of pedigree horses and of artillery horses, and also light horses. We ought not to forget the humble hen, and the improvement in the breeding of poultry. I think I have dealt with most of the points raised in the Debate. The only point which occurs to me now that I have not touched upon is the comparison made between our country and the neighbouring island of Ireland. The cases are not on all fours at all. In one case you are endeavouring to put small holders on holdings which do not exist; in the other case you are expropriating proprietors, and are putting men upon existing holdings in exactly the same form in which they exist at present. Therefore the cases are not comparable. I would, therefore, suggest to my hon. Friends who have endeavoured to make them comparable that they are not so, and that the figures of 1,200,000, or whatever it was in Ireland, and 200,000 for Scotland, cannot be put in the same category at all.
§ Mr. MOLTENOMay I say the right hon. Gentleman is mistaken in regard to that, because the 1,000,000 does nothing to make holders of land. It is purely administration money. It is not capital meant to provide land.
§ Mr. TENNANTTherefore it goes largely in salaries of officials in developing agriculture. I would much rather spend money, if I may be allowed to say so, upon the settling of persons on the land than in the payment of large numbers of official salaries. I endeavour, if I can, to economise in officials, and to use all my energies in trying to come to an agreement without the lengthy interminable business of courts of arbitration and so forth. I like to come to an agreement if I can with landlords in regard to schemes for increasing the numbers of small holders on the land. If I can do that, I shall indeed count myself fortunate. If I cannot do it without a large expenditure at present I am sure my hon. Friends will not ascribe it to want of good will. It may be properly ascribed to the existing condition of the country. Owing to the War we have an enormous increase in the cost of everything, and if we cannot expedite the number of persons who are desirous of being placed upon the land at once, it is not due to want of good will. I am certainly keeping a very vigilant eye upon all the possibilities which are presenting themselves, and I cam promise the House this, that any scheme which seems to me to present a fair prospect of the small holder being able to be put on and to make a living out of the land—not, perhaps, without hard work, but which still would give him a reasonable chance of a successful prosecution of agricultural work—will not be neglected.
§ Mr. PRINGLEI am sure the members of the Committee will congratulate the right hon. Gentleman upon his first statement as Secretary for Scotland. With the greater part of the announcements he has made, I am quite sure that his colleagues are highly delighted, and in particularly I think it is only fair that a Radical Member should take the opportunity of joining in the congratulations upon the splendid offer of the Duke of Sutherland. We all equally join with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Tennant) in expressing the hope that some of the other Scottish lairds may be induced to go and do likewise. There are only two other points to which I wish to refer in my right hon. Friend's speech. In 1134 the first place, I think that he did not deal with the question of the Grant in the way which we hoped he would have dealt with it. Undoubtedly we have been losing for two years money which should have gone for the purpose of the development of small holdings in Scotland. That money has been refused at a time of vast expenditure, at a time when it is easier to get money out of the Treasury than it is likely to be in the period immediately following the War. We therefore, so far as Scottish agriculture is concerned, are falling into arrears, and we may take it as certain that when the time of borrowing money is over and the time of simply paying interest comes, it will be absolutely impossible to obtain these arrears from the Treasury for the purposes of land settlement. The policy which I therefore commend to my right hon. Friend is this: That even though it is impossible now to spend, he should impress upon the Treasury the importance of, as it were, building up a reserve now for these purposes which will then be so essential in the national interests, and he should be further encouraged in his demands upon the Treasury when he remembers that his immediate predecessor is now at the Treasury, and as we have been assured, will see eye to eye with him in this matter of the essential necessity of obtaining this money for Scotland.
The other point to which I wished to refer was that while my right hon. Friend has been able to speak of schemes being further developed, the only schemes to which he referred in his speech this afternoon were schemes relating to the North. I think that there is one scheme in Ross and Cromarty, and another in Aberdeen, and there is the further opportunity opened out by the Duke of Sutherland's offer. I would appeal to my right hon. Friend as a South country Member to have some regard for the Southern counties. After all, the Lowland counties open up opportunities for smallholders, which, to say the least of it, are better than those which exist in Northern counties. Opportunities for successful cultivation in respect of soil and of market are better in the South than in the North. The chance of success for smallholders are much better on account of the easier access to markets. In these circumstances I hope that in the course of his first year of office he will be able to initiate something in the South, and if it is not possible to take the first practical steps that at least his assistants in the Board of Agriculture will be able to 1135 lay down the lines of some scheme of colonisation in the South, because we believe that there, even more than in the North, there are opportunities for land settlement on thoroughly successful lines. These are the only criticisms which I have to offer, and I conclude by once more congratulating the right hon. Gentleman on the useful statement which he has made.
§ Mr. HOGGEI am not sure that I go quite so far as my hon. Friend in congratulating my right hon. Friend on his first appearance as Secretary of State for Scotland.
§ Mr. MOLTENONot Secretary of State.
§ Mr. HOGGEThat is one of the grievances which we have, that Scotland has not a Secretary of State. I do not blame my right hon. Friend personally, because none of his colleagues could expect within the short period in which he has been in the Scottish Office that he can have made himself wholly conversant with the very many duties devolving upon him as Secretary for Scotland, and I am perfectly certain that when he has had the opportunity of dealing with the different Departments in the Scottish Office he will feel himself very much more able to deal with the multifarious problems that come before Scottish Members. I do congratulate him on his promotion to the Cabinet, from the personal point of view. He knows that; but I do not think that we should delude ourselves to-day that we are getting any "forrader" with Scottish affairs because compliments have been flying about the House. We are still at the first Vote, and there are yet ten or eleven Scottish Votes to come, which is a point in favour of the claim that we frequently make that one day is absolutely insufficient to deal with Scottish affairs in anything like an adequate fashion, because no one can for a moment claim that we have covered anything like the subjects that ought to be covered, or got anything like the information which we ought to have got with regard to very many interesting points concerning our own country.
Look, for instance, at page 42 of the Fourth Report of the Board of Agriculture. There is a very romantic story told about an effort which is being made to develop the native dyeing industry in Scotland. It was thought fit some time ago in this House to take over a very large 1136 industry in this country of England, and if I remember rightly a Scotsman was given the task of taking it under his control. I do not know how far that has succeeded, but in Scotland, according to this Report, this industrial investigation is being undertaken, and certain statements have been made, but so far we have had no information as to the result. It says that towards the end of the year steps were being taken to obtain the services of a few botanists and chemists respectively. I would ask my right hon. Friend if any further progress has been made in what seems to be an extremely interesting experiment. I notice it says here that a trained botanist must be employed, because, in the case of the lichens, it is essential, owing to the fact that there are over 700 kinds. Members know that the whole Highlands of Scotland are now closed for some purpose or other—I do not know for what purpose—beyond Inverness. I do not know whether this is the explanation, but I would like to know how far this investigation has gone. Has the Board of Agriculture got this botanist and this chemist? Is this only a fancy experiment, or a genuine attempt on the part of the Board of Agriculture to promote a Highland industry? I ask that because of the results which have happened in regard to another industry, in which a great many of us were interested —the kelp industry in the Western Highlands and Islands.
There, again, you have an industry which is native to Scotland, the development of which would supply very many necessary things that the country as a whole has missed during the operations of this War. I notice that the Report on that industry on this occasion is not nearly so good as it was on a previous occasion, for reasons which are explained. I can understand the shortage of labour and the effect that it would have on the development of this industry. If I remember rightly, certain moneys were spent in promoting the kelp industry in the West—in laying down roads, and so on. I think that in one case there was some talk about developing a harbour. I would like to know if that is being kept up, even while, owing to the sacrifices which the people have made in their services for the War, the labour is not sufficient for the moment. Going through this Report there is an extraordinary number of interesting subjects, which I do not propose to touch on because there are ten other Votes, but I 1137 want to emphasise the point that even though we have spent three or four hours on this Vote, we have by no means touched the fringe of the subject even after the speech which we have heard from my right hon. Friend. But I want to ask for more particulars about this gift from the Duke of Sutherland. Like those Members who have referred to it, I can appreciate the fact of the gift. I think that it is extremely generous to offer so much land to the State, but I want to be quite clear as to what we are doing. We have had a number of offers before in this House: we had one recently, not connected with Scotland, an offer of a stud farm in Ireland and in this country, and a number of horses, which created certain discussions.
§ Mr. PRINGLEOnly the stud.
§ Mr. HOGGEThe offer created certain discussions in this House, and certainly the House ought to know at once what all the terms are in connection with this offer. I do not think it very advisable to have any discussion raised about a gift of this kind after it is settled, and as this is the first occasion on which it has been mentioned—my right hon. Friend apparently keeping it as the surprise packet of his speech, to announce to the House to-day that this offer had been made—I do not think that he gave us enough particulars about it. I am not sure that I quite understand what use is going to be made of it. I take it that he, as Secretary for Scotland, has accepted the offer. I do not know how far he has got authority to do that; I do not know on what fund he will place the expense of the offer without some discussion about it, and there may be items connected with it which will lead to discussion. I notice incidentally that the fishings were reserved. That may be a source of difficulty in administering those small holdings. If the Duke of Sutherland retains the rights of fishing on these 12,000 acres, you get all sorts of questions arising if those fishings are let to other people in the fishing season, who come up into that particular part of the country and probably raise difficulties which may later on in this House create discussion. I would ask my right hon. Friend: Are the 12,000 acres given entirely free of all charges? Is it costing the State anything to take them over?
§ Mr. TENNANTI gave the figures to the Committee.
§ Mr. HOGGEI took them down, but I have not got that figure. My right hon. Friend says that it is going to cost £20,000 for the next two years, and after that it is going to cost £1,400 a year for the next fourteen years, and probably in the fifteenth year we would begin to get some return from the afforestation. Those are the figures which my right hon. Friend gave.
§ Mr. TENNANTAnd at the end of that time we should begin to get repayment of the capital invested, and the whole capital would ultimately be repaid with the addition of compound interest at 4 per cent.
§ Mr. HOGGEThat is the £20,000, I suppose. If that is Scottish money which is paid for equipping this estate and we are going to repay ourselves the £20,000 with 4 per cent. interest that is a very excellent transaction, but the question which I am asking is—is this estate being handed over to us now free of all cost?
§ Mr. TENNANTYes.
§ Mr. HOGGEIt is costing us nothing to accept the estate, and the only thing that is retained, is the fishing on the estate?
§ Mr. TENNANTAnd the furniture in the house.
§ Mr. HOGGEI am not worrying about that. I only want to be sure as to whether there is any condition attached which involves the payment of money. I am very glad that there is not. I want to have that clear, because I do not think that it is a good thing to discuss these things afterwards, when we ought to settle them straight away. The other point I want to put is as to who is going to use this land. My hon. Friend has said the soldiers and sailors, but will any soldiers and sailors be able to make application to the Scottish Board of Agriculture to be placed on that land, or will they be able to be placed on the land through any other schemes that are being formed to deal with soldiers and sailors. I want to be clear about a point of that kind. I take it that the men who have to go on this estate will apply in the same way as small holders apply for small holdings, and that under the regular existing machinery they will have preference on this particular estate, inasmuch as they happen to be soldiers and sailors, and that this may either apply to men who are wounded 1139 and who have recovered and desire to go on to the land, or to men who have not been wounded but wish to return to the land. If that be so, and if my right hon. Friend puts it in that way, then I think it is quite clear, and we will be able to agree. When we get a case of this kind difficulties may arise, and it is very much better to be clear about the whole matter, and that it should not be necessary to come afterwards and say that another estimate is wanted, that so much money is required in this particular case because such and such a thing has been forgotten, or because certain things must be paid for. I give my right hon. Friend fair warning that I consider it is settled on that basis, and on that basis it is an extremely generous gift, which I am very glad he has had, as Secretary for Scotland, the honour to accept, and I hope that he will make very excellent use of it.
§ Question put, and agreed to.