HC Deb 22 July 1919 vol 118 cc1227-32

  1. (1) If the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries are satisfied that in any county the council are not providing small holdings, or land to be leased to a parish council for the provision of allotments, to such extent as in the opinion of the Board is desirable, the Board shall in that county during a period of two years after the passing of this Act acquire land to such extent as they think desirable for small holdings or to be leased to a parish council for the provision of allotments, and for such purpose and for the use or disposal of the land when acquired the Board shall have the same powers as may be exercised by a county council under the principal Act, and the provisions of the principal Act relating to the acquisition use or disposal of land by a county council and to small holdings provided by a county council shall apply with the necessary adaptations to the acquisition use and disposal of land by the Board and to small holdings provided by the Board under this Section.
  2. (2) Where the Board determine to exercise in any county the powers conferred by this Section they shall give notice of such determination to the council of the county.
  3. (3) A county council shall furnish the Board with all such information as the Board may require for the purposes of this Section.
  4. (4) The Board may at any time transfer land acquired under this Section to the; council of the county in which it is situate if the Board are satisfied that the council are willing to exercise and perform their powers and duties in relation thereto, but the terms of any transfer shall be subject to the approval of the Treasury.
  5. (5) The expenses of the Board under this Section to such extent as may be sanctioned by the Treasury shall be defrayed out of the Small Holdings Account, and the receipts of the Board under this Section shall be paid into that account.

Sir K. WOOD

I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "allotments," to insert the words or in any borough or urban district the borough or urban district council are not providing allotments. This Amendment is intended to provide for the case where the Board are satisfied that allotments are not being provided, the Board may do so. It makes provision in the case of any borough or urban district council not providing the necessary allotments that the Board of Agriculture may step in. At present if the urban district council or borough council do not provide allotments the matter will have to go to the county council, and if they fail then it will have to go to the Board. I suggest to my hon and gallant Friend that this is a more expeditious way of dealing with the matter. Rightly or wrongly some of the allotment owners think that many county councils are not particularly sympathetic towards their aspirations, and are more concerned with greater agricultural activities. Be that as it may, I think the allotment-holders should have power to step in this way. If my hon. and gallant Friend does not feel inclined to accept this proposal perhaps he will say whether the Board proposes to take any other steps to meet the state of things which I have mentioned with regard to the action of county councils.

Major PRESCOTT

I beg to second the Amendment.

Sir E. POLLOCK

So far as I can follow what the Amendment provides, I think there are full powers to deal with the matter, except possibly with the case of a defaulting county borough. There may be cases in which a county borough has made default and I think it is possible some further Amendment may be necessary to meet that case. I am quite prepared to say we will consider that with a view to trying to bring forward an Amendment to meet this point in another place. Perhaps my hon. Friend will acept that assurance and not press his Amendment.

Mr. RENDALL

I hope the Solicitor-' General will make quite plain what his reply is to this point. We should like to know whether there are these powers in the Board of Agriculture or not. The Amendment proposes that the Board of Agriculture should have the powers which the county councils now have. The right hon. Gentleman has not said quite clearly that the Board of Agriculture had those powers. If he is not prepared to grant what my hon. Friend wants in this Amendment, to give the Board of Agriculture power instead of the county councils, perhaps he might give the Board of Agriculture these powers as well as the county council. I hope he will answer the point which the Amendment raises.

Mr. L. SCOTT

My impression is that the word "county" includes a county borough, and, therefore, the language of the Clause as drafted covers the specific point which the Solicitor-General referred to. There is a point, however, which is not covered an the Clause which would be covered by the Amendment, and that is in a borough or urban district the duty of providing allotments should be brought within the scope of the Clause so that if the Board of Agriculture thinks that an urban district council or a borough council is not providing allotments for the urban population to the extent they ought to be provided the Board should have the power, as in the case of the county council, to enforce the provisions of this Clause. It is a point of considerable importance, and I wish to supplement the request made that, before deciding to refuse this Amendment, the Government should make sure that the Clause as drafted gives them the power to do what the Amendment proposes. My view is that the Clause as drafted does not give that power, and that the Amendment is necessary in order to confer upon the Board the power we want. I think we all know that some borough councils of the smaller type and some urban district councils have been very progressive in finding land for allotments, whilst others have been very much the opposite. It is just because some are not progressive or even reactionary that the guiding power of the Board of. Agriculture provided for under this Amendment is so very desirable.

Amendment negatived.

Sir K. WOOD

I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words during a period of two years after the passing of this Act. This Clause gives power to the Board for two years only after the passing of the Act, and my Amendment proposes to leave out those words. I have an Amendment to make it live years instead of two, but 1 should be willing to accept some other period.

Sir E. POLLOCK

If the House will be content to make it three years, I am willing to accept such an Amendment. I think that proposal would fit in with the general scheme of the Bill.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: In Sub-section (1), leave out the word "two," and insert the word "three."— [Sir Kingsley Wood]

Sir F. BLAKE

I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (2), to insert (3) Before acquiring any land under the provisions of this Section the Board shall consult with the chairman of the council of the county in which the land proposed to be acquired is situate, or with a committee of that council, as to the suitability of the land proposed to be acquired. I think it is desirable that everything should be done to make this scheme work as harmoniously as possible under the circumstances which are contemplated in this Clause, and it is with that object in view that I move this Amendment. If I could see anywhere in the Clause any reference to any consultation with the county council, which, after all, is the statutory body to carry out the provisions both of the principal Bill and this measure, I should not move this Amendment. This Amendment does not interfere with the principle of the Clause as drafted, that the Board may provide land for settlement in any country where the county council has not done its proper duty. The suggestion is that before acquiring any land the Board should consult that body which, from its position and from the fact that it has been administering these Acts since 1908, it is presumed would be best qualified to give an opinion as to the suitability of the land proposed to be acquired. It is mainly for the reason that I wish to preserve the harmonious working which is essential for the proper carrying out of this Clause and all the other Clauses in the Bill that I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he might reconsider the decision to which he came when the Bill was in Committee. After all, what does it provide? The Clause says: Where the Board determine to exercise in any county the powers conferred by this Section they shall give notice of such determination to the council of the county. Then it says: A county council shall furnish the Board with all such information as the Board may require. It contemplates no breach of the good relations between the county council and the Board, because in the Sub-section which follows it says: The Board may at any time transfer land acquired under this Section to the council of the county in which it is situate if the Board are satisfied that the council are willing to exercise and perform their powers and duties in relation thereto. That all points to the contemplation of a genuine difference of opinion between the Board and the county council either as to the necessity or possibility of acquiring land or as to the suitability of those who apply for it. I am quite sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that it is altogether desirable that the most harmonious relations should continue to exist during the discussion of these difficulties between the Board and the county council. With that object in view, and that object only, I submit to the hon. Gentleman that there might be, if not actually in the Bill in what he says, some indication that he is not going to take hearsay evidence only in being satisfied that the county council are not carrying out the provisions of the Small Holdings Act, but that he will consult the chairman. I suggest at the same time that we might have something inserted in the Bill to give some assurance to the council in order to keep things sweet and to make the Act work as we all hope that it will work.

Mr. CAUTLEY

I beg to second the Amendment.

It is quite true that this Clause provides what is to be done if a county council is in default. It gives the Board of Agriculture power to step in. and do the work that the county council ought to have done. It is most desirable that there should not be any breach between the Board of Agriculture and the county council, and, if we put in these words requiring the Board of Agriculture before they actually acquire the land to consult the committee of the county council or the chairman, it will enable them to get further local knowledge. The main point, however, is that it will mean the avoidance of friction, although there may be a genuine difference of opinion as to putting the powers of this Act into operation. The Amendment will do no harm, and it may do a great deal of good, and I therefore support it.

Sir E. POLLOCK

Both the Mover and the Seconder of this Amendment have laid stress upon the fact that they want to secure that the good relations between the Board and the county council shall be maintained. They therefore propose to put in this Sub-section. I am going to ask them and the House whether they think that it will really add anything to the Clause as it stands? The operation of the Clause comes into play when the Board or Agriculture are satisfied that in any county the council are not providing small holdings. I cannot imagine that the Board will act unreasonably upon hearsay evidence, as the Mover suggested, or become satisfied unless they take adequate precautions to get full information. I am quite certain that you may trust the Board not to wish to fall out with the council and to take all proper steps to be sure that the information that they have re- ceived is adequate and sufficient, and that both sides have been properly heard. If that be so, you have a case where the Board are satisfied that the council is in default. The Board, havng come to that conclusion, would the position be improved by saying that before acquiring any land they must consult the chairman of the council of the county? I can conceive a ease where the chairman of the council might say, "While it is quite true that some opportunity was given to me, it was not an adequate consultation, and I am not satisfied that the Sub-section which is part of the Statute has been really carried out." The Board, on the other hand, might say, "We did consult the chairman." It might thus lead to added friction.

One must put some sort of trust both in the Board and in the chairman of the council, who, after all, is a person whom we must trust very largely, and the council itself. If there were ill will—I hesitate to use the word, but still, not good will—I cannot conceive that there, would be any sort of assistance, or precaution, or safeguard given by saying in the Statute that there is to be a consultation between the Board and the chairman of the council. May we not leave it to the good sense of the Board and the courtesy and the good sense of the chairman of the council? Do not let us give rights about which there may be difficulty of interpretation, and which may give rise to some friction. Let us believe that the responsible chairman of a county council and his council, as well as the Board, will take such steps to meet one another in order to co-operate. This Sub-section, which has been proposed with all good will for the purpose of dealing with what might be a strained situation, would not save the situation, and might even add to it. Under these circumstances, I hope that my hon. Friend will not press the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.