HC Deb 02 December 1919 vol 122 cc361-6

During the period of two years after the passing of this Act, it shall be the duty of the Board, in selecting persons to be settled on any land belonging to the Board, and in considering applications for the registration of new holders or the enlargement of existing holdings under the Small Landholders (Scotland) Acts, 1886 to as amended by this Act, to give preference to suitable persons who have served in the Forces of the Crown in the present or in any previous War.

Mr. W. GRAHAM

I beg to move, after the word "persons" ["to suitable persons who have served"], to insert the words "or the sons or fathers of such persons."

In view of the lateness of the hour I would not have put forward this, or the following Amendment, but for the fact that we regard them as of great importance. I need hardly say that there was not the slightest difference of opinion in any part of the Committee on the point of the provision in the Clause for preference to those who have served in the War. But it was suggested that that preference should be extended to the dependants of such persons, in keeping with the practice which has been adopted, not only by many Departments of the State, but by many public and private people outside. An objection was offered to our proposal that it was too wide in character, and that the effect of it would be seriously to undermine the value of the preference for the discharged men. We were bound to recognise and admit the force of that criticism, and accordingly we now confine the preference to the discharged men and rela- tives of soldiers whom we consider are more closely affected by their loss, namely, the sons who are rising up to succeed them, or the fathers where the younger men had no families of their own. On the whole, this restricted Amendment is a reasonable proposal, and I hope, in the circumstances which face these sons and these fathers, and in the light of the practice obtaining not only in public Departments but is private firms, that the Government may see their way to adopt it.

Mr. ADAMSON

I beg to second the Amendment. When we were discussing this matter in Committee we had an undertaking of some sort or another from the Secretary for Scotland that he would consider a restricted Amendment on the Report stage, and I therefore hope that the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to accept this Amendment.

Dr. MURRAY

I had a similar Amendment, only a little more limited, on the Paper when we were in Committee, but I think this Amendment is an improvement. I know that there are very many people to whom it would be a very great consideration if this second preference, so to speak, were given to the father in some cases and to the son in others. I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will adopt this or some similar Amendment.

Mr. MUNRO

I confess that I have considerable difficulty in accepting this Amendment as framed, though it is true that it is framed in quite a different way from the Amendment upstairs. These two Amendments were moved front two different quarters, one giving the preference to the sons of persons who have served in the War—that Amendment, speaking from recollection, received very faint support—and the other giving the preference to parents of sons who have served.

Mr. ADAMSON

It was the "dependants," not the "sons," which was the much wider Amendment.

Mr. MUNRO

My right hon. Friend may be quite correct, but it does not affect my argument. So far as the parent was concerned, it is quite true that that proposal received more support in the Committee, and it was in regard to that particular proposal that I intended to look into the matter before the Report stage. I have now an Amendment before me which combines these two things. It is not "dependants," but it is a. proposal to go wider than parents; in fact, it combines the two Amendments moved upstairs with the substitution of the word "sons" for the word "dependants." It is perfectly obvious that this enormously widens the preference which the Bill contemplates and widens it to the detriment of the ex-Service man. I can quite appreciate that there may be cases which this Amendment would fit, but on the other hand there may be cases where it would be a great pity to give the preference to the son or parent of an ex-Service man. The ex-Service man might not desire to have a small holding, and his son or his father might not have served and might have no particular qualification for a holding. If the circumstances were such as these, it would be a great pity to give a holding to such a person to the exclusion of some deserving ex-Service man who desired a holding, I am very much afraid, if I accept this Amendment, that I shall enormously widen the area of choice, and, in so far as I widen the area, I shall correspondingly restrict the rights and claims of the ex-Service men, who, as I am sure every Member desires, should have priority. It is in these circumstances that I feel very great difficulty in accepting this Amendment, and I hope on reconsideration it will not be pressed.

Mr. HOGGE

I am sure my right hon. Friend desires to do justice to the situation. It is time that ex-Service men ought to have the first preference. There are bound to be a number of cases in which the parents of serving men are even more deserving than ex-Service men. A man may claim ex-Service who served all the time in this country, and there may be in some counties in Scotland the parent of a family of boys who have ail actually been killed in the War, or three or four sons so seriously wounded that they cannot engage in any kind of reasonable occupation. Is a father of that kind to be denied the right to a small holding before all ex-Service men have had their turn? The same with the case of the sons. The words of the Amendment may not meet the case, but it is the duty of the Government to find suitable words. In addition to ex-Service men, we want the class of person I have mentioned to have an equal chance, and I would rather give such a man a chance even before the ex-soldier. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will promise that in another place he will make another attempt to add words which, while not enlarging the preference, will still give this class of person a right to a small holding.

Sir J. HOPE

If this Amendment were carried may I point out that the father or son of a soldier who has served at home would also have the right. I think this proposal might be altered to include the sons -or fathers of such persons who have fallen in the War.

Mr. MUNRO

I have no hesitation in giving the assurance that this matter will be reconsidered. The Amendment is far too wide. My hon. Friend opposite confined his observations to the question of the parents and said nothing about the sons. I will look into the matter along with my right hon. Friend, and, if necessary, introduce appropriate words in another place.

Mr. ADAMSON

I should think if words in the spirit and the definition laid down by the hon. and gallant Member for North Midlothian (Sir J. Hope)—a concession in favour of the father or son of those who have fallen in the War—were accepted by the Government, we would be quite satisfied, and that being as I understand the intention of the Government we are quite prepared to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. W. GRAHAM

I beg to move, at the end, to insert the words Provided always that in cases where existing smallholders are displaced in order to provide accommodation for persons who have served in the Forces of the Crown in the present or in any previous war it shall be the duty of the Board to provide for such existing smallholders as express a wish to that effect alternative holdings as far as possible in the same locality and of subsantially the same size and nature as the holdings of which they have been deprived. Only a few sentences are, I think, necessary to explain the situation which is dealt with in the Amendment. Up to the present time a certain number of ex-Service men have been settled on the soil of Scotland, and I presume that that has been done under the Small Holdings Acts, 1916–18. But unfortunately under the process existing smallholders are being displaced, and at the present time I have in my possession a letter from the Board of Agriculture in Scotland, addressed to one of these smallholders, explaining that they are powerless in the matter, that they must give preference to Service men, and while they regret that any smallholder has to be displaced, they are quite unable to follow any other course. I have put down this proviso in order to defeat what appears to me to be a perfectly incredible situation in Scotland, where they are actually at the present moment putting a number of smallholders on the soil in order to make way for others. I can only assume that that is due to the inadequacy of existing legislation. In moving this Amendment, however, I am in doubt whether the position is not now met by the extra powers which appear to be conferred under the first Clause of this Bill, which, in the second Section, removes certain limitations under the Small Holdings (Colonies) Acts; and if the situation is met as regards these existing smallholders by this extension I should have no desire to press my Amendment. But if existing small landholders are not protected, then, it seems to me, that the only course open to us is to propose an Amendment to the present Bill such as will put it in the power of the Board to provide alternative accommodation for the men displaced, and to see that the accommodation so provided is reasonably in keeping with the nature, size, and general characteristics of the holdings of which they have been deprived. Mainly for the purpose of obtaining information on this point I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.

Mr. ADAMSON

I want in a word or two to second the Amendment. This is one of the phases of the situation which requires most careful examination, and we ought to have from the Secretary for Scotland an explanation of what he proposes to do with the smallholders who are being displaced.

Mr. CLYDE

There must be some misconception and misunderstanding—and a rather serious one—underlying this Amendment. There has never been—and, in fact, I do not see how there could be—any such thing as a displacement of holders possessing small holdings under the Act of 1911. Such a holder cannot be deprived of his holding. He has got security of tenure, and I do not know whether hon. Members realise that at this moment. Nobody—it does not matter whether it be the Board of Agriculture or anybody else—can deprive such a holder of his holding, except for misconduct, and there never has been and is not now any case in which a small landholder has been displaced to make room for a Service man. Accordingly, as to the whole substructure on which this proposal is based, it appears there is none. I am sure the hon. Member would not have said what he did if he had not good ground for it, but I cannot help thinking that the whole substratum of the Amendment is something else altogether. If I am not mistaken, the case ho Has just put is not that of the displacement of any small landholder, but the displacement of certain comparatively small tenants—ordinary tenants on estates—which has been effected by the Board of Agriculture for the purpose of settling Service men. I believe there have been some cases in which interferences have been made with comparativly small tenancies. I am sure the Board of Agriculture would never have done that if the circumstances had admitted of their avoiding that course. It is certainly not one they would take ordinarily. As to the particulars of any individual case of that kind, I must confess myself at the moment to be quite at a loss, because I do not know them, therefore I cannot present any remarks upon them, but the hon. Member can take my assurance, given not without consultation, that there has not been and there is no such thing as the displacement of a small landholder, which is what his Amendment applies to, in order to make room for a Service man. Therefore the Amendment has no real mischief to remedy, and accordingly it is impossible for us to accept it.

Mr. GRAHAM

I can only undertake to place in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman the Board of Agriculture's letter deploring the course they have been compelled to adopt.

Mr. CLYDE

I hope the hon. Member will do so. I am sure it will turn out not to be the case of a small landholder.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.