§ Mr. W. THORNETo-day is one of the days when hon. Members have an opportunity of flinging their spite sometimes against the various Ministers of the Crown, and I am not quite sure whether all the Members who have spoken to-day have got complete satisfaction. I hope I shall get a good deal more satisfaction over the point I am about to raise than have the hon. Members who have raised the last point. The hon. Member for West Leyton (Mr. Newbould) at Question Time gave notice that later on he would raise the question of the allotment-holders in and around London. In the name of 15,000 allotment-holders who have got plots of land under the London County Council, the Office of Works, and the Epping Forest Commissioners, I am requested, with a number of other London Members, to raise this very important question. I am one of those who believe that the allotment-holders, not only in London, but in different parts of the country, have been treated in a very scurvy way, because they were urged during 1916 and 1917 to obtain plots of land throughout the country for the purpose of producing all kinds of foodstuffs, and -I think the greatest credit is due to these allotment-holders, both in London and the country, for the way in which they dug up rough-and-ready land— in some eases where it was said the land would not grow anything at all—and raised some very valuable vegetables, which, in my opinion, were a great salvation to the mass of the people during the time of food shortage. One would think that, in consequence of the good work done by these allotment holders, they would get more consideration than they are receiving at the present time. These 15,000 allotment holders in London feel very much alarmed, because in some cases they have got to quit the land at the end of December. There are 6,432 allotment holders under the London County Council who have got notice to quit at the end of this year, and there are 7,421 with notice to quit at the end of 1920. The Office of Works, I think, have decided to allow ten acres of land under their control to remain under cultivation till the end of 1921. The 2,000 allotment holders who have got allotments on Wanstead Flats, which come 808 under the control of the Epping Forest Commissioners, have also been given notice to quit at the end of December. I think I am justified in saying that my hon. Friend who represents the Board of Agriculture is very sympathetic, and that if they have got the power they have got the will to allow everyone of these allotment holders to retain the land until the end of 1921—
§ Notice taken that forty Members were not present; House counted, and forty Members being found present—
Mr. THORNE (resuming)As I was going to say, there are 2.000 allotment holders on the Wanstead Flats who have been given notice to quit at the end of this year, and they are very much concerned. There have been a great number of meetings in different parts of the country. Last night. I understand, there was a mass meeting held at the Essex Hall, and I think it was decided at that meeting that a deputation should interview the Prime Minister, if possible, this morning. I myself and my hon. and learned Friend who sits for Upton (Sir E. Wild), and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leyton (Lieut.-Colonel C. Malone), and one or two other Members, formed part of the deputation which had an interview with the Epping Forest Commissioners, and we pleaded with them to allow the allotment-holders on the Wanstead Flats to be allowed to cultivate these allotments until the year 1921. We got a sympathetic hearing, but, unfortunately, I am led to understand that the Epping Forest Commissioners have refused to grant us any extension at all, and therefore it devolves upon the council I have had the honour to represent for the last twenty-nine years to serve notices upon a number of these allotment-holders. I am under the impression that the council, in their present frame of mind, will do nothing of the kind. What next step the Epping Forest Commissioners will take, of course, I am not in a position to say, but I do appeal to my lion. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture to use his good offices, and help us in every way possible, because I think these allotment-holders ought to receive a good deal more consideration than they have received up to the present time. It does seem a great pity that a large number of men who are willing to give their time to digging the ground, to growing all kinds of vegetables at 809 a time when there is a shortage, should be deprived of that right. It appeals to me from a health point of view, from a temperance point of view, and from many other points of view. If I. had my way, I would have every acre of land cultivated in some way or other. I think it is a scandal that we have so much land out of cultivation, and, therefore, I do make an earnest appeal to the hon. Gentleman to give a very sympathetic reply, and use all the power at his Command to protect these allotment-holders so far as London is concerned.
§ Sir E. WILDI desire to enforce what has been said by my hon. and gallant Friend opposite with regard to this very important matter. This question of allotments is a matter of the gravest public concern, and it particularly con-terns us on the eve of Christmas to know that, unless sonic steps are taken by ale Board of Agriculture by Christmas time, or the week afterwards, a great number of men who are doing public service will be turned out of their allotments. The reason why this matter has to be brought up to-night is, first of all, because of its public importance, and, secondly, because the Board of Agriculture can exercise, I should think, some influence, and also because the opinion of the House of Commons may perhaps carry some weight with various institutions and Commissioners and so on w ho are in charge of this matter. My hon. and gallant Friend opposite, and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leyton (Lieutenant-Colonel Malone), are particularly interested in that portion of the subject which concerns the Wan-stead Flats, which consist of 380 acres of land, only 72 acres being under allotments. Although it is perfectly true that the main object of the Epping Forest Commissioners is to provide recreation for people, our contention is that there is plenty of opportunity for recreation on the margin of 380 acres. But the Board of Agriculture comes in at this point. We were in communication with the Epping Forest Commissioners, and when I say "we" I mean the Parliamentary Allotments Committee, because the House may be aware that a number of us joined the Parliamentary Allotments Committee with the object of helping the Government in increasing the cultivation of allotments, and in keeping these allotments under cultivation for a period of time. There is no question of keeping this 810 land for ever. Some people have expressed a fear lest if these allotment holders are allowed to continue in occupation the land may for ever pass away from purposes of recreation. The whole point on winch the Board of Agriculture is asked to exercise its influence—and I will say it has supported us very largely and generously in the action we have taken—is that the allotment - holders throughout the country should be allowed an extra two years—that is to say, to the end of 1921—before they are evicted from their tenancies. There seems to have been some misunderstanding, because. I received a letter from the City solicitor, dated 17th June, in the course of which he said:
The Chairman of the Epping Forest Committee has directed me to inform you that the Committee could not see their way, after careful consideration, to alter their previous decision. I am to point out to you that the Board of Agriculture have been furnished with the Committee's reasons for their action, and the Board have expressed their concurrence in those reasons.No doubt that must be a statement of fact. I have not seen the letter which the Board of Agriculture seems to have written, but if the Board of Agriculture ever did write such a letter—and I have no doubt they may have—certainly that was before they were in possession of the full facts of the case, because since then my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. W. Thorne) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leyton and others of us attended a deputation before the late President of the Board of Agriculture, Lord Ernle, and Lord Ernle expressed the warmest sympathy in the attitude we have taken up. Then several of us addressed questions in this House to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture, and we have received the most favourable replies. In one reply which my hon. and gallant Friend gave he went as far as to say—let me quote his words:That the Board think it is most regrettable—That is the decision of the Board of Agriculture. I do not think you could have a stronger expression of Parliamentary. opinion than to say that "in the opinion of the Board of Agriculture "—and, after all, it is that Board of Agriculture that has the interests of allotment-holders at heart, and the interests of the food of the country at heart—in their opinion the action of this particular body of Commissioners was most regrettable.Let me follow the history of the matter one step further. Having received that 811 reply from the Parliamentary Secretary, the Parliamentary Allotments Committee appointed a deputation to wait upon the Epping Forest Commissioners. I venture to think it was a compliment to that body that seven busy Members of Parliament went down and appeared before the Commissioners in order to urge the case of these allotment-holders. It is quite unnecessary to take time in arguing the case before this House, because I do not believe there is a Member who would net agree with us as to the desirability, in the interests of the country, of these men having another two years of their allotments. First of all, there is the argument that under the Cultivation of Lands Order, which they believe applied to them—although legally it did not—they were promised a further two years. I quite agree that if one had been a lawyer, and had read the Order about six times, one might realise it did not apply to land unless that land had been compulsorily acquired. These men, happily, are not lawyers—they are practical men. They did not realise the fact, and were delighted to turn to that Order under the belief that they had another two years. There is need for the food, and reference has been made to this. There is also the fact that these demobilised soldiers have come back and found a little healthful recreation as well as some remuneration in cultivating these allotments.
10.0 P.M.
There is the further fact, that you cannot have a more profitable and healthy recreation than the recreation of our first father Adam in digging the ground, and having productive toil. All these arguments were put forward before these Commissioners. We, unfortunately, spoke to deaf ears. We were not alone, because the President of the Board of Agriculture and the Parliamentary Secretary were good enough to take a course which showed that their sympathies were entirely with us in our allotment campaign. They sent Mr. Weaver, the Director-General of Land Settlement, to join our deputation. That was almost an unprecedented step. But it was an unprecedented situation. Mr. Weaver came forward and addressed the Commissioners. He pointed out that there were 1,700 allotments upon the Wanstead Flats, that each of these allotments fed five people, and, therefore, this was a proposition of feeding 8,500 people. He pointed out that the holders had had 812 their rough time, and that they bad got this land into cultivation now, and were coming into smoother times. All the reply to that we got was some caustic observation from a member who hail obviously made up his mind long before—that these people wanted something for nothing. Allotment-holders are not the only people in this country who want something for nothing—and sometimes get it. Then Mr. Weaver pointed out the difficulty of the food question, and of transport, and he said that the refusal of our prayer would enormously add to the Board's difficulties.
Could there be a case more cogently put, and could there be a case which more required consideration? The only result was that after a decent period of delay we received an intimation that our application had been turned down, and that the Commissioners unanimously adhered to their decision. The only argument put before us was to give us a schedule of cricket, pitches and football grounds, and to point out that in 1914, apparently, there were 128 cricket clubs and 178 football clubs there, while this year there were 66 and 136 respectively. The Commissioners seemed to think that that was an argument to show that this land was required for cricket and football. As a matter of fact, I should have thought— and I used to have a big interest in cricket and football —that when you have got 308 acres devoted to cricket and football and only 72 acres to productive purposes that surely for another two years cricketers, and footballers might stand by. There is this point: We have never—I speak for my hon. Friends of the deputation, and there is no association of party about this matter—although every member of the House realises that a constituent will write to him for any or no reason—we have none of us ever received an application from anybody or a grievance to the effect that these 72 acres have been taken away from the public when they might have been used for cricket and football ! The position taken up by the Commissioners was, "We have nothing to do with the allotment-holders, we have a contract with the town councils, we gave notice to the town councils, and they have got to give notice to the allotment-holders." I should be the last man on earth to advocate resistance to the law. I have a great respect for the law. But I notice that the Town Council of West Ham has not. At the last meeting they unanimously decided not to serve these notices.
813 There is a great danger of bloodshed. [A laugh.] I mean what I say. This is not a laughing matter. There is danger. No doubt these men would not go out without a struggle. I am not in any way advocating their doing that—I am only stating facts. When I told the Commissioners this they said, "You are threatening us." I told them I was only stating the fact. You would not only have these 1,700 men. There are others from other parts on their ground. I ask my lion. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to endorse what I am saying—I am sure he will —that there ought to be a strong expression in Parliament; that Parliament is really the safety valve of the nation. I believe there is a unanimous feeling in this House. We all feel that every pressure that can be brought to bear should be brought to bear in favour of the men who came forward when the public wanted them, when they were prayed for, and who are now being driven out of their allotments without consideration. I hope and trust that after this public debate these Commissioners will reconsider their attitude, because, after all, there is still some force in public opinion.
§ Mr. ACLANDEarlier, Mr. Speaker, I asked whether I could speak on foreign affairs, and—quite rightly—you said "No." That being so, I do not propose to use the present occasion to attempt to work in a speech on foreign affairs when dealing with allotments. But there is a connection. For if the Debate on foreign affairs has left any impression on our minds at all it is as to the extremely precarious and dangerous state and prospect of Europe. The chief danger before Europe at the present time and for months—it may be years—to come is famine. Famine is a chief cause of revolution and chaos, and that once you got a nation into such a situation as Russia, in the direction of revolution and chaos, it was almost impossible to get it back again. That is one of the things that the House and this country ought to have in mind—and ever in mind—in its keenness and anxiety to develop this movement for cultivation by allotment-holders. We have not anything like got over the difficulties in regard to the food supply. If we are to have any chance of peace in Europe, any chance of avoiding ever-succeeding revolutions for years, we shall have to keep Europe, at any rate, decently fed. That means we ourselves cannot neglect any chance of getting all the cultivation and 814 production that can possibly be procured. Somehow instinctively this country realises that. As those interested in this movement know, it is since the War that this allotment movement has gone ahead. I happen to be the chairman of the Agricultural Allotments Association, which represents 150,000 allotment-holders, and that movement has been spreading steadily since the War. 'The people have been more keen in taking up land, and although I am a member normally in opposition, I say that the action of the Government has been most helpful. The Bill passed this year for the acquisition and tenure of land for allotments has given great encouragement. The Epping Forest Commissioners absolutely ignored that great national movement which is going to make a real difference to our food supply, and even to the peace of Europe in the years to come. I think it would be ten thousand pities if there grew up in the East End of London a feeling that these Commissioners, being a body under no sort of popular election or control, had really made a very big mistake and an agitation was started to have them brought under popular control and influence.
I would be the last person to want that to happen at all, but surely it is necessary if a body like this is to be left in undisputed control in matters of this kind they should put themselves in the main stream. The Government and the nation's policy runs more in the nature of encouraging food production by these small men than by handing back the land immediately after the War. We cannot afford to give all our time to amusing ourselves, and the cultivation of allotments is one of the finest occupations for leisure time. Allotments are useful to produce food, and we cannot allow an utterly unrepresentative body to put themselves dead against the national tendency which is so vital to the nation at this time. All over the country this movement is going strong. The Board of Agriculture is helping it, and I join in the appeal which has been made by hon. Members who represent the district concerned. Can the hon. Member who represents the Board of Agriculture not get the Prime Minister, who is really interested in these things, to use his personal influence with those gentlemen in order to get even one year's more tenure for them on their land? This would give them the chance of one more decent 815 crop. The land in this district is about the most unsympathetic to tackle that anyone could find within 50 miles. The men have had an awful struggle with it, and it would be a great public advantage if they had one more chance of getting a good crop.
Lieut.-Colonel MALONEI want to add my voice to the appeal that has been made on this question. After the clear and comprehensive statement which has been made, not many more arguments need be put before the House. In the district which I represent there are something like 2,000 allotment-holders, and I would like to remind the representative of the Board of Agriculture of the expenditure which these allotments have entailed. The sum of £3 per head has been spent on them. As there are 2,000 allotment-holders, that means that between £5,000 and £6,000 has been expended, and that is a considerable sum in the. East End of London, and a substantial contribution to the food supply. When the Commissioners received the deputation which has been referred to, the arguments used for discontinuing the allotments were not very convincing. The Commissioners asked, "Have your local bodies searched the district to find other suitable land for allotments?" Anybody who knows the East End of London knows that there are no spare fields in that part, and it is ridiculous to make such a suggestion, because there is no land available even for housing schemes, much less for allotments. I have not discovered any party in my district opposed to this allotment scheme. In order to test this matter my colleague the Member for West Leyton (Mr. Newbould) and myself attended a town's meeting in our constituency, and there was not a single opponent or dissentient at that meeting, which included representatives of schools, football and cricket clubs, and many other organisations which we were informed by the Commissioners are clamouring for the restoration of this land. I have made every endeavour to find out this opposition, and I have failed; and I do not believe it exists.
Another argument is that 16,000 of our constituents have signed a memorial to the Prime Minister in favour of the retention of these allotments. There has been no opposition memorial signed or attempted. I think I am entitled to say on behalf of 816 the allotment-holders that there is no intention whatsoever of asking for a further extension of the time beyond two years. There has been a great deal said about making the allotments permanent, and that that may have been a factor which has frightened the Epping Forest Commissioners. But so far as our people are concerned there is no such intention, and if a decision is given that they should have a further period of two years from 31st December, 1919, I think that decision will be maintained. When I rose 1 promised not to refer to foreign affairs, but this matter is very closely connected with the food problem. We had appeals from every part of the House to-day concerning the food question in Eastern Europe, and we heard, I regret, from the Prime Minister, that lie had no solution to offer about Russia. That is all the more reason why we should maintain the food supplies in our own country. The whole of Eastern Russia is confronted with starvation and privation, and I add my appeal to those who have spoken already. I hope my hon. Friend will declare strongly the opinion of the Government on this question.
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen)My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. W. Thorne) complained that some of the Members who had raised questions in Debate to-night had not got complete satisfaction from the Government, and lie said he hoped that the Board of Agriculture would give him complete satisfaction on this question. Complete satisfaction is a very difficult thing to give, and I am afraid that I cannot promise it in this case, but, with the general proposition that he has brought forward, I desire to maintain these men on the allotments as long as possible. We are entirely in sympathy with what he and other Members have said, and we shall use—indeed, we have been using—all our influence to compass that object. We realise what a splendid movement this allotment movement was during the War. We appealed to the people of the country generally to cultivate allotments, principally for the purpose of increasing the food supply. Our appeal met with a splendid response. We think, from every point of view, that the allotment movement is a thing to be encouraged, and we do not wish to regard it merely as a war emergency matter; we wish to see it carried on for several reasons. In the 817 first place, having appealed to these people to provide allotments, we think it only right that they should have, so to speak, a fair run for their money. Some places have been mentioned to-night 'where men have undertaken to cultivate land that was by no means inviting or suitable, and they have spent a lot of time, money, and labour on it. They should, at all events, have an opportunity of getting a fair return. I entirely agree with what various speakers have said, particularly by my right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Acland) and by the hon. Member for Leyton (Lieut.-Colonel Malone) as to the necesity, in view of the international situation, of maintaining the food supply to the utmost extent possible. Further, we support allotments because we think that they do a great deal in the direction of breaking down the barriers which exist in some places betwen what I may call country and town life, introducing to the large urban population an interest in country pursuits and cultivation. That is eminently desirable.
The points that have been raised have really great difficulties. Let me point out the manner in which we obtained this large increase in allotments. It was done in three different ways. In the first place, a large number of additional allotments were obtained by voluntary agreements between owners of land and individual allotment-holders or allotment societies. Those voluntary agreements were principally for the period of the fighting, and in many cases the land but for the War would have been required for other purposes. The agreements were voluntary, and the Board have no power to interfere, but I can tell the House of any number of cases where private owners have been anxious at very short notice to resume occupation, but where we have used our good offices and persuaded them to allow the holders to remain for a considerable time longer. We shall continue to do that whenever a case of that sort is brought to our notice. Secondly, a large number of allotments were obtained under the Defence of the Realm Act Regulations, whereby we acquired land compulsorily. In those cases, we stated publicly that the land would be retained for at least two years after the conclusion of the War. That promise of two years. really only applied to that particular land which we acquired compulsorily; obviously it could not apply to land that was obtained voluntarily. In those cases where the land was acquired compulsorily for allotment pur 818 poses under the Defence of the Realm Act we have arranged—with two exceptions—that the land shall be retained for at least two years, and it. may possibly be three years, except where the land is immediately wanted for building purposes—and it is quite obvious that in these days of house shortage we cannot block housing schemes of corporations on account of the existence of allotments, or unless the compensation that we have to pay for the retention of the land exceeds very greatly the value of the produce from the land. On those conditions we have arranged that the land shall be retained for two years or more.
There is a third way in which land was obtained for allotments, and this is the most difficult point which has been under discussion to-night. Under the Defence of the Realm Regulations public authorities that were in possession of public parks or open spaces dedicated to the public—in many cases for the use of the public for recreation, sports, and games—were enabled during the War to use some of the land for allotment purposes, and that very useful power was largely availed of, and the London parks were to some extent devoted to allotments, as were Wanstead Flats. and other great open spaces. When the War was over the question immediately arose as to what was to happen in these cases. These open spaces were dedicated to the whole of the public, and there was no real reason why they should be monopolised by allotment-holders who are really a small minority of the public. Most of the public authorities, therefore, gave notice that they would terminate the occupation by the allotment holders as from the end of this year. That raised a storm, especially in London. A very large number of allotment-holders were to be dispossessed on the 31st December, and that was felt to be a great injustice. On the other hand, public authorities said they had no right to use land which was meant for the general public for a small minority. What happened? Three bodies were really concerned—the Office of Works, the London County Conned, and the Epping Forest Commissioners, the last-named in respect of Wanstead Flats.
The Office of Works were the first to give notice for the termination of the occupation of the allotments. That was felt to be unfortunate. The Board therefore made representations, and were fairly met by the First Commissiner, the decision being that 70 per cent. of the 819 plot-holders in the parks and open spaces under the control of the Office of Works should remain until the 28th February, 1921. In the remaining 30 per cent. of cases which were principally round Primrose. Hill and Bushy Park they will have to clear out as from the end of February next, and we did not see our way to question that decision of the Office of Works, because we believed that in those cases where the allotment-holders had received notice to quit there really was a strong demand for public recreation. Inasmuch as the Office of Works had met us to some extent we let the matter rest. Then we come to the London County Council which first decided that the allotments in the London parks should be vacated on the 31st December. There again we intervened. The council referred the matter back to its Parks Committee with the result that that body recommended, and the London County Council agreed, that 56 per cent. of the allotment holders should be allowed to remain until the 31st December, 1920. In other cases they say there is a bonâ fide need for public recreation. The London County Council is a popularly elected body; it is the authority for the whole of London and I do not see how the Board of Agriculture can further interfere with the discretion of the London County Council. I come to the third case. The Epping Forest Commissioners are the owners of this large tract of land—
§ Mr. W. THORNEThey are not the Owners.
Sir A. BOSCAWENThe City Corporation are the owners and the Commissioners are the managers of this large tract of land at Wanstead Flats, where there has been a large number of allotments. The City Corporation, acting through the Epping Forest Commissioners decided that all these allotments were to be terminated at the end of this year. I had not before heard of the letter mentioned by my hon. and learned Friend (Sir E. Wild), in which it is stated that the Board concurred in that decision, but, of course, it may be so. I am not questioning the statement that some such assent might have been given.
§ Sir E. WILDIt was in July.
Sir A. BOSCAWENIf so, personally I was quite unaware of it. I will have the matter inquired into. All I can say is 820 that, if it is so, we were at that time not aware of the circumstances. At all events, ever since we became aware of the circumstances we have taken the strongest possible steps to induce the Epping Forest Commissioners to alter their decision. We have pointed out to them that, even granted that Wanstead Flats are an open space dedicated to the general use of the public, there is any amount of room there both for recreation and for allotments, and, in our opinion, inasmuch as both the London County Council and the Office of Works have made large concessions to the allotment holders, we think that they would be very well advised to do the same thing. As my hon. and learned Friend stated, our Director of Lands accompanied the deputation of the Parliamentary Allotment Committee to the Epping Forest Commissioners and stated the case as strongly as possible. I may say that for some time the Epping Forest commissioners refused to receive a deputation. We urged them to receive a deputation and finally they did so. I am sorry to say that they came to the decision that they could not alter what they had previously settled, and the allotment-holders are under notice to vacate at the end of this month. I have said before in this House that I regarded their action as most regrettable from every point of view. In saying that again I am expressing not only my personal and private opinion, but the opinion of the President of the Board and of the Board as a whole. We certainly think that in every way the Epping Forest Commissioners, having regard to the circumstances, to the necessity of maintaining the allotments, to the strong feeling that exists in the East End, to the necessity for food supplies, and to the examples set by the other authorities, have been certainly unwise in refusing to alter the decision to which they previously came.
When I am asked whether I can give complete satisfaction, all I can say is that I have no power to compel this body to change their decision. We have no power to control their discretion under their Defence of the Realm powers. They take their stand upon their strict legal rights. They say, "We are the administrators of this property for the general public, and there is now no necessity to give any of this land for allotments." My hon. Friend asked, if we could do nothing else, would we appeal to the Prime Minister to see if he could succeed, as he so often does, where others have failed. I will consider 821 that suggestion and see whether any steps in that direction can be taken. In the meantime, I can only say that I entirely sympathise with the feeling that has been expressed by my hon. Friends. Although we really are powerless as regards Wanstead Flats, we fully recognise the importance of maintaining this allotment movement, and wherever we possibly can, in the national interest, we shall endeavour to see that the plot-holders are not unduly disturbed.