CLAUSE 23.— (Recoupment of Capital Losses.) (Hansard, 22 July 1919)

§ Sir F. BLAKE
I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "Act" ["under the principal Act"], to insert the words after the first day of April, nineteen hundred and nineteen. I regret very much that, owing to the pace at which we conducted our proceedings in Committee, I omitted, unfortunately, to move this Amendment of mine 1268 which was on the Paper. If it had been moved, we should have had the advantage of hearing the pros and cons thrashed out. One now takes the opportunity of moving it, and I do so rather in the hope of raising the question and getting an explanation from the lion, and gallant Gentleman as to exactly what will be the position of county councils in regard to their small holdings under the provisions contained in this Clause. The Clause is one which we talk of in the County Councils Association as a "pooling Clause." The county councils are, if not suspicious, yet a little alarmed as to-the position they are likely to find themselves in when this Clause is put into operation, because, if it was possible to say that the land would remain at the value fixed by the Board—the hon. and gallant Gentleman says he is going to write down all our losses and give us a clean bill of health and start us afresh— if it was possible to say that the value fixed by the Board in 1926 would remain, there would not be so much objection to the pooling principle. There is, however, a great possibility that the land will fall eventually below the figure named, and it does not seem to be unreasonable that county councils who have been prudent and judicious in their purchases, and who have a bit, and sometimes a good bit, in hand,, should be allowed to keep that bit.
The effect of this Amendment, as it appears now, is to separate the two kinds of small holdings, those acquired under the principal Act and those acquired under the operations of this Act. It is to apply this Clause to the one, that is to say, to the small holdings acquired under this Act, and to leave the county councils in possession of the benefits—sand most of them have benefits—that is really the cause of this Amendment being put down—sthat is to say, the capital appreciation of the land—which can be pointed out by nearly every county council. So far as the septennial period is concerned, to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has alluded,, the Board has treated us fairly. Everything is going to be cleared off. But we are afraid of the operation of this Clause so far as it applies to the small holdings acquired under the operations of the late Act up to 31st March of this year. With the object rather of obtaining some information and some explanation from the hon. and gallant Gentleman, I move this. 1269 Amendment. It is a matter upon which those for whom I am speaking, the county councils, feel very strongly; and I hope the hon. and gallant Gentlemen will be able to give us satisfactory assurances.

Captain COOTE
I beg to second the Amendment. Certain county councils with which I am acquainted feel very strongly that they will not reap the reward of what they have done on this question, and this proposal does not encourage them to practise economy during the septennial period. If you are going to sweep away these boards, it may be taken as a precedent for similar conduct on some future occasion. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to meet this Amendment if he cannot accept it in some way or other, because I have a similar Amendment on the Paper, and in that ease I should not move it.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN
I am sorry that 1 cannot accept this Amendment. It was not moved during the Committee stage, and it has been discussed with the county councils more than once. The effect of the Amendment would be to exclude from this financial arrangement the small holdings which had been provided before this Bill came into operation. The arrangement is, that we take all small holdings provided by county councils from 1908 to 1926. We pool them all together, and we pay the losses on them, and then value them and hand them back upon a self-supporting basis. If we are to do the thing in a businesslike manner, we must take all the small holdings, and it would cause confusion if you had one set working on one system and another on a different system, it would cause a complication of accounts, and 1 cannot for the life of me see what benefit the councils will obtain by it. Some hon. Members say there are councils who have been provident and made a success, while others have failed. When they have made a success, it must be remembered they had great assistance from the State all along in order that they might make a success. We paid the cost of acquisition and the legal expenses, and where there has been a failure we have already paid, at least, half of the annual losses. The only sensible plan is to pool the whole lot and regard the counties as our agents from 1908, and put the thing on a sound financial basis, and hand them back to the councils to run on their own for the future. The councils are not going to gain very much if they get their pre-war holdings excluded, because a number of them may require additional 1270 equipment. If they are m the same basket with the present smallholders, the additional equipment will be done at the Board's expense, and a great many of them, will require it.

§ Sir F. BLAKE
The new ones?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN
No, the old ones will require additional equipment. If they come in under this Bill any additional equipment will be found at the Board's expense during the seven-year period. If they do not come in, they will find any additional equipment out of the rates, and they will not gain by it. I suggest to my hon. Friends that I think they are really making a mistake from the point of view of the county councils. From our point of view, to have two separate sets of small holdings running on a different system would be exceedingly confusing. I hope, therefore, having regard to the very fair offer we have made, my hon. Friend will not press his Amendment.