§ (3) This Section shall be deemed to have had effect as from the first day of January, nineteen hundred and nineteen.
§ 7.0 P.M.
§ Major LANE-FOXI was moving to leave out Sub-section (3), and was saying that the present position of the county councils is that they have "power to purchase land to let for small holdings without the consent of the Board of Agriculture if they are prepared not to require the recoupment of losses, which they can obtain when they have obtained the previous consent of the Board of Agriculture. The proposal in the Clause is that they shall no longer have that power. By Sub-section (3), which I wish to have omitted, that plenary power is made retrospective. It is quite clear that a county council very often cannot have time to get the consent of the Board of Agriculture, and must lose the chance of buying a particular piece of land which it is very important for them to have. They must have time, before they complete the purchase, to inspect the land. Probably members of the small holdings committee would want to see it. In the case of the West Biding of Yorkshire County Council and many other councils there are inquiries made about minerals, and so on. A certain number of inquiries obviously have to be made. It would not be possible to get the previous consent of the Board of Agriculture in the case of land being sold by auction. There might be some sale, not heard of before, in some town and the county council might wish to buy. I want to know what the position of the Board is going to be, supposing land had been bought by a council at an auction. It rests with the Board to confirm or disallow it. Obviously, it would be impossible for the Board to take up the position of disallowing the bid the county council had made in an auction for any particular piece of land. This Clause, therefore, creates an impossible position. In making this provision retrospective, it makes it oven more impossible. What will be the title of a county council which since the 1st January has actually bought land?
1238 There are a good many cases where they have bought land since the 1st of January without the consent of the Board of Agriculture. Are they to submit to not having their losses recouped? If this power is made retrospective to the 1st January, it will mean that they will have no title which they can show to any land they have bought since that date. That is the reason why I ask that this Sub-section should be omitted, and that the next Amendment standing in my name should be inserted, because it gives the county councils again the power to purchase without the consent of the Board of Agriculture, if they think fit, subject to their not being able to claim recoupment.
§ Sir F. BLAKEI beg to second the Amendment.
Sir A. BOSCAWENI cannot very well accept this Amendment. I have to consider the actual effect of it, taken by itself. That effect would be this: In cases where the council have bought land at prices which, in their opinion, would not permit of the expenses in relation to the land being recouped out of the land, the council would be placed in an impossible position. Under the existing law councils can only buy at prices which they think can recoup themselves. When the idea of land settlement started and when after the Armistice money was available for the purposes of purchase, "we authorised the councils to go ahead. We did not wish to have any delay. We told them that we were going to bring in a Bill on these lines, that they need not observe the old terms, but that they would get this recoupment if there were a deficit on the working of the holdings. The-councils have acted very largely on that. Unless we have this Sub-section (3), which makes the action retrospective, these councils would be in the position that their action would be illegal. We could: not, therefore, in the interests of the councils, agree to the deletion of the Subsection. I understand that my hon. and gallant Friend desires that there should be a general right on the part of county councils to buy without the consent of the Board, and then not to have the advantages of recoupment. I cannot understand why any council should want to do that. They will be doing it at their own risk. They will be buying at a time when land is dear, when recoupment is very expensive and when the interest on the loans is very high. The result can only 1239 be that if they let the land at such rents as the smallholders can pay, there will be a heavy deficit every year, which will not be paid by the Government and which, therefore, will fall upon the rates. I cannot believe that any council would do that. Supposing they did, the effect would be you would have two separate systems of small holdings—those bought under this Bill, for which there is recoupment out of the public purse, and, secondly, those financed entirely by the county councils. That would lead, among other things, to a complication of accounts. We wish, as far as possible, to simplify the whole process. I cannot believe that any county council would do it. If they did, I cannot believe it would be the wish of the House that there should be two separate systems of small holdings running concurrently. We cannot accept the Amendment, which strikes at the whole root of the Bill—that is, that small holdings should be established at the expense of the State, run by the councils as agents for the State for the period of seven years, and then handed over as going concerns to the councils. I regret that I cannot accept the Amendment.
§ Mr. MOUNTIf the Parliamentary Secretary correctly interprets the Subsection there is a good deal to be said for his. argument. The first part of Subsection (1) reads:
The power of a council to acquire land for small holdings under the principal Act shall not be exercised during the period ending on the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and twenty-six, except with the previous consent of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries.That part is affected by Sub-section (3). The second part says, that the land shall not be purchasedexcept at such a price or rent or for such an annuity as in the opinion of the council will allow all expenses incurred by the council in relation to the land to be recouped out of the purchase money or rent to be obtained by the council for the land.That part is not affected by Sub-section (3).
§ Sir. F. BANBURYMay I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether this is not the explanation? Does he intend, under this Clause, to give the consent of the Board of Agriculture to the purchases made by different county councils since the 1st January of this year? If that is so, the fears of my hon. and gallant Friend are groundless. I do not think it 1240 is good to have retrospective legislation, but I quite follow the point that without this provision county councils who have bought land since the 1st, January will lose; therefore this. Clause is put in so that the Board of Agriculture may go to the councils and say, "We are prepared to give consent and will give it."
§ Major LANE-FOXI am afraid I must be dense, but I do not understand even now what the position is under this Clause. The Clause says that the power of county councils to acquire land for small holdings shall not be exercised except with the previous consent of the Board of Agriculture. The Government have already encouraged councils to buy without that consent. Is the consent to be retrospective?
§ Major LANE-FOXThen I understand it. A promise may have been given which perfectly justifies the words as they stand. Without an assurance of that kind, councils who have actually bought since the 1st of January would have absolutely no title to the land unless they had previously obtained the consent from the Board of Agriculture. There has been a very considerable rise, and, therefore, a. great many councils will be affected. If my hon. and gallant Friend distinctly tells 'me the consent of the Board of Agriculture will, notwithstanding, be given to this retrospectively I should very much like to have it in the Act.
Sir A. BOSCAWENThe position is this. We indicate to the councils that our consent would be necessary. In the great majority of cases we have given consent, therefore the matter is already settled. This merely legalises the action that they took with our consent and at our suggestion. I am told there are one or two cases where councils have acted without obtaining our consent in the first instance. In not a single one of those cases, I am told, has the purchase been actually completed. Before it is completed, if it is going to be completed, it is our intention to give consent.
§ Major LANE-FOXThen it is the intention of the Board to give consent in every case?
Sir A. BOSCAWENI believe in all cases up to date where purchase has been completed consent has been given. In one or two cases purchase has not been completed. If we do not give consent it will 1241 not be completed. As I understand, from the cases which have come before me, I believe it is our intention to give consent.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.