§ With the consent of, and subject to regulations made by the Treasury, the Board may promote the formation or extension of societies on a co-operative basis, having for their object, or one of their objects, the profitable working of holdings provided under this Act, whether 1622 in relation to the purchase of requisites, the sale of produce, credit banking, or insurance, or otherwise, and may assist any such society by making grants or advances to the society, or guaranteeing advances made to the society, upon terms and conditions as to rate of interest and repayment or otherwise, and on such security, as the Board think fit.
§ Mr. L. SCOTT: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to add the words, "and the Board where they think fit may transfer to such society the whole or any portion of any colony of small holdings provided under this Act upon such terms and conditions as the Board may think fit."
§ This is a corollary of the Amendments which were accepted by the Government when the Bill was last under consideration. I do not think it necessary to detain the Committee by explaining the matter again.
§ Mr. HIGHAMI do not think that the hon. Member has done justice to his Amendment. This Amendment, with other parts of the Bill, may simply substitute one landlord for another. It says that a colony or any portion of one may be transferred to one of these societies. I think the hon. Member should explain exactly the result of the Amendment. We do not want to bring in a new landlord to inflict all the evils and exercise all the powers of the old landlord.
§ Mr. SCOTTI explained the proposal at some little length at the last sitting of the Committee. It simply enables public utility societies, at the discretion of the Board of Agriculture, to run colonies of this kind on a partnership or co-operative basis. It is only for that very limited purpose—a purpose which has been recognised in the Small Holdings Act of 1908.
§ Mr. HIGHAM, Does it mean that a colony of over 2,000 acres may be transferred to one of these societies, and that that society shall then become the landlord, able to fix its own terms in dealing with the tenants on that holding?
§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Acland)It seems to me that under present circumstances it might be a useful power to be able to make use of one of these public utility societies, possibly a society formed for the purpose of developing an agricultural experiment of this kind, and to hand over to them, say, a portion of 1623 one of the colonies to develop as a model hamlet or village, or something of that kind, in their own way. The power of considering something of that kind will, I think, be a useful addition to the Bill.
§ Mr. J. SAMUELIs it the intention of the Government under this proposal to purchase the land for a colony and then to hand it over to a public company? Because in the following Amendment there is power to appoint directors of the Board to manage the company.
§ Mr. SCOTTThe next Amendment has nothing whatever to do with the Amendment now before the Committee. It relates solely to the question of the powers of the Board with regard to the management of the colonies kept in their own hands. It is quite a different subject.
§ Mr. SAMUELWe will discuss that when we come to it. If the Government are going to experiment upon these colonies, it is very much better that they should supervise the work themselves. In an earlier discussion to-night it was shown what an enormous saving had been effected when the Ministry of Munitions took over the manufacture of munitions. The Parliamentary Secretary was able to give figures which startled the House. Is it not possible for able men at the head of the Board of Agriculture, who take a great interest in this matter, to devise a scheme such as this and spend public money upon it, instead of handing the whole thing over to a public utility company? Under the Small Holdings Act we have schemes now being worked and managed by the county councils. Does any Member say that those schemes are not well managed, or that they are not well developed? The county councils now undertake the purchase of land for the purpose of allotments and small holdings. Do I understand that such a power should be given to the county councils to hand those schemes over to a company to work? This is certainly, in my view, a retrograde measure. I understood that the Government were going to purchase the land right out, manage the scheme, and develop a new principle so as to bring wounded men upon the land, and that these men would be under the care and attention of a Government Department. If that is so, I ask with all seriousness: What is the use of taking the power to hand over the whole of this work to a public utility company? We shall very likely find pressure put upon the 1624 Government hereafter. When a Bill was brought forward for the improvement of the dwellings of the poor, we had the same principle argued upstairs. When a corporation, council, or other public body had acquired the right to build houses, it was suggested that a public utility company should come in or should have power to borrow money to carry out the schemes.
§ Mr. SAMUELI believe that if the local authority is going to work this they ought to work it with their own money. Then I also believe that if the Board of Agriculture is going to develop this scheme of colonies for wounded men that, as a matter of principle, the Government should work it. I note the hon. Member opposite shakes his head. I do not know whether he is one of the public utility men?
§ Sir W. ESSEXAll Members of Parliament are.
§ Mr. SAMUELNot in the sense that the hon. Member means. I am also under the impression that the hon. Member for Wiltshire believes in this scheme, and is, in fact, one of the founders of it. At all events, that he is one of its supporters. If so, it is a very doubtful scheme. Consequently, I think, with all deference to the suggestion that this Clause should be passed as a new Clause——
§ The CHAIRMANI think the hon. Member is not aware of what happened previously. This Amendment is only consequential on what we have already inserted in the Clause. This is only carrying out the third part of the same Amendment. Therefore, I think the hon. Member cannot at this stage review the whole position.
§ Mr. SAMUELI quite admit I was not here on the last occasion. It would appear that some of us can attend too regularly. I myself am a very regular attender. There is a complaint sometimes that we attend too much, and if we do not attend on the occasion of a certain Debate then we are charged with being more or less ignorant of what has transpired. I think that this discussion is a very useful one. Certainly I believe the Member for Liverpool ought to have explained more fully what is meant by this Amendment. I certainly think if the Government is going in for this great scheme——
§ Mr. SAMUELYes, I really believe it is only the initiation of a great scheme, and 1625 I believe that the Government, or the Department, should themselves work the scheme without having anything to do with any utility company.
§ Mr. BARNESI hope that this Amendment will be adopted. I say that as a Socialist. I am not going to be guided by mere doctrinaire principles in regard to a matter of this sort. I understand that this is an entirely experimental Bill. If it were otherwise it would not be worth talking about. It would be merely a pill to cure an earthquake. We expect to have to deal with hundreds of thousands of men, and this Bill will only deal with 300 or 400. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton spoke a good deal about the public utility companies. Where is there any reference in the Bill to them? I do not see any.
§ Mr. SAMUELCo-operative societies.
§ Mr. BARNESWe know what a cooperative society is. I take it that this is a practical effort, after years and years of talk, to do something to help agriculturists to paddle their own canoe, much in the same way as workmen in the past have so successfully paddled theirs.
§ Mr. BARNESIf anything of the character suggested by the hon. Member for Stockton were possible under this Bill, I do not think I should have supported it. As he says, the Debate may be very useful in a way, to elucidate information from somewhere or another. I should say that the Amendment would enable the Board of Agriculture, if they thought proper, to transfer certain parcels of land to properly constituted co-operative societies. I see no reason why an experiment of this sort should not go forward, why societies of the sort referred to, as well as the Board, should not experiment on their respective lines. I suppose about ten or twelve years ago I should have said that if a public body got hold of land that that public body should retain hold of the land, and under no circumstances let go of it. I have had some experience of public bodies since then. I live and learn. I hope I shall continue to live and learn. My confidence in public Departments has been very severely shaken during the last ten years. Therefore I am in favour of experiments being carried out by agriculturists being brought together and working co-operatively for 1626 their own good, and by so doing also working for the good of the whole community. For that reason I shall give my vote for the Amendment, unless I hear something very much to the contrary.
Mr. DUNDAS WHITEIn view of what has been said about this being consequential to the Amendment which we passed last time—I was here last time, and one of my hon. Friends reminds me of the fact that the Amendment last incorporated in the Bill was a manuscript Amendment that we had not seen before, and in addition to that, that we had never seen this Amendment at the time because it also was consequential, and in manuscript—I do submit that the Committee is hardly bound by what it did before, and is, and ought to be, in a position to consider the whole subject de novo. I sympathise a good deal with what my hon. Friend the Member for Blackfriars has said. At the same time it may be my conservative tendency, but my view is that if the State acquires the land the State should take hold of the land, and that it should not hand it over to any kind of company. I would like to remind the Committee that the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite spoke of a public utility company. In his Amendment there is no reference to a public utility company. The words in the Amendment refer to "such society." It may be a public utility company, a cooperative society, or it may be any other society. For practical purposes, however, all the societies have this in common, that they do not carry on business at a loss, and they want to carry it on at a profit. This Amendment also says, any other land "upon such terms and conditions as the Board may think fit." There is one thing very noticeable, and that is that various societies, with influential people upon them, get hold of Government Departments and get favourable terms; at least, there is a suspicion that they may get them. I want to make sure that the public money which we vote out of the taxpayer's pocket by this Bill is not going into the pockets of any of the societies. I do not lay down such an absolute rule as my right hon. Friend, but the rule I would like to lay down is this: that if the Board, having acquired land and having spent money, it is to hand it over to a public utility society, there should be a statutory requirement that, as a condition precedent to that, 1627 before the public utility society or any other society gets the land, it should repay to the Board all the expenses which the Board have incurred in acquiring and improving the land. That seems to me an essential fact. I say frankly this is an instance of the danger of accepting offhand manuscript Amendments, against which I protested when this Bill was last before the Committee. The Committee had not the least idea—they had not the means of ascertaining—what they were landing themselves in. Here we have a Bill which is introduced to set up small-holding colonies to be under the Board of Agriculture, to be under the general direction of a right hon. and gallant Member of this House who is a special authority on agriculture, and then we find, all of a sudden, that the Board is to have the power to turn over the land it acquires to any society it likes, on any terms that may seem fit. I am sure that is not what the House had in view in giving a Second Beading to the Bill. I do not know if I am in order in suggesting now an Amendment at the end of the Clause.
Mr. WHITEYes, certainly. If my hon. and learned Friend introduces a Clause on a manuscript Amendment, I propose to amend it by a manuscript Amendment. If this Clause had been on the Paper first, I should certainly have put my Amendment on the Paper. As it is, an hon. Member who proposes a manuscript Amendment cannot object to a manuscript Amendment to that Amendment. I do not know if this is the correct moment for proposing it, but what I would propose is to add at the end of the manuscript Amendment the words, "Provided that the Board shall not make such transference except upon full repayment of all expenses incurred by them."
§ The CHAIRMANPerhaps the hon. Member will hand that in. Of course it could be moved after the insertion of these words.
§ Mr. CECIL HARMSWORTHI do not think my hon. Friend who has just resumed his seat has given to this Bill and the Amendments on the Paper the care and attention that he usually devotes to the business of this House, because if he had done so he would have observed on 1628 the last page of the Amendments a new Clause standing in the names of two or three hon. Members, of which the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Exchange Division is merely a paraphrase. My hon. and learned Friend's Amendment was introduced into this place on the best advice, this being thought to be the best place for bringing in this principle, and not resorting to the device of a new Clause, and I do not think my hon. Friend opposite exhibited towards this Amendment quite the same enlightenment that he devotes to most of the questions of land reform in this House. Surely it is most desirable when we are attempting an experiment—and it is surely one of the smallest experiments to which this House has ever devoted legislation—that, in addition to the activities of the Board of Agriculture, the Government should call to its assistance some of those admirable public utility societies, one of which, at least, has already some experience of the establishment of groups of small holdings. I do not think my hon. Friend opposite need alarm himself about this Amendment or, indeed, about any part of this extremely diminutive measure. All that those who are interested in public utility societies plead for is that when this experiment is being made they should be given a chance of taking a hand in the proposed experiment.
§ 10.0 P.M.
§ Mr. HARMSWORTHAs to that, I am not in charge of the Bill, but really the matter is so microscopic that my hon. Friend need not trouble himself, but it is a valuable principle that the public utility societies should have a chance in connection with this experiment of showing what they can do, and from what I have seen of at least one of them, they will acquit themselves admirably in a branch of public reform which, we hope, will be very much larger when the result of this experiment is known and proved.
§ Mr. PETOThe hon. Member who spoke last from the other side prided himself on having been present when the Bill was last before the Committee on 19th July. Quite apart from that, it appears to me quite obvious that before he made his speech he did not take the trouble to read the earlier words of the Clause on which 1629 this Amendment is based. If he had done so he would have found that the only society—not, as he put it, any society which might contain rich and plutocratic persons, who could bring influence to bear on the Board of Agriculture and the like; but the only society contemplated in the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for the Exchange Division is a society on a co-operative and, we added, a co-partnership basis, having for its object, or one of its objects, the profitable working of holdings under this Act. It must be a society engaged in working the holdings, and, therefore, the right hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division is perfectly right in his cursory reading of the Bill in supporting this Amendment, because it is definitely to give to the people who are going to work these holdings a chance, if the Board of Agriculture so decide as a part of this experiment, of doing it on land which will be transferred to them by the Board of Agriculture for that purpose. I cannot imagine what hon. Members opposite can find to object to in that. If we are going to try an experiment of putting soldiers and sailors upon the land, surely it is right to give to the Board of Agriculture the right to permit co-operative or co-partnership societies to work those holdings, and, if they are to work those holdings, to transfer to them the land which naturally forms the basis and the main asset of the experimental undertaking. Therefore I do hope hon. Members will withdraw their, as I consider, ill-conceived objection to this not only harmless but hopeful Amendment.
§ Mr. ANDERSONI do think, in spite of what has just been said, that the matter has been left rather vague by the governing words in the Clause itself and the subsequent Amendment. I want to ask, for instance, what is meant by "the society on a co-operative basis "? Does that mean, as I think the right hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division intends it should mean, a society made up of all those holdings on co-operative lines? It does not necessarily mean that. It may mean a society on some co-operative basis for the purpose of running an experiment, apart altogether from small holdings.
§ Mr. ANDERSONThat does not matter, and therefore, first of all, we want 1630 to be quite sure as to what is intended by this society on a co-operative basis, and that, I submit, may mean a great many things. It may mean something that is good, and it can also mean something that is very objectionable. Consequently, I think we want greater precision in regard to that point. To hear some hon. Members speak as to the various experiments that ought to be undertaken under this scheme, one would imagine that the Government was going to start about twenty or thirty different colonies and experiments, when, in point of fact, the Government is only going to start three colonies altogether.
In all these colonies public money quite obviously is going to be very largely invested for the purpose of helping those who have been wounded and disabled in the War. If that is so, I say that the larger amount of public control we retain the better it will be from every point of view. It will be far easier for us to raise questions here if anything wrong is done to these soldiers if the land and the conditions are directly controlled, than if we let them out to some public utility company. If that is done, the care of the soldiers leaves Parliament of the nation, and enters some public utility company run on the basis of, perhaps, a limited 5 per cent. profit. From these points of view, and in view of the limited nature of this experiment, you cannot possibly go ranging all over the place. In regard to the treatment of various land experiments, I do not want to be tied up too rigidly to one method I should like to see various methods tried, but in view of all the circumstances, I do think, first of all, that we want a much clearer definition as to what is really intended, and, secondly, I believe that since we are, to a large extent, going to deal with the wounded and disabled in the War, this experiment should be retained under public control, so that we can bring the Department to book if anything goes wrong.
§ Mr. ACLANDPerhaps the Committee will allow me to explain what was in my mind when I said, in the last Debate, that I thought this series of Amentments might be useful in carrying out this experiment. Of course, if the Committee disagrees with me, and thinks it is inadvisable, it has a perfect right to say so. I have had some discussion with people who are interested in all sorts of social experiments in agricultural districts, and who would like to try to help our colonies' 1631 scheme by getting an opportunity of carrying out some of the things they want to do. For instance, it is quite undeniable, I think, that this sort of colony might do better if there were attached to it, practically as part of it, a small factory or factories engaged in some rural industries such as wood or metal working. Woodworking industries would be a very valuable adjunct to a colony, and if a public utility society or a co-operative society on a co-partnership basis would undertake to provide the factory and staff for teaching the people in the colony to do wood or metal work or some other rural industry which can be combined with agriculture that might be a really helpful thing, and it seemed to me not unreasonable in that case that the Board might transfer a part of the colony. [An HON. MEMBER: "The freehold?"] No, not the freehold. I hope we shall not have to purchase any of these experimental colonies, but obtain the leasehold. We do not contemplate transferring any part of the freehold under any circumstances away from the State, and I do not think that would be fair or right. I think anything we do would have to be strictly under the control of the Government. Considering the extraordinary limited scope of the Bill, I am bound to say I think it would not be contemplated by any Government to transfer any of these colonies to any society, and the experiment will have to be kept quite definitely under the control of the Board of Agriculture. It seemed to me that these were not unreasonable words to accept, having in view the possibility of giving one of these societies the opportunity of starting one of these rural industries attached to the main experiment of the colony. I do not anticipate that we should go any further than that. It does not seem to me that these words are unnecessarily wide for that purpose, and I hope the Committee may now let us get on with the Committee stage of the Bill.
§ Mr. DILLONIt seems to me that there is a great deal of confusion as to the object of this Bill. Hon Members who have spoken have given inconsistent accounts as to the purpose and intention of the Amendment. The hon. Member below me is evidently under the impression that the object of the Amendment is to transfer the whole or part of one of these colonies to soldiers or sailors who are made landowners, and to assist them to work their colonies by farms on a co-operative plan. The hon. Member 1632 who spoke from the Front Opposition Bench apparently has in his mind the idea of transferring an entire colony to some institution called a public utility company, a term which I am wholly unable to understand, because such companies do not exist in Ireland, but that is a wholly different plan to what is proposed in the Bill. Another hon. Member said this was a project to encourage the holding of land by small holders, but the Minister representing the Board of Agriculture informed us that it is neither the one nor the other, but simply a measure to transfer a small corner of the colony to some society which would introduce the wood industry or some other subsidiary industry. I come from an agricultural country, and I want to tell the right hon. Gentleman who is conducting this Bill that, in my mind, that is an absurd idea with which to start agricultural farms. It may be that in future, if you succeed in raising a peasant population in this country, that wood and other industries may gradually develop, but that is not the problem you have to face. These people you are going to put on the land are not going to live by making dolls to take the German trade, and if they are going to live at all it is out of the cultivation of the land. That is what this experiment is based upon. Therefore I would recommend the Minister of Agriculture to postpone to some future occasion until he has tried the experiment this idea of rural industries, and put these men on the land under normal conditions.
With regard to the question of co-operation, I understand that you have large cooperative societies in this country who have that matter well in hand, and I take it that these people who are going to start on the land will have the same opportunity of availing themselves of the co-operative society which is under the presidency of an ex-Member of this House, and which offers its assistance and its guidance to all the men who cultivate land in England. I would suggest in connection with this Amendment that the Committee should really make up their minds what it is that is proposed, because, judging from the Debate, nobody knows what the Government are really after. The Committee are certainly not agreed upon it. I would suggest in a small microscopic experiment of this character that you should not cloud it or confuse it by these fads. The question is: Are you going to succeed in making peasant proprietors in England a success? It is a great experiment.
§ Mr. DILLONThe fact that they will be wounded soldiers makes it more difficult. They are peasants, at all events, let them be proprietors or tenants.
§ Sir G. YOUNGERThey are proprietors in Ireland.
§ Mr. DILLONYes, I am in favour of proprietors, but that does not touch the question of success. The point is that they are to be small holders. Believe me, as one who has lived among small holders all his life and who has been intimately familiar with their methods and their way of looking at life, all these new-fangled fads will not solve the question. What you have got to test is whether they can make their living out of the land. I do not know whether the co-operative society will assist them or not, but it is only a very small experiment and it ought to be watched closely and kept under the control of the State in all its details. Why propose to hand it over to some society? When you say a "society run on co-operative or co-partnership principles," let me say that there are societies in this City run on co-operative principles that are making 200 per cent. A name will not settle matters. A co-operative society may be making 10 per cent., 15 per cent., 20 per cent., or 100 per cent. I object to the introduction of an Amendment which would invite the Government to divest themselves of their responsibility to watch over the infancy of this experiment and to hand it over either to a co-operative society or to a public utility society—whatever that may be—or to set up wood industries or any other fad, which, in my opinion, would only serve to confuse and to injure the value of the experiment.
§ Mr. A. WILLIAMSThe hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has spoken of co-operative societies in this City making 200 per cent. It is well known by those who have followed the co-operative movement that there are societies, originally cooperative and still retaining the co-operative name, which are making large profits, but they are not recognised as co-operative societies at the present time. Unfortunately there is no law in this country to prevent anybody using the word "cooperative." This Bill does not speak of co-operative societies; it speaks of 1634 societies on a co-operative basis. Nobody would say that these societies making 200 per cent. are on a co-operative basis. Moreover, we have heard of public utility societies. A public utility society is necessarily limited to 5 per cent. I do not think anybody who has had any experience of these societies on a co-operative or co-partnership basis can have any real doubt about their extreme utility in educating men in the art of helping themselves and one another on a mutual basis. If you are going to establish these small-holding colonies, it will be most objectionable to look forward to a condition in which the State is to spoon-feed all the people in the colony, everything to be done on a centralised basis, drawing its supplies from the Treasury and looking to a Vote from this House to put everything right if there is anything wrong. What you have to do, if you are going to have these colonies and to make a success of them, is as quickly as possible to train the colonists to combine among themselves to help themselves, and to help one another. In doing that, I venture to say that these societies, cooperative and co-partnership, will be of the greatest possible value. You will have societies for the men to supply themselves with the things they need for their small holdings. You will have societies for the disposal of their produce in common. The hon. Member for Mayo spoke of the small peasant proprietors in Ireland. He must know far better than most of us the enormous advantages which the small peasants in Ireland have derived from banding together and carrying on their industries.
§ Mr. DILLONThe hon. Gentleman will pardon me for saying that if anybody proposed to hand the whole of these men over to a co-operative society—
§ Mr. WILLIAMSIt is very easy to make any proposal ridiculous by supposing that the powers which are given under a Bill of this sort are going to be used for the purpose of rendering the whole experiment futile, and of making everyone in it ridiculous. It is not to be supposed, however, that the Board of Agriculture, or whoever controls this experiment, will want to destroy its own experiment under the powers in this Bill. Moreover, it can do nothing without the consent of the Treasury, and it is not to be supposed for one minute that the Treasury is going to consent to give away, as has been suggested, all the money that has been expended upon these settlements. No! I 1635 venture to think that this is a most valuable power in order to enable the workers in these colonies to link themselves together for the purposes which they cannot properly carry out working as individuals, and which it would be hopelessly enervating and demoralising for the State to attempt to carry out for them, working as a great central authority with public money. I therefore have great pleasure in supporting the Amendment.
§ Sir W. ESSEXThis little Bill, this very little Bill, is a sign, it seems to me, of the new spirit that is coming over the country as one of the beneficial by-products of the War. Somebody makes an ingenuous remark on hearing that statement, but I want to point out to the House briefly how much many of us who sat for sixteen days on the old Small Holdings Bill in 1908 would have enjoyed it if we could have had the little bit of elastic which this Bill proposes to provide. The temper of this House, the temper of both Houses, in those days, great and beneficial as that measure was, prevented the addition of any such Clause to the Bill as is now proposed. I do earnestly ask my Friends who, like myself, have had in front of them all their life an earnest desire for the liberation of the land of this country, for the greater benefit and profit of those who live on it and by it, to give this little experimental Bill their help and a hearing. This is an endeavour to do, not something in addition to the Small Holdings Act only, but what that iron-bound Bill, beneficial as it has been, cannot do.
§ The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley)We have not quite reached the Third Beading yet. We are now dealing with an Amendment to the Clause, and the hon. Gentleman must keep narrowly to the purposes of that.
§ Sir W. ESSEXI thought I was rather helping on to that. I do want to lay emphasis on this. Those who know country life, know full well how this Clause will work out to its advantage in either of the three cases which are put forward as proposals for the experiment. You will be able to do what you cannot do with existing legislation, and I assure my Friends that as I read it in conjunction with the previous Act this will give elasticity to the operation of small-holding colonies and small land holdings and will enable the people not to make wooden 1636 dolls—although, if that were a profitable investment, why should they not do so?—but to engage in rural industries which are now made needlessly difficult. Finally, let us remember that a large number of these men who will come back to these colonies—I hope this Bill is only the seedling plant of a very much larger measure—will be men who could not work on ordinary small holdings, digging, hoeing, and all the rest. Some of them will be crippled, but under the pleasant conditions of rural life they will be able to do something to help those who can mow, sow and reap, and so the whole thing will grow and widen and country life will be made more truly helpful in the future than it is at present.
§ Mr. ELLIS DAVIESI have been expecting to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture what attitude the Government intend to take on this Amendment. Do they intend to accept it?
§ Mr. DAVIESI was present, and I should be very sorry to assume that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill meant that. He confined himself to pressing the provision for the transfer to such society of a portion of the land. He went further and stated that it was not the policy of the Board of Agriculture to transfer the control of the land to one of these societies, but that, on the other hand, they intended to retain control with the Board. The Amendment says:
The Board … may transfer to such society the whole or any portion of any colony.Are we to understand from the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill that the Government contemplate asking the House to pass this measure at a cost of £2,000,000 and then transfer the whole of the land that has been acquired to a society over whom, apparently, neither the Board nor the public have any control? Is that the policy of the Board? If so, we are entitled to know it from the right hon. Gentleman before we go to a Division. I have a good deal of sympathy with the object of the Mover of the Amendment and some other speakers, and agree that it is desirable to give every assistance of co-operation to those who will be on these small holdings. There will be no objection to that; in fact, it is already in the Bill, because Clause 2 1637 provides for the promotion of the formation of societies having for their object the purchase of requisites, the sale of produce, credit banking, or insurance. Those things are not only desirable but essential, if the scheme is to be a success. Obviously the object of the Mover of the Amendment is neither to establish credit societies nor to facilitate the sale of produce or otherwise, but to get the transfer of the colony itself.
§ Mr. DAVIESI suggest that the hon. Member should once again read his own Amendment, which distinctly says:
May transfer to such society the whole. … of any colony.That is the power that is going to be given to the Board. I, for one, most strongly object to placing this power in the hands of any body not answerable to this House. The House has been asked to make an experiment. I have expressed the opinion before, and I repeat it now, that I think the experiment will be a failure; but anything that is essential to that experiment should be done under the best possible conditions. I object, for instance, to a scheme for a compound, or something of that nature, being provided for men who are fighting for us, but I still more strongly object to the idea that when these men return, and when they are going to be put upon the land, they are going to be under the control and under the direction and under the limitations of a society which is answerable to no one and particularly not answerable to this House, and if the Amendment is moved I shall vote against it.
§ Mr. RAFFANThose who are opposing this Amendment cannot be accused of opposing the principle of co-operation. The very fullest opportunities of co-operation are provided by the Clause as it already stands. Everything that is asked for, co-operation for the purpose of purchasing supplies, co-operation for the purpose of marketing, co-operation for the purpose of credit, all these things are possible under the Bill as it stands, and this Amendment can be required for no purpose except this: either that the colony as a whole may be transferred to the society or that a considerable portion of the colony is to be carved up and handed over to the co-operative society, leaving the rest to be worked independently as part of the scheme. I am extremely sur- 1638 prised that the hon. and learned Gentleman, who has been a member of the Committee which has submitted this Report, who has taken a great deal of interest, and who has prepared, as he and his colleagues think, a scheme every part of which is dependent upon the other, should suggest that you should carve that scheme into bits, because, if you take out a considerable portion of the colony, and hand it over to the company your whole scheme goes to pieces. It is utterly impossible in a particular colony to carry out the scheme of the Committee of which he was a member. The scheme falls entirely to the ground in that colony. Or it is, of course, possible that the co-operative society may take over the whole colony, but the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill tells us that he would never countenance any proposal of that kind. As I understand it he would not advise the Committee to take action which would enable that to be done. But the words of the Amendment allow it to be done.
§ Mr. LESLIE SCOTTI do not know whether it will meet the views of those who are opposed to the Amendment in its present form if I were to ask leave to withdraw two or three words from it. It provides that
The Board where they think fit may transfer to such society the whole or any portion of any colony of small holdings provided under this Act upon such terms and conditions as the Board may think fit.I should be prepared to omit the words "the whole or," in order to meet the views of those who are objecting. I, of course, was a member of the Departmental Committee that considered the whole question of these colonies and their internal organisation, with a view to obtaining a maximum of success, and I did not in the least contemplate by proposing this Amendment that any of these various conditions of success which I regard as all essential, none of which in my opinion can be omitted, co-operation or otherwise, were to be dropped, and that is the reason why I put it in those words, "upon such terms and conditions as the Board may think fit," leaving to the Board the complete control to lay down any conditions they thought fit, knowing that among the conditions would be strict provisions to ensure the continuance of the whole colony in accordance with the scheme which we indicated in our Departmental Report.
§ Mr. RAFFANI do not know what my hon. Friends think, but so far as I am concerned, while the suggested Amendment meets part of the case, it does not meet the whole case. I am now at an entire loss to know the object of the Amendment or what is hoped to be gained by it. Every form of co-operation can be carried out under the Clause as it stands. All that is achieved by the transference of a portion of the colony to a co-operative society is that in future, instead of paying rent to the Government which is carrying on this scheme, they now deal directly with the landowner and pay the rent to him. Does anyone suggest that it is in the interests of any scheme of co-operation that that should be done? Does anybody suggest that instead of paying rent to the Government the rent should be paid to the landowner, and that that is promoting co-operation in any shape or form? There is nothing achieved. What the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Acland) wishes to do to encourage village industries could be quite well done under the Bill as it stands. The Bill gives him power to let land on such terms as he thinks best, so long as it is to encourage the success of the experiment. That he can do. It is quite unnecessary for him to have an Amendment of this character for the purpose of enabling him to achieve that object. In my view, the Amendment is designed to secure something which cannot be secured in this form and, I conceive, cannot be secured under this Bill. An experiment by public utility companies or by co-operative societies in settling people on the land would be a very interesting experiment, no doubt, and we would all wish well to an experiment of that character; but that is not facilitated in the slightest by this Amendment, either as it appears on the Paper or as the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Leslie Scott) proposes to amend it. The hon. and learned Gentleman says that he is going to safeguard himself. He is going to keep intact all the features of his scheme, because the Board of Agriculture may dictate terms to the co-operative society upon which they will transfer the land; but it is conceivable that you may have an unfriendly Board of Agriculture. You may, in time to come, have a Board of Agriculture which does not look with favour on an experiment of this kind, and they might hand over a portion of these colonies unconditionally. When that is done, what happens?
§ Mr. BARNESThat would tell against your argument in regard to the Board of Agriculture obtaining the land.
§ Mr. RAFFANAt any rate, if this Amendment is not adopted, it would be impossible for them to decimate the scheme. Either the scheme would run with the chance of success which the scheme would have or the scheme would entirely go to pieces, and these holdings would be separated The worst thing of all surely would be to have half the scheme running on the lines laid down by the Committee of which the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Leslie Scott) was so distinguished a member, and the other half of the scheme run by a co-operative society on such lines as it thinks proper. I suggest to the hon. and learned Gentleman that if he will consider the matter he will see that he achieves nothing by this Amendment, but he introduces an element which would tell against that success of the scheme which I am sure he desires. I hope he will not press the Amendment. If he does, so far as I am concerned, I shall with my Friends go into the Lobby against it.
Mr. CHANCELLORWhen I first read this Amendment I was rather inclined to vote for it, but when I look into it more closely I see certain dangers in it. The object of this Bill is to settle as independant settlers on the land working for themselves for their own profit, small holders. If any portion of the land is withdrawn from the actual settlers, and cannot be worked individually by them, and is transferred to a co-operative society which may consist of members who have nothing whatever to do with the business, you reduce instead of increasing the number of persons settled upon the land and defeat the purpose for which this scheme has been brought forward, or if they remain on the land they do not remain as independent holders working for themselves, but merely as workmen employed by a co-operative society, even though they be members of that society. I think that that is not the purpose, but that might very well grow out of this Amendment. Therefore, personally, I shall vote against the Amendment if a Division is called.
§ Mr. SAMUELI do not know whether the Government intend to accept the Clause which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Luton (Mr. Cecil Harms-worth). Under this Clause as it stands the Government, if the Department thinks fit, 1641 can hand over any portion of a colony to a public utility company. If the colony is a success, what right has the Government or a Department to sell any portion of it to any company? If the colony is a success it is very much better for the men to allow the colony to go on developing. If it is not a success will any utility company purchase it under the Clause which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Luton (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth)?
§ Mr. CECIL HARMSWORTHI do not think that my hon. Friend was present at the Debate at the last sitting when my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary made it quite clear that there was no means of enlarging the scope of this Bill, that the Government had made up its mind not to devote a larger acreage than 8,000 acres altogether to the purposes of this Bill, and therefore the Amendment which stands in my name and that of other hon. Members becomes impossible of achievement.
§ Mr. SAMUELI accept the explanation, but I understood that the right hon. Gentleman did refer to certain Amendments further on on the Paper, and I understood that he was referring to these Amendments. If the Government does not intend to accept any one of these Amendments, my argument at once falls to the ground; but, after the explanation given by the hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, that he has modified this Clause so as to admit only a portion of the colony to be sold to a utility company, I think that the whole argument on this Clause falls to the ground. It is infinitely better, in my opinion, for the Government to work this scheme as an experiment and to treat these men in a kindly manner, and if the experiment is a success it can be extended in other directions.
§ Mr. MORTONThis seems to be a most extraordinary Amendment. No two Members of the House seem to interpret or to understand it alike, and one would think altogether that it is promoted with the view of starting some other scheme rather than of dealing with these poor soldiers for whom we propose to find a very little land when they come back from fighting our battles. As far as I can understand the Amendment—I do not say that I understand it properly—it is a proposal to give the Board of Agriculture power to scrap the undertaking and to sell it to a co-operative society, or what is called a 1642 public utility company—what sort' of a company that is I do not know. It is a curious proposal. We are seeking to provide this little bit of land to afford a home for soldiers who have been damaged in the War, and whose position we are anxious to improve. In any case this is a bad Bill. For goodness sake do not make it worse than it is.
§ Mr. MOLTENOI must say that I have heard no argument advanced why we should accept an Amendment of this kind in Scotland. It is regarded in that country with the utmost alarm, to hand over the whole body of small holders to any kind of persons outside. I shall vote against the Amendment.
§ Sir LUKE WHITEThere appears to be a great deal of misconception about this Amendment. If it were carried it would allow even the Board of Agriculture to hand over a colony, or part of a colony, to some outside body or independent society. The Clause itself enables the Board of Agriculture to promote cooperative societies for the purposes mentioned in Clause 2—that is, to enable the tenants to co-operate together in order to purchase and to sell. and to act in various other ways. That is the object of Clause 2, in my opinion. Then we have this Amendment before the Committee, and all that it does is to say that in addition to the Board of Agriculture promoting or assisting to promote co-operation amongst the tenants, the Board of Agriculture may, also, when that society is established—not an independent society, but the same society which has been formed—transfer to that society, for the objects put forward in this proposed Act of Parliament. I certainly support the Amendment. I believe that it will materially assist the tenants under the provisions of Clause 2, if, having tried the experiment of co-operation, they come to the conclusion that it will be better for them to have the ownership. Then they could apply to the Board of Agriculture, and the Department could hand the matter over to them to manage in their own way, subject to the terms and conditions mentioned. I hope the Amendment will be carried.
§ Sir GEORGE YOUNGERI hope the hon. Member for Dumfriesshire (Mr. Molteno) will hot definitely oppose the Amendment, and that he does not think that a large number of Scottish Members agree with him. The hon. Member who 1643 has just spoken (Sir Luke White) has got hold of the right end of the stick, and I cannot conceive why there has been such a very long Debate on this matter. In Scotland we have had many discussions about it, and I think they are very well satisfied that small holders in many cases should have a co-operative company.
§ Mr. MORTONWhat about the public utility companies?
§ Sir G. YOUNGERI can only deal with one subject at a time. In holdings of this character co-operation is most desirable and necessary, and the object of the Amendment is merely to give to these individuals greater power than they possess. Under the Clause as it now stands the powers will be given for a certain control over members of co-operative societies, and nobody can suppose for a moment that
§ any Board of Agriculture would ever think of giving up this power to outside societies altogether.
§ Mr. EDGAR JONESI hope the hon. Member will not force this Amendment to a Division, for he cannot gain anything. The hon. and learned Member is thinking in the terms of 60,000 acres, and if he had that quantity it would be a different matter. You have only got three colonies altogether, and Wales has got one of these, which she can manage in her own way. You have only got two left. For the sake of two colonies, you do not want to bring in tinkering things like this. I appeal to the hon. Member not to force a Division.
§ Question put, "That those words be there added."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 76; Noes, 46.
1643| Division No. 42.] | AYES. | [10.53 p.m. |
| Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke | Dougherty, Rt. Hon. Sir J. B. | Needham, Christopher T. |
| Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte | Essex, Sir Richard Walter | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson | Perkins, Walter Frank |
| Baird, John Lawrence | Gelder, Sir W. A. | Peto, Basil Edward |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Gilbert, J. D. | Pollock, Ernest Murray |
| Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G. | Greenwood, Sir G. G. (Peterborough) | Radford, Sir George Heynes |
| Barlow, Montagu (Salford, South) | Gulland, John William | Rea, Walter Russel (Scarborough) |
| Barnes, Rt. Hon. George N. | Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds) | Rendall, Athelstan |
| Bathurst, Capt. Charles (Wilts, Wilton) | Harris, Percy A. (Leicester, S.) | Roberts, George H. (Norwich) |
| Beck, Arthur Cecil | Haslam, Lewis | Robertson, Rt. Hon. J. M. (Tyneside) |
| Bentham, George Jackson | Helme, Sir Norval Watson | Robinson, Sidney |
| Brace, William | Hodge, John | Roe, Sir Thomas |
| Brookes, Warwick | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Rowntree, Arnold |
| Brunner, John F. L. | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Smith, Sir Swire (Keighley, Yorks) |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Illingworth, Herbert H. | Stewart, Gershom |
| Byles, Sir William Pollard | Jones, Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe) | Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West) |
| Cator, John | King, Joseph | Talbot, Lord Edmund |
| Cave, Rt. Hon. Sir George | Larmor, Sir J. | Tickler, T. G. |
| Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W. | Layland-Barrett, Sir F. | Valentia, Viscount |
| Clynes, John R. | Levy, Sir Maurice | Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N. W.) |
| Cochrane, Cecil Algernon | Macmaster, Donald | Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.) |
| Cory, James H. (Cardiff) | Markham, Sir Arthur Basil | Younger, Sir George |
| Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe) | Meysey-Thompson, Major E. C. | |
| Craig, Colonel James (Down, E.) | Middlebrook, Sir William | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Millar, James Duncan | Mr. Leslie Scott and Sir Luke White. |
| Dalrymple, Hon. H. H. | Morgan, George Hay | |
| Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert | |
| NOES. | ||
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W. | Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil) | Reddy, Michael |
| Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North) | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Rees, G. C. (Carnarvonshire, Arfon) |
| Bridgeman, William Clive | Jowett, Frederick William | Rowlands, James |
| Byrne, Alfred | Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) | Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees) |
| Chancellor, Henry George | McGhee, Richard | Sutton, John E. |
| Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth) | MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South) | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Davies, Ellis William (Eiffon) | Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) | Walsh, Stephen (Lanes., Ince) |
| Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth) | Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix) | Watt, Henry A. |
| Dillon, John | Molteno, Percy Alport | White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston) |
| Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Ffrench, Peter | O'Dowd, John | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Fletcher, John Samuel | O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) | Wing, Thomas Edward |
| Galbraith, Samuel | O'Sullivan, Timothy | Young, William (Perthshire, East) |
| Goldstone, Frank | Outhwaite, R. L. | |
| Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Pratt, J. W. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Jacobsen, Thomas Owen | Pryce-Jones, Colonel E. | Mr. Higham and Mr. Anderson. |
| John, Edward Thomas |
§ Mr. ACLANDI think it was understood that we should not continue the Debate on the later Orders after Eleven o'clock. I therefore beg to move to report Progress.
§ Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow (Wednesday).
§ The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.