HC Deb 25 July 1918 vol 108 cc2060-91

For Sub-section (3) of Section eleven of the Corn Production Act, 1917, the following Subsection shall be substituted:— (3) This Part of this Act shall not, except as hereinafter provided, come into operation until the termination of the present War, and the powers under the Defence of the Realm Regulations exerciseable by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries with a view to maintaining the food supply of the country with respect to matters dealt with in this Part of this Act shall continue to operate until that date:

The PRESIDENT or the BOARD Of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Prothero)

I beg to move, after the word "that" ["provided that"] to leave out (a) Before any person is deprived of the occupation of his land in connection with the food supply of the country, he shall be served with a notice of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries to take such possession; and if any person is served with such notice as aforesaid, or with a notice requiring that any land in his occupation shall be cultivated according to the rules of good husbandry, or requiring any change in the mode of cultivating, or in the use of land in his occupation, or otherwise dealing with the said land for the purposes of food production, and to insert, instead thereof, (a) If on or after the twenty-first day of August, nineteen hundred and eighteen, any person is under the said powers, served with a notice determining his tenancy of any land, or with a notice requiring any change in the mode of cultivating, or in the use of land in his occupation. The object of Clause 1, or one of its main objects, has reference to allotments, which are included in this measure. It restores the Board to the position which it held under the Defence of the Realm (Acquisition of Land) Act, 1916, and enables it to remain in possession of any land which it has acquired under the powers of the Defence of the Realm Act for the duration of the War and a period not exceeding two years after. The Amendment which I have moved makes the proviso read as follows: "If, on or after the 21st day of August, 1918, any person is under the said powers served with a notice determining his tenancy of any land or with a notice requiring any change in the mode of cultivating or in the use of land in his occupation, the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 9 of this Act shall apply as if the notice had been served under the powers conferred by that Section." When I moved the Second Reading of this Bill I said that I was prepared to accept certain rights of appeal and the right to recover compensation given by the Act. The only limit to that concession was such as was absolutely necessary to secure the maintenance of food production at the present time. Owing to the depletion of labour we have decided not to increase the arable area, which makes it all the more necessary that the utmost possible should be got out of the existing arable acreage.

I believe that I shall have the support not only of this House, but of the other place, in the view that nothing should be done by this Bill which will unduly hamper the action of the executive committees in grading up farming and also in dealing with foul or neglected land. Under the provision as it stands appeal is allowed, first, against any action taken to deprive a tenant of the occupation of any land, whether such deprivation takes the form of terminating his tenancy or is merely possession being taken temporarily for cultivation or for allotments; secondly, when there is a notice requiring that land in the occupation of a person shall be cultivated according to the rules of good husbandry; and thirdly, where there is a notice requiring a person to make a change in the mode of cultivation or use of land, or otherwise dealing with land for the purposes of food production. This last heading has some words of a vague character, but its principal application is of course to ploughing up grass. I think that even when it is possible, owing to a change in circumstances, to issue ploughing-up orders, it is only reasonable and fair that in future the farmer should have the same right of appeal as he would have had under Part IV. of the Corn Production Act.

There is another case in which I think an appeal is quite reasonable-that is, if a notice is issued determining the tenancy of a farm because it is badly cultivated. There again we think that an appeal should be allowed. The effect of the notice is not merely temporary, and there is really no such great urgency in that kind of case as to interfere seriously with food production. In those two cases my Amendment proposes to give an appeal, but I would ask the House not to extend the appeal to other cases. As I have stated, the provision of allotments is a matter of first-rate importance. The need is mainly urban, and though the amount of land required is not great, and though in the main its value agriculturally is not large, it is necessary that there should be no delay in providing the land. The cultivation of allotments is the only way in which, in present conditions, we can really increase our food supplies, because the depletion of skilled labour prevents our increasing the arable area.

I am sure that any delay in providing land would give rise to a great amount of discontent, and would give a large number of persons who are anxious to devote their spare time to cultivating allotments much reason to complain. Of course, owners or occupiers of land who are temporarily deprived of its use for allotments will have a statutory right to compensation for all loss which they can prove. The remaining cases, where there is the service of a notice requiring occupiers to cultivate their land according to the standard of good husbandry, are cases in which prompt compliance is necessary. It is a seasonal matter. I submit, with confidence, that the executive committees are to be trusted in matters of that sort. They are men of practical knowledge and experience in local farming. I may give an illustration from the executive committee in Wiltshire, which we were led to understand the other day consisted of a few ladies and a solicitor and some other people. The actual members are the chairman, who is a large farmer, and owns a considerable part of the land which he occupies, five large very well-known farmers in the county, one farmer who has retired from business, the agents to Lord Lansdowne and Lord Radnor and Mr. Fuller. If that is not a body competent to decide what is good farming, I do not believe that you can form any tribunal for such a case. I believe that in this matter of cultivation they may safely be left to issue orders which will commend themselves to all reasonable men.

Mr. MOUNT

I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman is going to grant an appeal with regard, to the determination of tenancies. I am also glad to know that he does not intend to grant an appeal in cases where war agricultural committees make orders of specific matters of cultivation in cases of bad farming, but I am not at all sure that the words which he proposes carry out that object. It seems to me that the words "or with a notice requiring any change in the mode of cultivation, or of the use of land in his cultivation," are too wide, and would cover any order made by these committees ordering specific acts of cultivation because the land was not properly cultivated according to the rules of good husbandry. War agricultural committees take action under Regulation 2M (1, e) of the Defence of the Realm Act. That Regulation empowers the issue of notices requiring the cultivation of the land in accordance with such requirements as the Board may think necessary or desirable for maintaining the food supply of the country. It seems to me that an order specifying certain acts of cultivation issued under that Regulation would come under the words which are proposed in this Amendment. If so, it would mean that an appeal would lie. I think that an appeal should not lie in cases of that sort, because, as a rule, the work is seasonal work. There is not much time for delay, and if it is to be carried out at all it ought to be carried out at once. It may be said that an appeal will not cause any delay. I do not agree with that. The arbitrator by whom the appeal would be heard would be no doubt some local valuer or land agent, and anyone who has had anything to do with valuers or land agents lately knows how fully occupied they are. I think that it is difficult for them to find time to do what they have got to do now, and that there would be considerable delay if an appeal were granted in these cases. I am not a draftsman, and I do not know how the point could best be met, but I would suggest that we might have added at the end some such words as these, "unless such notice is served solely on the around that such land is not being cultivated according to, the rules of good husbandry." Perhaps between now and the Report stage my right hon. Friend will consider whether these words do meet the point which he intends to meet, that there should be no appeal in the case of orders for a specific act of cultivation because a man has not been farming according to the rules of good husbandry.

6.0 P.M.

Colonel GRETTON

I have grave doubt whether the words proposed by the President will accomplish what he desires. They are extremely vague and extremely wide. Take the case of bad cultivation of land which has to be altered. The words arc, "notice requiring any change in the mode of cultivating or of the use of land in his occupation." I suggest that those words are so vague as to be capable of covering almost all cultivation orders which may be issued and would be an endless cause of appeal if they are allowed to stand without some qualification. Then there is the question whether an appeal in certain cases would not actually preclude agricultural committees from taking possession of land for small holdings. The mere fact of establishing allotments or small holdings means an alteration in the cultivation of the land. I have had no opportunity of taking skilled advice on this point, but it appears to me that the words of the Amendment are little more than a paraphrase of the proviso as it stood in the Bill. I think the President will find himself in very great difficulty unless these points are quite definitely cleared up and embodied in language which is simple and able to be understood by farmers, occupiers of land, landowners, and others interested in this matter. We want these questions to proceed smoothly, and therefore we should have simple and plain language which clearly indicates what is intended by this House.

Mr. PROTHERO

I am willing to accept the Amendment suggested by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Mount).

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

There seems to be a general agreement that the words proposed to be left out should come out, and if they are taken out we shall then be able to discuss what words shall be inserted.

Mr. PETO

I would like first to say a word in regard to the words proposed to be taken out. I have listened to the President's arguments for altering the Bill, and I must say that I am not impressed with one of them. He says it is desirable not to hamper unduly the war agricultural committees, but I do not think the Bill as it stands would have that effect. I would rather put this view to him, that as far as there is any opposition to the action of the war agricultural committees or any want of confidence in their decisions, it does arise from the fact that there is at present no appeal against any of their decisions, and therefore it seems to me that so far from hampering their action, the mere fact that if both landlord and farmer knew they had a right of appeal against any order, whether dealing with these special matters now reserved for appeal or whether under the wider words which are really in accordance with Part IV. of the Corn Production Act, would, I think, go far to prevent there being any opposition to the orders at all. It is only in human nature that people should resent orders against which there is no possibility of arguing and no appeal. The President said it is essential for the provision of allotments, but I have not read in any controversy in the Press, nor have I heard, through any correspondence, that there has been any serious difficulty in getting all the land that has been necessary for allotments. The President, I see, agrees. If that has been so in the past, why should he assume that there would be a whole crop of appeals on the question of the necessary land in the future? I should have thought, from going up and down in the country, that everybody, the small man and the landowner, and everyone else, were all of one mind in this matter, and that wherever a cabbage or potato can be grown it is a national duty to take whatever part is necessary in seeing that that cabbage or potato is grown, and I do not see any reason whatever for cutting out from the right of appeal that particular matter. In regard to the question of delay, I cannot quite agree with the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Mount). It is quite true that everybody connected with agriculture is terribly busy, and in fact tremendously overworked, but we are not talking about an appeal to the Law Courts, from Court to Court, and finally to the House of Lords, and a delay of months that may run possibly into years. It is a perfectly simple form of appeal to an arbitrator for his decision, and it is probably on a simple question of fact, and I cannot believe that the appeals would be numerous or very lengthy. If they are numerous, it would only imply that a very large number of unreasonable orders have been made, and I do not believe that that is the case.

I should like to say one word on this question of cultivation according to the rules of good husbandry. I do not want to quote a single case on the side of the tenant, but one case has recently come to my knowledge, and it is not in Wiltshire, but in the county of Surrey, where the landlord is so satisfied that a farm which constitutes a large part of a very small property is badly cultivated that he has done everything he possibly can, under the existing law, to get leave to resume possession himself and cultivate the land properly. The grass land already ploughed up is in a shocking condition, yet the tenant in that case is taking in hand the further ploughing up of land which he has no proper means of cultivating. The war agricultural committee sent one of their number to look at this particular farm. He happened to be a neighbouring farmer, no doubt with the sympathies which we are all, perhaps fortunately, liable to, and in a neighbourly way he has put a blind eye to the defects of cultivation, and said he could not see any reason to say that the farm was improperly cultivated, and so the matter remains. I should like to see that there is an appeal in these matters, both by the landlord and the tenant, and I do not think it is by any means certain that it will always operate to protect the farmer who is badly cultivating his land. I should like the President not to shut his eyes to the fact that in some cases it may bring pressure to bear on a farmer to cultivate his land properly, and that that would be the result of the appeal. It is, no doubt, an unpleasant duty for a man to have to pass judgment on his neighbour's cultivation, and to say that a farm ought to be taken out of his hands. It is very much easier for an arbitrator to make such a decision than it is for any member of a war agricultural committee. Take even the case of Wiltshire. I am the last person to speak in anything but admiration of the members of the Wiltshire Agricultural Committee, or of the work that they have done, because I believe it is perfectly splendid; but even in that case the right hon. Gentleman says the greater part of the members are practical farmers. I quite agree, and I know from personal conversation that it is not a pleasant duty to have to go over the land of a neighbour, and perhaps a friend, and come to what the neighbour might regard as an arbitrary decision, without any right of appeal, on the question of whether the land is or is not being properly cultivated. I believe, in the interests of the production of food and the smooth working of the Act, that it is essential to have this power of carrying the matter to arbitration. Therefore, I am sorry that the Bill as amended in another place is proposed to be whittled down, some cases to be allowed, other cases to be taken out, and I think it is an extremely difficult thing to decide beforehand just where an appeal may be necessary and where it may not be necessary. It would be far wiser, I think, to leave the appeal open everywhere, in every case provided for in the original Act, when the matter was fully debated and when all those Members who are most competent to speak for agriculture were present.

Mr. L. HARDY

I want to ask the President of the Board a question in reference to the words which he proposes to introduce as to determining a tenancy. The words are, "if any person is under the said powers served with a notice determining his tenancy of any land." Does that include both the forms of the termination of tenancy which have arisen in connection with the conduct of the Food Production Department named in Regulation 2 M.F.? There is the direct notice, and there is the notice which is given on the application of the landlord.

Mr. PROTHERO

It will apply to both.

Sir C. WARNER

I cannot agree with the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Peto), who wishes to curtail the powers of these committees and who wishes the appeal to be allowed in every case. I am rather sorry that the appeal is brought in at all. I am not quite sure that it is going to do very much good, but the one thing that has happened in all the country I know of is that these committees have increased production very considerably by having improved the farming. If you are going to give an appeal in the case of any sort of cultivation, I am afraid it will effect more harm than good. Take the case of temporary pastures, where, say, vetches are put down, and the occupier very often chooses to keep them going for five years. That is an enormous loss of grain to the country. It probably pays him to do so, and I think any appeal should be carefully guarded so that it should not in any way restrict the powers of these committees as to the way in which the land is to be cultivated. I rather regret that the appeal is being given in any case, because I do not think any very great injury is being done, even by the termination of tenancies. I think the power that the committees have to determine a tenancy has been a great incentive to many farmers to farm properly, and I am afraid that when they have not got that power some farmers will say, "I am quite safe, I cannot be turned out, and I am not going to listen to this agricultural committee. I know more about it than they do." In that way I fear that a good deal of harm may be done. Certainly I hope that the Amendment which the Minister for Agriculture has introduced will be considered very carefully before the Report stage, so as to see that it does not in any way affect the powers of the agricultural committees to control the cultivation of land which is now being badly cultivated. There is no doubt about it that there is still a great quantity of land in this country being badly cultivated, and that these agricultural committees have done untold good in the past. I think they have an enormous work before them still, and I hope it will not be curtailed by giving the occupier the power of appealing when they tell him he is not doing the thing properly, and taking away their power to enforce it.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.

Question proposed, "That the proposed words be there inserted."

Colonel ROYDS

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, after the word "eighteen" ["nineteen hundred and eighteen"], to insert the words "the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries under the said powers desire to enter upon occupation of land, notice of such intention shall be served on the occupier, or if."

The Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman proposes to give powers of appeal in two cases in which he explained—on notice being given to terminate the tenancy, or on notice being given requiring any change in the mode of cultivating or in the use of land—but he reserves to the Board of Agriculture, under Clause 1 of the Bill, the right to exercise the powers under the Defence of the Realm Act, subject to any modification made in this Bill. Under the powers of the Defence of the Realm Act the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, or any body deputed by them, whether it be a war agricultural committee or a council, would have power to enter upon any land in the occupation of any tenant without any notice whatever, and take it from that tenant, and put it to such use as they think fit, without any power on the part of the tenant to appeal. I do not think the House understands, or did understand, that that is the position. I think the President of the Board of Agriculture will agree with me that that is the position, and the words I propose to add to the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman require that the Board of Agriculture, if they desire to enter upon the occupation of land at the beginning, must give notice of their intention, such notice to be served on the occupier, and thereupon the occupier or the owner of the land, under the other provisions of this Act, would have power to appeal to a single arbitrator to be nominated by the President of the Surveyors' Institute.

I cannot conceive it possible that the House, having passed the Corn Production Act, which was the result of a compromise, would now consent to take out of the provisions of the Act the powers of appeal to an occupier in case his land should be taken. The powers of appeal which have been given here under the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman are of very small moment compared with the powers of appeal which are denied him, and which I do not think the Committee is aware are denied him. I understood the right hon. Gentleman said that he must reserve the power of taking land without notice in order to satisfy allotment-holders. I am sure no one in this House desires to do anything to discourage—in fact, they want to do all they can to encourage—allotment-holders, but at the same time they want to act justly towards those who are at present occupying land, and, if further land is required, as we hope it will be, for allotment purposes, I think the Committee will agree it is only reasonable that the occupier of that land should have notice that his land is required and that he should have an opportunity, if he does not think it reasonable or fit that it should be turned to other purposes, to refer the matter to an arbitrator to be appointed by the President of the Surveyors' Institute. That would be a very short and very inexpensive matter, as stated by my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes, and it would be unjust that any other course should be pursued.

Mr. PROTHERO

I regret that I cannot accept this Amendment. We have stated our desire to except from the right of appeal the case of land taken for allotments, and if this Amendment were carried and an appeal granted I am perfectly sure that in all eases where we wanted land immediately for allotments we should have long appeals, because in most cases it is urban land, and generally

building land, which we are bound to give up as soon as it is required for building purposes but which the owners do not want to surrender and would fight for if we gave them leave to appeal. We should have the greatest difficulty, I am sure, in providing the land. We have considered this very carefully. We have got the land we now have without an appeal and without any friction, so far as I know, and I desire to continue to have that power.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 10; Noes, 201.

Amendment to proposed Amendment made: Leave out the word "requiring" ["with a notice requiring any change"], and insert instead thereof the words "which requires."—[Mr. Prothero.]

Mr. MOUNT

I beg to move, at the end of the proposed Amendment, to add the words "and is not solely for the purpose of securing that the land shall be cultivated according to the rules of good husbandry."

Sir F. BANBURY

I waited before rising to see whether the President of the Board of Agriculture would accept this Amendment, which I am very sorry my hon. Friend has moved. I gather that as the right hon. Gentleman did not rise he is prepared to accept it.

Mr. PROTHERO

I have already said so.

Sir F. BANBURY

I beg pardon, but I have been attending a Committee upstairs. What is really the position? It is, I venture to say, very serious. When this Bill was introduced in another place a statement was made by the spokesman of the Government to the effect that the appeal in any matter, about any subject, which was in Part IV. of the original Act, should be reserved. On that statement the Government got agreement. Now we come down to this House and find that the whole thing is altered and off. The bargain made by the Government on this Bill has been broken. In another place the representative of the Government, in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, admitted that he was breaking a bargain which had only been entered into a year ago. For the moment I am not dealing with the merits of the Amendment we have just heard, but I do say to get a Bill in another House on an understanding given by the Government that certain things should be done, and then to come down here and deliberately to break that understanding is something which is quite novel, and quite wrong. I am quite sure my hon. Friend opposite is not aware of what has taken place, or he would not have supported such a proceeding.

To come to the actual Amendment, what does it do? It provides that there shall be no appeal from the opinion of the war agricultural committees if certain land is cultivated in an improper way. Why should there not be an appeal? There are, I am afraid, no lawyers here at the moment, but I believe I am right in saying—I will not say in every offence—but in the vast majority of offences there is an appeal of some sort to a higher Court. Here a man may have his living taken away from him because some particular person connected with a war agricultural committee may choose to say that the land is badly cultivated; and there is no appeal to be allowed. What was the appeal in Part IV.? Was it an appeal to a Court of law which would necessitate perhaps three or four months' delay and considerable legal expenses and procedure? Nothing of the sort. It was an appeal to a single arbitrator. If the parties could not agree, then the single arbitrator was to be appointed by the President of the Surveyors' Institute. What is the objection to that? Is it not rather to be held that that appeal was not strong enough? Is it not a new principle that we are going to set up committees in different parts of the country to deal with a man's property with no appeal whatever except to these committees from their own decision? We do live in strange times! Apart altogether from what I think is a most serious matter, the very deliberate breaking of a pledge given by the Government—I repeat the words, the deliberate break- ing of a pledge given by the Government—on 9th July in another place—apart from that, here we are going to perpetuate the arbitrary action of very excellent people, no doubt—I do not care who they are—we are going to put into the hands of certain people, acting in different ways, in different counties, actuated by different motives, and going about the matter by different methods of procedure, to take a man's living from him and not to allow him an appeal even to a single arbitrator!

Would it be tolerated for a moment that a borough council should go into the shop of any man and say, "We consider you are selling your goods in an improper kind of way, and we are going to take your shop away from you, and there is to be no appeal"? It is the most arbitrary proceeding that has ever been contemplated. If I can get anybody to support me against this I will go into the Lobby, even if I can only get one teller and no one to support me at the sides. I trust sincerely, after the explanation I have offered, that something different will be done. I do not believe the majority of Members have followed this matter. It has not been put very clearly. We are rushing these Bills, and unless Members follow things very clearly they are not absolutely conversant with what has taken place. I am perfectly certain that they will not desire that such injustice shall take place.

Captain WRIGHT

I hope the President and the Committee will accept this Amendment of my hon. Friend opposite. It makes the proposals of the Amendment clearer than they were without these words. I think it shows that the only ease in which there is to be no appeal is to be when this is a question of not cultivating according to the rules of good husbandry. In the wording of the Amendment put down on the Paper there seemed to be some doubt as to the meaning, and as to what mode of cultivation might mean—whether it might mean the raising of particular crops, the amount and character of the artificial manures to be used, the number of stock on the farms, and questions of that sort. When these word's have been added it will be quite clear that the only question involved is where there is bad farming, where the land is dirty and ought to be clean, and specific orders dealing with matters such as those against which there is to be no appeal. I am sorry not to be able to agree with the right hon. Baronet. I hope he will forgive me when I say that I think he rather overstated the case in the analogy of turning a man out of his business and taking away his livelihood. That analogy is not a true one, because, if it is a question of the termination of the tenancy on a farm, then there is an appeal. The question involved is only the case of bad cultivation. What goes on in some counties? I know from experience what, at any rate, happens in some. It is this, that the district supervisor or the executive officer is asked by the parish representative to go and look at a particular farm. He makes a report to the district committee. The farmer has an appeal to the district committee, and also to the county committee. If the latter of these committees is not satisfied with the original report from the district committee officials, then the county committee can send a representative of the cultivation sub-committee to look at the particular field referred to, and can act on the report of that committee. In some cases the matter has been carried so far by way of protest that the Board of Agriculture have been appealed to to send down a Commissioner or a Sub-commissioner to inspect themselves the particular place and report. Under these circumstances, I do think there is no very great hardship that there should be no appeal in a question of good or bad cultivation.

Mr. PETO

If there was anything in the Bill which provided the elaborate machinery for an appeal which has just been referred to it would be quite a different thing, but unfortunately we are dealing with what is in this Bill, and here we are now asked to eliminate all right of appeal from the war agricultural committees in case of bad husbandry. Taking the country generally, this is one of the most important things in regard to which we should have leave to appeal, because the war agricultural committees are constituted mainly of certain farmers in the county, and the tendency must be that where there is no appeal whatever by law against their decision any man entrusted with the duty of deciding a matter in which his fellow men are concerned would be inclined to take a very lenient view if there was no appeal, but if there was the appeal which is always granted by our law and custom, then a man would speak out his real mind, and would be much more likely to say that, in his opinion, certain farms were badly culti- vated if he knew that was not going to be the final word, and if he knew that the person concerned had the ordinary right of appeal. This is an extremely simple and expedition's appeal. I would like to move to omit from the Amendment to the Amendment the words "and is not," and to insert the word "or," and place the proposal in exactly the opposite way.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley)

We cannot have an Amendment to an Amendment to an Amendment. The hon. Member had better repeat his proposal later.

Captain Sir C. BATHURST

I am glad the majority of the House are in favour of the acceptance of this Amendment, which I think is a reasonable compromise. It is perfectly true that there would have been a breach of faith if this Bill had not been passed in such a way as to enable the appeal which was contemplated a year ago in respect of all those more drastic forms of interference on the part of war agricultural committees. As regards this particular exception which the Government are asking the House to make, I think it is in the best interests of the maximum of food production to adopt the present Government policy. After all, prompt action in the matter of bad husbandry is very necessary, and whatever may be the advantages of an appeal, I am quite satisfied with the nature of the tribunal, and an appeal will take time before it is carried through and the Appeal Court hears the case.

It is just in those kind of cases where you have the old arable land in certain parts of the country getting increasingly foul, and as time goes on the tendency will be for this to increase, because more attention will be devoted to the new arable land to the neglect of the old. Therefore, it is more than ever necessary that the scrutinising eye of the war agricultural committees should be fixed on the old arable land in order to maintain the output of food, which will be very seriously reduced if that land becomes increasingly foul. I would infinitely rather see the war agricultural committees concentrate upon keeping the old arable land free from weeds and in a higher state of productivity than increasing the new arable land at the expense of the old. I shall give my support to this Amendment, because I think, in the long run, it will conduce to increased food production.

Sir F. BANBURY

I agree with the hon. and gallant Member's argument about the cultivation of existing arable land and of the danger that it will get into a foul state. How that danger is going to be removed with the present shortage of labour I do not know. It is not, in the majority of cases, the fault of the farmer, but it is due to the fact that he cannot get sufficient labour to keep the land free. I do not see how that is going to be improved by giving carte blanche to the war agricultural committees to make orders. My hon. Friend opposite talked about an Appeal Court, but there is no Appeal Court. It is an appeal to a single arbitrator, and I doubt if it will take any great amount of time. Surely it is better occasionally to run the risk of losing a little time rather than to set up a feeling of irritation, injustice, and friction amongst a very deserving body of men! Why are hon. Members connected with war agricultural committees so anxious that there shall be no appeal from those committees? If they are always right, after two or three appeals they would stop, and it would not be worth while paying an arbitrator if the farmer was certain he would not win the case.

This would be a great advantage from the point of view of the agricultural committees themselves, because they would not make these orders if there was an appeal unless they were certain that they were in the right. But if they are allowed to make these orders without any appeal, is it not likely, human nature being what it is, that the war agricultural committees, however good they may be, will make these orders without due care, and, having made them, they will insist upon them being obeyed? Over and over again this has occurred, and it has occurred in my own case, where the committee practically said, "We insist because you are the principal resident in the district." That was actually told to me by the representative of the war agricultural committee, and there never was a more ridiculous argument, and you are going to allow all that to continue, when all that is asked of you is, first of all, the maintenance of the bargain which I should have thought was safe even in these days; and, in the second place, we ask for a moderate and reasonable appeal to a single arbitrator which can be carried out in a very few minutes. I hope the Committee will seriously consider this point before this Amendment is accepted.

Sir JOHN SPEAR

I very much wish that the right of appeal could be preserved. I say this in the interests of food production. To give the agricultural committee the right to come to any farmer and say that he shall farm in a particular way without the right of appeal will cause great resentment on the part of agriculturists generally, and this may do something to lessen that enthusiasm which has been shown by farmers in producing food. I do not object to the agricultural committee having the right to point out any misappropriation of cropping, but there is such a difference of opinion between practical men as to the class of farming that suits a particular farm, and in order to avoid mistakes I cannot help thinking that the farmer, if he feels aggrieved, ought to have the right of an appeal to a single arbitrator. This could not cause very much delay, and it would be comparatively inexpensive. From the point of view of the agricultural committee, I am inclined to believe that the knowledge of the existence of a right of appeal would make them more vigilant in detecting and complaining of anything that they thought was bad farming, and they would be inclined to say, "In our opinion this land ought to be managed differently, and we give you notice to that effect," and in such a case the tenant would have the safeguard of referring the matter to an independent man—an arbitrator. Surely in that case the committee will feel surer of their position, and they will feel that they are not doing an injustice to the farmer, with the knowledge that in a matter where there may be an acute difference of opinion the farmer has a right to ask for the decision of a single arbitrator!

7.0 P.M.

I cannot help thinking that this is only a reasonable protection. I know that we want to get more food and get all we possibly can out of the land, but, in order to do that, we must avoid any irritating action that would be calculated to lessen the enthusiasm of the farmer in producing crops. The President of the Board of Agriculture and the Prime Minister also have again and again spoken very highly of the way in which agriculturists generally have, under intense difficulties and lack of labour and insufficiency of manure, been developing the cultivation of the land and the production of food; end it would be a pity to mar that perseverance and cause any irritation, which will assuredly be the case unless the farmer feels that he is farming his land in the best possible way, having regard to the nature of the soil and the circumstances, and he would resent under these conditions the interference of the agricultural committee. If the farmer could refer his case to a single arbitrator he would feel that, after all, there was a tribunal set up to decide these matters; he would put his case before the arbitrator and accept his decision. I think he would feel that he had been able to state his case and he would accept the decision in a very different spirit from that which would animate him if he felt that he had been dictated to by the members of the agricultural committee, without a right of appeal. Farmers are very often jealous of one another; they do not like other farmers who may be members of the executive committee going on to their farms and saying how they ought to farm the land. I admit that under the circumstances it may be necessary to raise the standard of farming and that the agricultural committee should have that power. But what I do suggest is that the farmer should have the right of appeal to a single arbitrator, so as to avoid any injustice being done as a result of a difference of opinion between the committee and himself regarding what is good farming.

Mr. R. McNEILL

I wish to support the view expressed by the last speaker. The speech made by the hon. Member for Wilton Division (Sir C. Bathurst) has placed me in some difficulty. I always regard him as an expert on these matters and should be inclined in very many cases to follow his judgment. But I cannot see that the speech he made just now really offered any reason against this particular Amendment. I am inclined to agree with every word he said. I agree it is much more important under present circumstances that close scrutiny should be kept on old arable land rather than on newly-broken pasture land. I also agree as to the very great importance of keeping a watchful eye to prevent the present foulness of land increasing. All that is very well, but wherein is to be found any reason for cutting this particular appeal out of the Bill? I should like very much to know what the reason of the Government is for this differentiation. Here we have a number of evasions of the ordinary liberty of the farmer—proper evasions under present circumstances, no doubt. There may be a different opinion as to whether a farm is being conducted properly or not, but no appeal is to be allowed. Why that differentiation? I should have thought that if an appeal were just and proper in the cases in which it is admitted by the Government, it is equally just and proper in the case in which it is now proposed to exclude it. I do not know whether the Government have explained their views on the point. If they have it would be unreasonable for me to ask for a second explanation for my own benefit, but I am at a loss to know why the differentiation is being made, and if the matter is pressed to a Division I shall vote against the Amendment.

Mr. MOUNT

As the hon. Member was not here when this question was first raised, I should like to explain to him that the Amendment does not go nearly so far as the Committee might be led to believe by what was said by the last speaker, because it is not in any way the intention of the executive committee by this Amendment to take away the powers of appeal with regard to the way in which land should be farmed. There is bound to be a difference of opinion as to the kind of farming. For instance, there is a keen agriculturist whose name is known probably to most members of the Committee, I refer to Mr. Christopher Turner, who believes in a kind of farming which many farmers do not believe in, and no one suggests for a moment that the agricultural committee should be able—neither do I think they would desire—to say that that particular class of farming was not in accordance with the rules of good husbandry, and that there shall be no appeal against any order they might make to alter the method of cultivation. What is intended by this Amendment, and what I think undoubtedly can be read into it, is that where land is being badly cultivated, where it is not being kept properly clean, it should be open to the committee to require that certain acts of cultivation be done with the least possible delay, and the Amendment says that in these cases it is not necessary there should be a right of appeal. I do not believe that farmers so far as I have had any experience of them, are frightened at the work which is being done by the agricultural committees. I believe it is felt that the best work they have done has been in gingering up those farmers who have not cultivated their land properly, and farmers generally are only too glad that something is being done in that direction by the committees. It is in order that they may have a free hand for that purpose that I have moved the addition of these words.

Sir F. BANBURY

May I call the attenattention of the Committee to what the last speaker has said as to the meaning which can be read into this Amendment.

Mr. MOUNT

I should not have said "can be read into it": it is there already.

Sir F. BANBURY

That may be the interpretation which the hon. Member puts on the Amendment, but I would like to point out that the Amendment goes further than that, and should this Bill become an Act of Parliament it will not be interpreted in the light of what may have been said by the Mover of the Amendment; it will be interpreted by the words which actually appear in it. The Amendment refers to the rules of good husbandry, and those words may be held to mean a great deal more than the hon. Member has suggested. Those who have to interpret the Act will not look at the speeches which appear in the OFFICIAL REPORT, and which have been made by Members of this House, but their interpretation will depend on the actual words in the Act, and I venture to repeat that the words, "according to the rules of good husbandry," go very much further than suggested by my hon. Friend.

Mr. PETO

It seems very important, before this Amendment is voted upon, that its meaning should be clearly understood. The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Mount) told us he would never think of supporting an Amendment which would give arbitrary power without appeal to the war agricultural committee to insist on a change from one mode of cultivating a farm to another according to the rules of good husbandry. But on what ground will these matters have to be decided. According to Section 9 of the principal Act, if the Board of Agriculture are of opinion the land is not being cultivated according to the rules of good husbandry, they may serve notice on the occupier of the land requiring him to cultivate the land in accordance with such directions as the Board may give him with the object of securing that the cultivation shall be according to the rules of good husbandry, or for securing the necessary change in the mode of cultivation or in the use of the land. Now that goes far beyond any mere question of foul land, and it is perfectly clear to everybody that this Amendment if carried is going to do what the Mover of it says he would not on any account support.

Mr. PROTHERO

Under Section 9 of the Corn Production Act there are two cases dealt with; one is that of land not being cultivated according to the rules of good husbandry and the other—which the hon. Member who last spoke omitted to refer to—is a change in the mode of cultivating the land or the uses to which the land is being put. Our denial of the right of appeal refers to the cases of land not being cultivated according to the rules of good husbandry. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), who, unfortunately, is always absent from the House when I am explaining Amendments and who repeats arguments which I have previously dealt with, seems to think that the rules of good husbandry are really arbitrary rules. They really are this: the customary mode of cultivating land by good farmers. Who are the best interpreters of these methods? Are they valuers? Then, if so, I may inform the hon. Member for one of the Divisions of Kent that the best valuers in that county are already acting for the war executive committee, and there will be considerable difficulty in finding a valuer there of any repute who is not in the employment of the committee. Therefore, you get an appeal from the committee to a man acting for the committee. I repeat for the benefit of the right hon. Baronet that these committees include the best farmers in the district. He gave us a fancy portrait of a war executive committee which included a few ladies and a solicitor with strong political views. That is not how these executive committees are made up. Let me give his own case. It contains six of the largest tenant farmers in the county, men actively engaged in the industry at the moment. There is one retired farmer who was a very large farmer in his own day, and the three other members are Lord Lansdowne's agent, the agent of Lord Radnor, and the agent of Mr. Fuller, three of the largest landowners in the county of Wiltshire. What better tribunal could you suggest for saying what is good cultivation, and why, when these men have decided that a field requires to be immediately weeded or to be stirred about at once, should the tenant farmer have a right of appeal to a single arbitrator, and thereby delay the very moment when that act of cultivation can be done and done with advantage? There is only a short period in which it can be done. I quite agree with the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) that I have said we have "broken the bargain." I fully admit it, and have said it. This time last year many of us hoped that by now we should be living not in a period of war, but under very different conditions. However, our hopes have not been realised, and we have to remember that we are still living in a period of war.

We have to consider that though the food supply for the moment may be more satisfactory than it was a short time ago a change at any time is possible, and if we have given up, as we have given up for the time, if we have suspended because labour is short, our ploughing programme—I am glad to hear the right hon. Baronet applaud that decision—there is all the more reason why we should sec that we get the last ounce of food out of the existing arable land, and why we should strengthen rather than weaken the executive committee in grading up farming. Let me remind the Committee that this particular Clause is not directed against the good farmer; it is directed against the sleepy farmer, the incompetent farmer, and the negligent farmer, and I hope very much, if the Amendment is resisted, that we shall have our view triumphantly supported.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.

Proposed words, as amended, there inserted.

Mr. PROTHERO

I beg to move, in paragraph (c), after the word "where," to insert the words "before or after the passing of this Act."

I put this Amendment down to make it quite clear that the Bill was to run from 21st August, and I did so, because I felt that the right to compensation, which is the subject of certain other Amendments that follow, was one which ought to be governed by the rules of the Losses Commission. I had had an opportunity of consulting the chairman of that Commission. I have had another opportunity, and I want to say at once that we are prepared to accept the Amendments that follow and to let compensation be determined locally before an arbitrator in all cases which at present have not been heard and determined. Under the Corn Production Act there is a legal right to have claims to compensation settled by arbitration. We propose to accept that principle and to apply it retrospectively to claims that have already arisen. It is a reasonable change for this main reason. It would be very difficult indeed for one tribunal to be determining cases which happen to have been brought sooner than others according to one principle, and at the same time another determining other cases according to another principle. Many of these cases are very small, and to bring a man up to London before the Losses Commission where only £2 is at stake seems to be a great waste of time, trouble, and expense. We can get them settled locally more rapidly and, I believe, more cheaply, and we therefore propose to make this change.

Mr. HARDY

The right hon. Gentleman has made an announcement of some importance in connection with the question of carrying back the proposal under this Section in order to cover every case. I am, perhaps, in rather a delicate position as a member of the Losses Commission, and a member who was put on that Commission to a large extent to deal with these food production cases. I cannot and I do not desire to raise any question about the policy of the Commission. I only rise in order to enable the House to obtain a little of the experience that I have gained in connection with these cases during the past year. Personally, I rather regret that the Government yielded to the original proposal in the House of Lords to make an exception in cases of compensation. I believe that people generally have no idea of the extreme difficulty of the cases which are arising in connection with food production. They are not cases—at all events, the compensation cases—which can be treated as lightly as a good many Members this afternoon seemed to think. They cannot be dealt with in five minutes by any person appointed by the Surveyors' Institute. They are cases which give rise to extremely difficult legal questions upon which the Commissioners have had to get not only the legal advice of their own members, but also other opinions. There are questions still in abeyance which require very careful treatment, and I do not think the President will find that the system of local Courts, which are paid Courts, instead of an unpaid Commission, will be cheaper in the end. I do not wish, however, to go into that matter. To-day we have to decide whether that arbitrary date of 21st August is to decide the process by which these claims of compensation are to be dealt with in future. The right hon. Gentleman is probably wise in his second thoughts. There would have been very great difficulty and there would have been dissatisfaction if people had found that there were two processes going on—if, on the one hand, there had been cases dealt with locally before a single arbitrator who would be able to take into consideration every circumstance; and if, on the other hand, there had been cases determined in London by the Losses Commission, who are very seriously hampered by the terms of their Warrant and who can only give an ex gratia payment, whereas an arbitrator is able to give actual compensation.

The practice of the Losses Commission has been to urge applicants to wait and not to bring their claims at once. It is almost impossible in many cases to decide immediately whether there is any loss, and the Losses Commission have urged applicants to wait for the crops to be realised. Many landlords therefore have reserved their right to come at a later date. Perhaps they will not come for three, four, or five years. It would have been a still greater difficulty if when they came they found that they were bound by the fact that the order was served this last year and that they had to go before the Losses Commission instead of before an arbitrator. Unless Parliament provided some means of escape from that position, you would have had two processes going on side by side. I do not think that would have been satisfactory. I do not believe that in the end this will be the cheaper course and probably it will be extremely awkward to deal with the precedents which will be established by a great number of Courts, but, on the whole, I think it was wise of the Government to have taken this matter into consideration and in this case to have decided to introduce the unusual practice of retrospective legislation. There are, of course, the very small cases to which the right hon. Gentleman alluded, and it is an advantage that they should be dealt with on the spot. I only had a case before me last week in which a tenant farmer in Yorkshire was differing from his agricultural committee over a sum of £3, and it was quite clear that at least 30s., if not more, must be awarded to him. That case should have been settled on the spot instead of having to bring two or three people up to London to determine it. A good deal has been said about the farmers and agriculturists of England, and I should like to mention one fact, which, though perhaps not particularly connected with this Amendment, is interesting. If it is imagined that agriculturists are very grasping persons and desire to get compensation for everything that is forced upon them, it will be rather interesting to the country to know that out of all the enormous number of notices and orders, which have undoubtedly thrown great anxiety and very often a great deal of inconvenience, and in many cases loss, upon the tenant farmers and landlords, only 179 cases have come up to the Losses Commission. I do not wish to boast at all, but if any question of delay is raised I may also add that so far as the Losses Commission are concerned only twenty-six cases remain untouched, and as thirty-four have come in this month I do not think that anybody can say that delay has rested on our shoulders. I only wanted to mention this fact because it is interesting as showing how very patriotically the agriculturists of the country have, as a rule, accepted inconvenience thrown upon them.

Captain WRIGHT

As the member responsible for putting down the next Amendment on the Paper, I should like to say how much the agricultural committees, farmers, and owners are indebted to my right hon. Friend for accepting the Amendment, and introducing one system for the assessment of these claims to compensation, and providing for a local system, rather than a system under which farmers had to come up to London and appear before the Losses Commission to have their claims assessed. I was asked by the Executive Committee of the Federation of War Agricultural Committees to put down this Amendment, and the President, in accepting it, has done a great stroke of work to encourage both the committees and the farmers to increase food production. As was said when it was suggested that this Amendment should be put down, they attach more importance to it than anything else.

Mr. DUNDAS WHITE

It is regrettable that we did not have a fuller warning on the Notice Paper of what the Government propose to do in this matter. The pro- posal which my right hon. Friend is making raises a very important question—the question whether certain matters should be determined by the War Losses Commission or by local arbitrators. I have listened to the whole of the Debate, and no reference whatever has been made to a very recent Report issued by the Expenditure Committee, which was appointed by this House, who, in either their last Report or the one before the last, went most carefully into the question of the various dealings with land, and declared themselves very strongly against the practice of local arbitrators, pointing out that local arbitrators almost invariably favoured the local interests at the expense of the taxpayers. The Defence of the Realm Losses Commission is a tribunal specially set up. They have various ways of doing their work. They need not all go down to a particular place to hear a particular claim. Claims can easily be presented to them. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ashford (Mr. Hardy) gave us a very strong argument in favour of leaving the matter in their hands when he pointed out how well that Commission had undertaken the work, and how very few cases there were yet undealt with. In these circumstances I regret that there should be this marked tendency to transfer the decision of these compensation matters from the War Losses Commission to local arbitrators and to local committees, who are not nearly so careful of the general interests, but who are far more apt to favour the particular interests of the locality at the expense of the general interests of the taxpayers. I merely wish to enter my protest, and to express my regret that the course that has been taken has found favour in the eyes of the authorities.

Mr. ACLAND

I was not here when the Amendment was proposed, but following the speech we have just heard, I should like to ask a question. I understand that local arbitrators will be called in instead of the War Losses Commission, and they will have to decide what loss has been sustained in the case of land taken compulsorily or in the case of compulsory cultivation orders. Will it be possible for them to do, what arbitrators have got into the habit of doing in their work under the Lands Clauses Acts, that is, automatically adding—I think in England 10 per cent. and in Scotland up to 30 per cent., simply on account of the fact that compulsory possession is going to be taken? That practice of these arbitrators has made the acquisition of land for public purposes almost impossible from one end of the country to the other, because they always weigh the scales heavily against any public interest. The House will like to be assured whether anything in the nature of the automatic addition of these absurd percentages will be made possible by the arbitrators having to carry out this work.

Mr. PROTHERO

I would like to point out to the Committee that on the 21st August this year, as the Corn Production Act stood, all the claims for compensation would have gone before a single arbitrator appointed as is proposed in this case. That is the justification and the explanation of the course we are now adopting. The arbitrator is to be appointed in accordance with the provisions of the Second Schedule of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1908, and, in default of agreement, by the President of the Surveyors' Institution. That was already sanctioned by the House as the arrangement which was to come into force on the 21st August. All that we are in effect doing is to say that cases which have already arisen should be dealt with on the same principle as was laid down in the Corn Production Act. It is not the vast change which some hon. Members might be led to imagine. It is a question of the date, the inconvenience and the great difficulty which would arise in having two sets of bodies determining the same class of case, when really the only possible reason why the one should be employed and not the other would be that they happened to have had notice a few days earlier or a few days later. That is the explanation, and I think it is a justification for the course we are pursuing.

Mr. RAFFAN

I desire to ask the President for some information. His explanation is hardly good enough. Surely all these circumstances were in contemplation when the Corn Production Act was passed last year! What has occurred in the meantime to cause the right hon. Gentleman to change his view and to alter the date which was adopted last year as the fitting date for placing the cases in the hands of a single arbitrator?

Mr. PROTHERO

Perhaps I might put it in this way: We struck a compromise as to our continuing to exercise certain com- pulsory powers in dealing with land. We have got, so to speak, to go to those who already have limited the exercise of our powers to the 21st August, and we say, "We want, because these are emergency times, exceptional times, you to let us to continue to use those compulsory powers." Of course, that is a big concession from cultivators of the soil. If we are allowed to continue to use them, I do not think it is an unreasonable bargain that we should meet them over the other part.

Mr. RAFFAN

But it is a concession?

Mr. PROTHERO

Yes; I state perfectly frankly that is the case.

Mr. ACLAND

Surely the Corn Production Act does not come to an end on the 21st August this year?

The CHAIRMAN

I think hon. Members ought to read the Act they are amending, and know what it is.

Mr. ACLAND

I do know.

The CHAIRMAN

The last hour has been taken up by hon. Members who have either not heard the discussion or have not read the Bill. This Amendment is quite simple to anyone who has read, for the purposes of discussion, the main Act.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In paragraph (c), leave out the word "is" ["any notice is served"], and insert instead thereof the words "has been or shall be."—[Mr. Prothero.]

Mr. PROTHERO

I beg to move, in paragraph (c), to leave out the words "said Regulations," and to insert instead thereof the words "powers continued in operation by this Sub-section."

This is really only a drafting Amendment, but in order to explain it I may say that this particular provision refers only to the powers under the Corn Production Act and does not refer to all our other powers which we exercise under the Defence of the Realm Act, such as our fisheries Orders. The Amendment merely limits it to the matters within the purview of this particular Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: At end of paragraph (c), add the words "except in any case in which the compensation has been otherwise determined."—[Mr. Prothero.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.