Commons Sitting of 14 March 1919

Preamble
The House met at Twelve of the clock, MR. SPEAKER in the Chair.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Ordered,
  "That Government Business be not interrupted this day at Five or half-past Five of the clock, and may be entered upon at any hour although opposed."—[Lord Edmund Talbot.]

  INCREASE OF RENT BILL.
  Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Bill considered in Committee.—[Progress, 11 th March.]
  [MR. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

  INCREASE OF RENT BILL.

    CLAUSE 6.—(Minor Amendments of the Principal Act.)
    (1) A landlord of a house to which the principal Act, either as originally enacted or as extended by this Act, applies shall, on being so requested by the tenant of the house, furnish to him a statement as to what is the standard rent of the house, and if he fails within fourteen days to do so, or furnishes a statement which is false in any material particular, he shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding ten pounds.
    (2) Where a person who has, since the thirtieth day of September, nineteen hundred and seventeen, purchased a house to which the principal Act, either as originally enacted or as extended by this Act, applies, requires the house for his own occupation or that of some person in his employ, or in the employ of some tenant from him, nothing in the Increase of Rent, etc. (Amendment) Act, 1918, shall be construed as preventing the Court from making an order for the recovery of possession of the house, if, after considering all the circumstances
    of the case, including the alternative accommodation available for the tenant, the Court considers it reasonable to make such an order.
    Amendment proposed: At the end of Sub-section (1), insert the words,
    "Any person who offers to let a house on payment of a premium by the prospective tenant or accepts such a premium, and any person who pays a premium in order to obtain possession of a house shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds."—[Mr. Adamson.]
    Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    Mr. ADAMSON: The Committee will remember that when the Debate was adjourned, we had just reached a stage when a Division would be taken on this Amendment. I do not know that there is anything to add to what has already been said.
    Major Sir BERTRAM FALLE: Is this Amendment intended to apply to all houses or only to houses affected by the Bill? It is so drawn that no distinction is made.
    Mr. TYSON WILSON: The Amendment only applies to houses to which the Bill applies. That is the intention of the Amendment.
    The CHAIRMAN: As drawn, the Amendment does apply to all houses.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 33; Noes, 160

    Division No. 14.]

    AYES.

    [12.9 p.m.

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

    Hogge, J. M.

    Sexton, James

    Arnold, Sydney

    Irving, Dan

    Short, A. (Wednesbury)

    Brace, Rt. Hon. William

    Jones, J. (Silvertown)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

    Cape, Tom

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Walsh, S. (Ince, Lancs.)

    Davies, Alfred (Clitheroe)

    Lunn, William

    White, Charles F. (Derby, W.)

    Donald, T.

    Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian)

    Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough)

    Graham, W. (Edinburgh)

    Murray, Dr. D. (Western Isles)

    Yeo, Sir Alfred William

    Griffiths, T. (Pontypool)

    Onions, Alfred

    Young, Robert (Newton, Lancs.)

    Grundy, T. W.

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Hancock, John George

    Rose, Frank H.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Tyson Wilson and Mr. Frederick Hall.

    Hayday, A.

    Rowlands, James

    Hayward, Major Evan

    Royce, William Stapleton

    Hirst, G. H.

    NOES.

    Amery, Lieut.-Col. L. C. M. S.

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Archdale, Edward M.

    Betterton, H. B.

    Brittain, Sir Harry E.

    Bagley, Captain E. A.

    Birchall, Major J. D.

    Broad, Thomas Tucker

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Blades, Sir George R.

    Brown, Captain D. C. (Hexham)

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Blair, Major Reginald

    Buchanan, Lieut.-Col. A. L. H.

    Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir F. G.

    Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Barnston, Major Harry

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur Griffith-

    Burdon, Col. Rowland

    Barrie, C. C.

    Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

    Burn, Col. C. R. (Torquay)

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Breese, Major C. E.

    Campbell, J. G. D.

    Campion, Col. W. R.

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford)

    Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.

    Carew, Charles R. S. (Tiverton)

    Hewart, Right Hon. Sir Gordon

    O'Neill, Capt. Hon. Robert W. H.

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Hickman, Brig.-Gen, Thomas E.

    Ormsby-Gere, Hon. William

    Cayzer, Major H. R.

    Hills, Major J. W. (Durham)

    Parker, James

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Hinds, John

    Pearce, Sir William

    Child, Brig.-Gen. Sir Hill

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Pinkham, Lieut.-Col. Charles

    Clay, Capt. H. H. Spender

    Hood, Joseph

    Pratt, John William

    Coats, Sir Stuart

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Pulley, Charles Thornton

    Cockerill, Brig.-Gen. G. K.

    Howard, Major S. G.

    Rogers, Sir Hallewell

    Colvin, Brig.-Gen. R. B.

    Hunter, Gen. Sir A. (Lancaster)

    Roundell, Lt.-Col. R. F.

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Illingworth, Rt. Hon. Albert H.

    Sanders, Colonel Robert Arthur

    Coote, Colin R. (Isle of Ely)

    Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Hon. F. S. (York)

    Seddon, J. A.

    Coote, W. (Tyrone, S.)

    Jesson, C.

    Shaw, Capt. W. T. (Forfar)

    Craig, Capt. C. (Antrim)

    Jodrell, N. P.

    Shortt, Rt. Hon. E.

    Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Curzon, Commander Viscount

    Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)

    Sprot, Col. Sir Alexander

    Davidson, Major-General J. H.

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen)

    Stanier, Capt. Sir Beville

    Dean, Com. P. T.

    Jones, Wm. Kennedy (Hornsey)

    Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Doyle, N. Grattan

    Lane-Fox, Major G. R.

    Stewart, Gershom

    Duncannon, Viscount

    Law, A. J. (Rochdale)

    Sturrock, J. Leng-

    Edgar, Clifford

    Lewis, T. A. (Pontypridd, Glam.)

    Sugden, Lieut. W. H.

    Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)

    Lloyd, George Butler

    Surtees, Brig.-Gen. H. C.

    Falcon, Captain M.

    Lorden, John William

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)

    Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

    Lort-Williams, J.

    Townley, Maximillian G.

    Fell, Sir Arthur

    Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

    M'Curdy, Charles Albert

    Wardle, George J.

    FitzRoy, Capt. Hon. Edward A.

    M'Donald, Dr. B. F. P. (Wallasey)

    Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.

    Fraser, Major Sir Keith

    M'Donald, D. H. (Bothwell, Lanark)

    Warren, Sir Alfred H.

    Gardner, E. (Berks., Windsor)

    M'Laren, R. (Lanark, N.)

    Weigall, Lt.-Col. W. E. G. A.

    Gilmour, Lt.-Col. John

    M'Lean, Lt.-Col. C. W. W. (Brigg)

    White, Col G. D. (Southport)

    Glyn, Major R.

    McMicking, Major Gilbert

    Whitla, Sir William

    Goff, Sir R. Park

    McNeill, Ronald (Canterbury)

    Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)

    Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir E. A.

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Willoughby, Lt.-Col. Hon. Claud

    Grant, James Augustus

    Mason, Robert

    Wilson, Capt. A. Stanley (Hold'ness)

    Greame, Major P. Lloyd

    Mildmay, Col. Rt. Hon. Francis B.

    Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, W.)

    Green, J. F. (Leicester)

    Mitchell, William Lane-

    Wilson, Col. Leslie (Reading)

    Greig, Col. James William

    Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

    Wilson, Col. M. (Richmond, Yorks.)

    Griggs, Sir Peter

    Morison, T. B. (Inverness)

    Winterton, Major Earl

    Hacking, Captain D. H.

    Morrison, H. (Salisbury)

    Wood, Major Hon. E. (Ripon)

    Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir Fred (Dulwich)

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Worsfold, T. Cate

    Hambro, Angus Valdemar

    Murchison, C. K.

    Yate, Col. Charles Edward

    Hamilton, Major C. G. C. (Altrincham)

    Murray, Lt.-Col. Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)

    Young, Sir F. W. (Swindon)

    Haslam, Lewis

    Murray, Major C. D. (Edinburgh, S.)

    Henderson, Major V. L.

    Nicholson, R. (Doncaster)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Capt. Guest and Lord E. Talbot.

    Hennessy, Major G.

    Nicholson, W. (Petersfield)

    Resolutions agreed to.

    Mr. ROSE: I beg to move, to leave out Sub-section (2).
    Mr. ROWLANDS: Before proposing to leave out this Sub-section, an Amendment with which my name is associated, may I inquire whether the Government can see their way to accept later some of the other Amendments on the Paper which would possibly achieve the object in view, so that we might have as clear a definition as we can possibly get? There have been very many cases in the Courts in connection with the corresponding Clause in the original Act, and it has been found over and over again to be that bogus employment has been put forward in connection with a desire to get, or give, possession of a house to someone other than the then occupying tenant. If the Government could give us some assurance that some modification of this will be adopted, I think it would obviate the leaving out of the Sub-section and meet the case.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir G. Hewart): I do not know a form of words which would meet the case put forward by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: A very wide interpretation has been given by some of the County Court judges which have really told against the tenant, and which by many is considered an unwitting evasion of the original Act. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman can see his way to qualify in any way the Sub-section in the way I have suggested I think it would do a great deal for the tenant. It would prevent occupation being taken, except were there is an absolutely reasonable case for the landlord to have possession of the property.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. NEIL M'LEANhad given notice of the following Amendment: Leave out from the word "and" [nineteen hundred and seventeen"] to the end of the Clause, and to insert instead thereof other words.
    The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment of the hon. Gentleman is not in correct form, and therefore is not permissible.
    Mr. KENNEDY JONES: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the words
    "or in the employ of some tenant from him."
    I understandfrom many letters I have received in this matter that there has been a very grave abuse of the proviso in the previous Act. It is not desirable to continue such proviso in the new Bill which we are now engaged in considering.
    Sir G. HEWART: I hope my hon. Friend will not press this Amendment, because it is simply a repetition of a provision in the principal Act.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: I am sorry the Attorney-General cannot meet us in this case. The landlord may have someone in his employ who desires to live in certain premises, and in that casethe occupying tenant is turned out. I am aware that we are asking for an Amendment of the original Act of 1915, but this is one of the cases where grievances have arisen very frequently in connection with a bogus claim to getsomeone into the premises as against the occupying tenant.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. HOGGE: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the words
    "all the circumstances of the case, including."
    My idea is that if the condition as to available accommodation is not fulfilled the other circumstances should not come in.
    Sir G. HEWART: I do not quite follow the difficulty in the mind of my hon. Friend. As the Clause stands at present it would have a certain limiting effect. The Clause provides that the Court, in considering whether it is reasonable to make the order or not, shall have regard to all the circumstances of the case, and I submit that the words as they stand bring about the very result which my hon. Friend desires.
    Sir D. MACLEAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that the dominant factor in the situation is in regard to alternative accommodation being available? That really is the thing in the minds of those who drew the Bill, and I am quite sure that what the Committee desires is that the really effective and dominant consideration in the mind of the Court when they exercised their discretion should be the question whether or not other accommodation is available.
    Sir G. HEWART: I should have thought that the mode of expression which has been chosen is intended to convey that meaning. I do not know whether it would meet my hon. Friend's view if, instead of the word "including," we inserted the words "in particular."
    Sir D. MACLEAN: I think the lay reader is entitled to have an Act so drawn that he can readily understand it. I think it would make the meaning clearer if some word like "especially" was inserted instead of the word "including."
    Mr. ROWLANDS: I do not think it would be wise to strike out the whole of these words, because they give the Court a very strong power to see that before the occupation is taken away from the existing tenant that there must be available accommodation in the locality. I think what the right hon. Gentleman has said might be strengthened by putting another word in place of the word "including."
    Mr. HAROLD SMITH: I gather that the original words of the Amendment, "all the circumstances of the case, including," are not now pressed, and the Government is invited to take out the word "including" and insert the word "especially." I hope my right hon. Friend will not accept the word "especially" without a little more thought. There may be something in it, but I think it is important that we should not accept it without more consideration, and it might be left until the Report stage. I do not very much like directing by an Act of Parliament a judge to especially consider the alternative accommodation available. The present provision asks the judge to consider certain matters, including the available accommodation. The only fear I have is that by inserting the word "especially," it may be inferred from this word, if it is adopted, if there is alternative accommodation of almost any sort it would be taken as an instruction to the judge that he must take that alternative, and this might be very inconvenient. In the district where I live there was a case in which the tenant was told there there was alternative accommodation and it was most unsuitable. The alternative accommodation consisted of a house which was very inferior and a higher rent, and if you put in the word "especially"the judge might construe it as a direction that if there was any sort of accommoda-

    1627
    tion the tenant must be ejected. I want the judge to be able to consider all the facts, and not press the available alternative accommodation especially. I think it should be determined if there is suitable accommodation. If the rent is higher than the house is worth, then it is not suitable to the tenant, and in such a case I think the County Court judge would be more likely to say it is not suitable.
    Colonel GREIG: I hope my hon. Friend opposite will not press this Amendment.
    Mr. HOGGE: I shall be very glad to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment. I understand that the Attorney-General places the consideration we have raised as the main factor. This Bill deals with accommodation and if you leave the measure as it stands now it does not make it perfectly clear that the question of available accommodation is largely the determining factor. If the right hon. Gentleman will promise to make that plain by inserting some such word as suggested by my right hon. Friend, I shall be quite ready to withdraw the Amendment.
    Sir G. HEWART: In order that there may be no doubt as to the meaning of the particular specification of the alternative accommodation, I propose after the word "including" to add the words "in particular."
    Sir D. MACLEAN: I do not think that will add anything to the strength of the words at all. Of course, if it includes it, it is bound to include it in particular. But if you say "especially"you do give a direction which, I am sure, the majority of the Committee desire. [Hon. Members: "No!"] Well, I am inclined to press it to a Division to see, for after all the object of the Bill is to see that a tenant is not turned out of a house either by purchase or otherwise unless there is alternative accommodation.
    Major Sir B. FALLE: The right hon. Gentleman opposite argued that the word "especially" would add confidence to the lay mind, but if you add words which are of no legal value it may lead to an extra large number of lawsuits.
    Sir G. HEWART: I really do not think that this is a matter on which we need occupy a great deal of time, and if my right hon. Friend presses it I shall be quite willing to accept the word "especially." [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I do not
    1628
    think hon. Members altogether appreciate what is proposed. It was suggested that the words "in particular" should come after the word "including," and I am now suggesting that instead of the words "in particular" the word "especially" should be inserted. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] May I just read the Clause as it will then stand—
    "If, after considering all the circumstances of the case, including especially the alternative accommodation available."
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment made: After the word "including" ["all the circumstances of the case, including"], insert the word "especially."—[Sir G. Hewart.]
    Mr. T. WILSON: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (2), to insert
    "(3) In any proceedings taken in any Court between a landlord and a tenantunder this Act or the principal Act, where judgment is given in favour of the tenant, the taxed coats of the proceedings shall be the tenant's."
    Tenants are very often taken into Court for the purpose of securing their eviction, and where the decision is in favour of the tenant we contend that he is entitled to expenses for the time that he loses in connection with the case. I therefore hope that the Government will accept the Amendment.
    Sir G. HEWART: This Amendment is really superfluous. The rule is that the costs follow the event, and the tenant is entitled to his costs unless there is some matter that enables the judge to deprive him of them. The effect of the Amendment would be to deprive the judge of his discretion in a very limited class of cases, which I can hardly imagine, where he would have the discretion to deprive the tenant of his costs.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. ADAMSON: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (2), to insert
    "(3) Where under this Act or the principal Act it is lawful for a landlord to increase the rent by reason of any increase in rates, such power to increase the rent shall not extend toany case where the increase in the actual sum paid in rates is due to an increase in the assessment only and not to a change in the amount of the rate."
    This Clause virtually legalises an increase in rent. In 1913, to take anillustration, a cottage was let for 7s. 6d. Up to 1917 it was rated at 6s. 6d., owing to the rating authorities not being aware

    1629
    of the actual rent. In 1917 the true rent was discovered, and the house was assessed accordingly. The landlord claimed the increase in the rates, and his claim has been allowed in a Court of Law. We feel that in suchcases it is unjust to inflict upon the tenant the penalty of the increased assessment.
    Sir D. MACLEAN: I should like to support this Amendment. Take the case of a small workman's flat rented at about 4s. 6d. The rent is raised because of an increase in the rates. I worked it out the other day, and the real increase which the tenant would be asked to pay would be about 16½ per cent.instead of 10 per cent. I am quite sure that is not the intention of the Committee, but unless some such Section as this is put in the persons whom we desire to protect most will have the least protection. These tenants, instead of haying their rants raised 10 per cent. will have them raised 16½per cent., and we think it is necessary to protect them against this.
    Mr. HOHLER: I hope the Attorney-General will not accept this Amendment. First of all, the landlord has no power in regard to the question of rating. That rests entirely with the Assessment Committee. The arguments that have been put forward in support of this Amendment really do not touch the point. The increase of 10 per cent.here referred to is in regard to the cost of repair, and will not affect the rateable value at all. When the rateable value is fixed the cost of repairs is cut off, and if that cost of repairs has gone up by 10 per cent.the amount allowed by the Assessment Committee for repairs will have to be increased to the extent of 10 per cent., therefore the point does not arise. If I have property which has been underrated, and there is a general re-rating for the district, it surely would be unfair that the burden should be thrown on me.
    Sir D. MACLEAN: But this is a temporary measure.
    Mr. HOHLER: I repeat, it will not affect the question of an increase in rateable value. I have had some littleexperience in rating questions, and I would point out that when the conclusion is arrived at that properties are under-assessed the usual practice is not to reassess particular properties but to take whole streets, and in such cases the increase in the assessment falls on the tenant
    1630
    and not on the owner, who, in fact, has no control over the matter and is only liable to be put to expense by appealing.
    Sir HERBERT NIELD: I entirely agree with my hon. and learned Friend. After all said and done, apart from the question of the rating of houses by the local authority, who has in the past benefited by the under-assessment? It has invariably been the tenant. The rent has always been fixed in relation to the outgoings of the property, and therefore the tenant has all along been taking advantage of the fact that the assessment has been too low. It is preposterous to suggest that the person who has been receiving a limited interest on his money should be further mulct because the authority has come to the conclusion that the house, the enjoyment of which is the tenant's, has been too lowly rated. It would be most unjust to say that in consequence of the reassessment of the property as the result of some improvement in the neighbourhood—and in the London area we have a system which is known by the name of betterment, which enables the assessment on properties to be increased because of the benefits received through public works carried out in the neighbourhood—benefits which give tone to the neighbourhood—I say it would be unjust to claim that in such a case the landlord should suffer because of the fact that the local authority are going to put into their pockets an additional rate. We know perfectly well that local authorities have often said that they would rather purchase and dedicate land to open spaces and parks than develop it through a builder. If you have got a reasonable rent fixed and there is an increase of the assessment, it would be most unjust to say that the landlord should pay that increase and thereby have his limited income further limited. I have always been afraid of this Bill; I think it will be an act of injustice.
    Mr. HAYDAY: I desire to support the Amendment. I think hon. Members who have spoken against it do not recognise its real import. There are, in different parts of the country, blocks of cottage property which have not been subjected to reassessment for the past ten or fifteen years, but during that period rents have been considerably increased.
    Mr. CAUTLEY: Of what part of the country is the hon. Member speaking?
    Mr. HAYDAY: I speak as a resident for thirty years in the East End of London and for ten years in the provinces. I can state with certainty that there are many properties where no revaluation or reassessment has taken place for the past ten or fifteen years, and notwithstanding that an increase in rents has taken place. What we ask is that since public attention has been called to the question of rent and the local authorities may have become rather more keen on the whole question of the reassessment of cottage property, with the result that they find that the assessments at the present moment are out of all keeping with the increase that has taken place in the rent, and they consequently order a revaluation, the landlord should bear the burden caused by any reassessment, because he has benefited in the years gone by by the increased rental he has been drawing. That is the purport of this Amendment and the set of conditions it is desired to protect. One would hardly like to have the position confronting them that during the course of twelve or fifteen years, while the tenants' rents have been increased by 4s. or 5s. a week, and there has been no corresponding increase in the landlords' assessments, that when the local authority reassesses the property to bring it up to date on the basis of the rental received, you should ask the tenant to make good all these arrears which the landlord has pocketed at the expense of the locality by not having had his rateable value increased.
    Sir G. HEWART: I am afraid we cannot accept this Amendment. My right hon. Friend (Sir D. Maclean) invited the Committee to look at the purpose of this legislation. Well, I do look at its purpose. If one turns to Section 1, Sub-section (1) (iv.) of the principal Act it is there provided, in the clearest terms, that
    "Where the landlord pays the rates chargeable on, or which but for the enactment relating to compounding would be chargeable on, the occupier of any dwelling-house, an increaseof the rent of the dwelling-house shall not be deemed to be an increase for the purposes of this Act if the amount of the increase does not exceed any increase in the amount for the time being payable by the landlord in respect of such rates."
    A later provision of the principal Act provides that the landlord shall in such a case make a statement to the tenant showing particulars of the increased amount charged in respect of rates on the dwelling-house. What is the purpose of those provisions? The purpose is clearly this,
    1632
    that the landlord is not to have thrown upon him the burden of an addition to the rates. That was the way in which the matter was left by the principal Act. Now we come to the amending Bill. The object of the amending Bill, within thelimits which it imposes, is to permit the landlord to get an increase of rent for the reason especially that, as everybody knows, the cost of repairs has very greatly increased. How can you say that in certain cases the landlord shall not have that increase but shall have it diminished by some further burden of rates? The proposal really is a proposal to diminish the increase which the amending Bill is going to allow. I do not follow the observations of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Hayday). Certainly my experience does not agree with his as to the long delay in the revaluation of dwelling-houses in this country. But even if he were correct, and I assume for the sake of argument only that is so, what follows? That for this long period of years the rents in those cases have been unduly low, because what is clear is that upon reassessment the rates would not be reduced, but there would be an increased demand for rent. Is not that another way of saying that during the whole of this period the tenant has escaped the burden which he might properly have been called upon to bear? It is quite clear that if this Amendment were accepted we should be taking away that increase which it is the object of the Bill to give.
    1.0 P.M.
    Sir D. MACLEAN: Cannot my right hon. Friend meet this case? It is the one I have in mind. I agree with many of the observations he has made, and they dispose to some extent of some of the difficulties I had in mind. This is a case which I am quite certain mainly affects my right hon. Friend (Mr. Adamson) and myself. It is the case of a tenant paying 4s. 6d. or 6s. rent in a workman's flat. The tenant knows nothing about the rates at all, because they are compounded and he only knows what he pays per week. That is all he bothers about. The landlord arranges with the assessment committee what sum he shall pay, and large deductions are allowed for the cost of collection and matters of that kind, varying according to the districts in which these matters are arranged. That is the case I would press my right hon. Friend to meet. That man or that woman belongs to a class

    1633
    which has not benefited by this War, nor is it benefiting now. They are rather outside the war profiteers in the working classes and they form a class for which everybody wishes todo the most they can. Here is my case with regard to that: An increase in rent is made. They say there has been an increase of rent so far as they are concerned since the War began. The landlord will say that is due to the rates. He has his method of arranging, quite properly, with the assessment committee what is to be allowed to him for collection. Sometimes it runs to 20 per cent. and sometimes higher than that, and for other reasons. He has already paid that increase. So also has this poor class of tenant. On the top of that the landlords are going to have another 10 per cent. That is not what we really want to do. We do not want to see that kind of person paying, as a result of the powers given under this Bill, any additional percentage above that they already pay owing to the increased amount the landlord has to pay in respect of rates. You do not want to have another 10 per cent. put on that class of tenant as distinguished from the pre-war position. He may have to pay 16 or 20 per cent., and not the 10 per cent. which a tenant in a much larger house and a much better position is only asked to pay. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend can meet that case.
    Sir G. HEWART: I am much obliged to my right hon. Friend for making his point so clear. The clearer it becomes, does it not show still more clearly that his object is in these cases to prevent the increase which the Bill is intended to permit? He has said that it is not part of the intention of the Bill to bring about the result which he is seeking by this Amendment to avoid. But I must remind him that by Clause 2, Sub-Section (2), that
    "the increase of rent permitted by this Section shall be in addition to any increase permitted by Section one of the principal Act."
    So that the passing on of the burden of the rates is already provided for by the principal Act. The effect of the proposal now made is, in the case to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, that the increase of rent should be diminished by that sum.
    Sir D. MACLEAN: I think it ought to be.
    Sir G. HEWART: That may be, but it is quite a different question. With the best will in the world, I cannot accept the Amendment.
    Mr. BARTLEY DENNISS: I agree with my hon. and learned Friends who have said that the rating authority ought not to raise the assessment on account of this increase of 10 per cent. because the 10 per cent. is for repairs. That is a perfectly sound proposition in law, but it is possible that the rating authority may find some means in consequence of that 10 per cent. of raising the assessment, and I have no doubt they will. Therefore the position would be met very simply by preventing the assessment authorities from putting up the rateable value on houses included in this Bill. Four hon. Members have put down a new Clause—
    "The rateable value of houses falling within the Act shall not be increased during the continuance of the restrictions in consequence of addition to rent, but this shall not be held to prevent alteration in rateable values due to other causes."
    Surely if that new Clause is put in, that will meet the point completely. It may be out of Order, but there may be some means of putting words into the Section which will have the same effect.
    Amendment negatived.
    The CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment on the Paper deals with the question of restricting the right of local authorities to revise assessments. That and the new Clause just referred are quite outside the Bill.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.

    CLAUSE 7.—(Exception of New Houses.)
    Neither the principal Act nor this Act shall apply to houses erected after or in course of erection at the passing of this Act.
    Mr. N. McLEAN: I beg to move, to leave out the word "Neither" ["Neither the principal Act"].
    I wish the Clause to read—
    "The principal Act and this Act shall apply to houses erected after or in course of erection at the passing of this Act."
    In the case of houses which are in course of erection at present and which may be let in Scotland in May, by the following May there will be a rush of applicants, and the proprietors will be allowed under the Clause to put the rents up. The purpose of the Amendment is that those houses shall be brought under the scope of the Act, and the proprietors shall not be allowed to increase their rents and thereby have a preferential advantage over the proprietors who are being struck at by the Bill as it stands.
    Sir G. HEWART: I doubt very much whether the hon. Member has considered the effect the Amendment would have if it were adopted. As the Bill stands we propose to except new houses from the operation of the principal Act and of this Act. The effect of this and the consequential Amendment would be that, in terms at any rate, the principal Act and the new Act will apply to houses erected after the passing ofthe Act or in course of erection at the time of the passing of the Act. One of the unfortunate effects of this legislation, as has already been seen, is greatly to discourage building. If this proposal were to be accepted that discouragement would be at least greatly increased. But does not the hon. Member see this? The basis of this legislation is a comparison between what I may call the pre-war standard and some other standard. Where is that pre-war standard to come from in the case of the house which is erected after the passing of the Act or is in course of erection at the time of the passing of the Act? The basis for comparison does not exist. I do not see how one could make this legislation apply to such houses. It would be making a comparison with something which did not exist.
    Sir D. MACLEAN: The right hon. Gentleman misses the point I wish to make. I do not wish houses of a similar accommodation to be fixed at the same rate. I do not wish houses which are built or in course of erection at the time of the passing of the Act to have the rents fixed in the same ratio as other houses. Let those who build them put on a rent which will meet the exceedingly high building costs. The point I am making is this. A house which may be completed and ready for occupancy at the May term of this year in Scotland will have hundreds of applicants for it. It may be let at a rent which the proprietor of the house considers will cover the cost of erection. In the following May term there will again be such a rush of applicants that the proprietor will be able to raise rents upon the tenants who are sitting, and if they fail or refuse to pay the increase he puts on they can be warned out. They are not covered by the Bill, and the effect of the Amendment will be to protect them and at the same time not give preferential treatment to those proprietors who are building houses at
    1636
    present over the older proprietors by enabling the new proprietors to increase their rent.
    Amendment negatived,
    Clause agreed to.
    CLAUSE 8 ("Short Title and Construction") agreed to.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(APPLICATION OF ACT TO SCOTLAND.)
    In the application of this Act to Scotland—

    (a) the twenty-eighth day of May shall be substituted for Lady Day and the local authority under the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897, shall be substituted for the sanitary authority;

    (b) as from the commencement of the extended period the principal Act shall be amended by the insertion in proviso (iv) of Sub-section (1) of Sectionone, after the word "dwelling-house" where first occurring therein, of the words "or where by the law of Scotland owners'rates are chargeable on the landlord of any dwelling-house."

    Brought up, and read the first time.
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    This Clause applies the Bill to Scotland. The first part of it requires no explanation. It merely translates two new phrases which were imported into the Bill during its progress through Committee. But paragraph (b) perhaps requires a word of explanation. The intention of it is to amend Section 1, Sub-section (1), Proviso IV., of the original Act. The provision in the principal Act as it stands enables the landlord to increase the standard rent by an amount equal to any increase inthe rates. This works quite well in England, where, generally speaking, the rates are chargeable against the occupier, and each extra penny which is put upon the rates almost automatically is added to the rent. The English owner therefore continues to receive practically the same net rent which he received before the War. In Scotland the situation is somewhat different because there the rates are partly levied on the owner, and partly on the occupier. The Clause as it stands in the original Act had this effect, that in Scotland the landlord can only recover that portion of the rate which is leviable on the occupier. In order to put the Scottish landlord in the same position as the English landlord it is necessary to add that the Scottish landlord shall be entitled to recover not only the occupier's share of the rates, but also the share payable by

    1637
    the owner. If that is done then he will be placed in precisely the same position as the English owner, and will be entitled to recover the net amount of his pre-war rent. This Clause effects that result. In moving this Amendment I am giving effect to a specific recommendation made by the Hunter Committee.
    Clause accordingly read a second time, and added to the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Disturbance of Tenants.)
    Where a tenant of any such dwelling-house, as by reason of its rateable value comes within the provisions of this Act, has since the twenty-fourth day of December, nineteen hundred and eighteen, received notice that the dwelling-house he occupies has been sold or otherwise disposed or and/or that he is required to give up possession such tenant shall have the option of appeal to the County Court as against any disturbance of his occupation for the said period of this Act, and the Court, on consideration of all the circumstances of the case, including the alternative accommodation available for the tenant, may refuse to make any order for the disturbance of his occupation.—[Mr. Kennedy Jones.]
    Brought up, and read the first time.
    Mr. KENNEDY JONES: beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    It was put on the Paper at a time when the date of this Bill was 4th March, and my Clause was intended to cover the cases of people who since the last quarter had received notice to buy or quit, or notice that therent was going to be largely increased. I think this Clause is now unnecessary, because we have amended the date of the Act. I shall be glad to hear if the Attorney-General agrees in that view.
    Sir G. HEWART: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that the Clause is unnecessary.
    Mr. K. JONES: I beg to withdraw.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: Before it is withdrawn may I ask the Attorney-General whether the tenant is not protected by the Clause of the existing Act? I take it that he would be, as I read the Section of the original Act, which is Section 3 of Clause 1, so long as an order of ejectment has not actually been carried out. I take it that although the notice may have been given before 24th December, the tenant will be protected under the Act.
    Sir G. HEWART: Yes; I think that will be so.
    Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir D. MACLEAN: When the Committee stage is over, we come to the Report stage. Can you tell us whether the Government Amendments are obtainable at the Vote Office?
    Sir G. HEWART: Yes, they are.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Yearly Value.)
    During the continuance of this Act the tenant of a dwelling-house to which this Act or the principal or any amending enactment applies, shall not be liable to pay double the yearly value thereof to any person on the ground that the tenant has held or is holding over the said dwelling-house after the determination of such term as he may have possessed or does possess therein.—[Dr. Worsfold.]
    Brought up, and read the first time.
    Dr. WORSFOLD: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    I respectfully submit that without this Clause thewhole effect, practically, of the principal Act, the amending enactment, and this Act which is now under consideration, is to opena very large backdoor wide enough to drive the proverbial coach and horses through the whole of the enactment, and to destroy the object which I conceive to be the one which has actuated those who have drafted this Bill, because there is on the Statute Book at the present moment a very old Act of Parliament which has been revivified during the past few months, an Act of George II, which I should like to read, because my Clause is one which is intended at least to counteract its effect on the Statute we have under consideration. It is in Section I of the Landlords and Tenants Act, 1730.
    "For securing to lessors and landowners their just rights find to prevent frauds frequently committed by tenants in case anytenant or tenants for any term of life, lives, or years, or other person or persons, who areor shall come into possession or any lands, tenements, or hereditaments by, from or under, or by collusion with such tenant or tenants, shall wilfully hold over any lands, tenements, or hereditaments after the determination of such term or terms, and after demand made and notice in writing given for delivering the possession thereof by his or their landlords or lessors, or the person or persons to whom the remainder or reversion of such lands, tenements, or hereditaments shall belong, his or their agent or agents thereunto lawfully authorised, then and in such case such person or persons so holding over shall, for and during the time he, she, and they shall so hold over or keep the person or persons in title out of possession of the said lands, tenements, and hereditaments as aforesaid, pay to theperson or persons so kept out of possession, their executors, administrators, or assigns, at the rate of double

    1639
    the yearly value of the land, tenements, and hereditaments so detained, for so long time as the same are detained, to be recovered in any of His Majesty's Courts of Record by action of debt (whereunto the defendant or defendants shall be obliged to give special bail (t)) against the recovering of which said penalty there shall be no relief in equity."
    A case has arisen so late as last Wednesday, when, in the Croydon County Court, a landlord unable to get possession of premises under the existing Acts brought an action under this old Act. The Clause was immediately connected with this matter, and the judge simply stated that he thought it was obsolete and that it did not apply under the special circumstances, and found for the defendant, but gave leave to appeal. It is quite obvious that this mischief can onlybe stopped by a Clause similar to that to which I am now speaking. I have taken the words of that Act, and in specific terms. If this Clause is accepted, as I hope it will be, it will nullify what is at the present time undoubtedly being used by landlords to obtain possession of houses or to mulct the tenant in double the yearly value if he will not go out. Therefore I would earnestly ask all who are concerned, in the interest of the tenant as well as the landlord, to consider if they cannot give a cordialacceptance to this Clause. There is one thing I would like to add to this Clause, and that is that at the end, as it now stands on the printed Paper, there should also be added, "provided that such tenant is so holding over in good faith." The purview of that Act is, of course, to counteract fraud which in the old days, apparently, was of common occurrence, if we are to believe the somewhat quaint language that is used. But of course it is desired to protect both the honest landlord and the honest tenant, and with that view I respectfully submit my Clause. Otherwise, there are reports of this Act being revived, and employed against tenants in several directions at the present moment, and I submit that without the Clause I have moved the result will be to nullify the whole good effect of what has been brought about. I should like to express my appreciation of the courtesy with which my remarks have been received in connection with this, my first contribution as a new Member towards legislation.
    Sir G. HEWART: We have listened with great interest to the speech of my hon. Friend, but I hope he will not think it
    1640
    necessary to press this Clause, not that it does not make for good sense and good law, but that it is entirely superfluous. In the case of a tenant covered by this Act the landlord could not successfully say that he was holding over, after the determination of his term. He is ex hypothesi a tenant of a dwelling house to which the Act refers, and, that being so, the tenant can say, "I am not holding over after the determination of my term: I am holding under the provision of this Act, and the claim of the landlord in such circumstances to recover twice the rent could not have expected to succeed. I gather that some such case has already arisen in one ofthe County Courts, and if I follow the observations of my hon. Friend, the County Court judge made very short work of it. He gave judgment for the defendant and allowed the plaintiff to appeal. That, I imagine, would happen again in similar circumstances.
    Dr. WORSFOLD: I quite appreciate the point raised so cogently by my right hon. Friend, but I would like to point out one important point, and that is that throughout the whole of this Bill what is referred to is the standard rent, whereas the Act under which the landlords are striving to enforce their remedy by a roundabout way is the yearly value. It has already been argued in more than one Court that there is a difference between the rent and the yearly value. From a report which I have received of a judgment by one of the learned County Court judges given at Croydon last Wednesday I find that he said, "I hold that the old Act, assuming it has not been repealed by implication, does not apply."Notice of appeal is understood to have been given. Having regard to the statement made by the Attorney-General, if the circumstances were such as to protect the tenant, surely there could be no harm in inserting this Clause in order to save him the possibility of being harassed. These small tenants do not want to bedragged to Court. The case I am dealing with is annual value, and my Clause would protect the good landlord as well as the good tenant. If my Clause were inserted I suggest that whatever may happen, even out of the tenant's action, the tenant is secure under the Act. I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me that the case is arguable as appears from several decisions which have been given by learned judges in the County Courts and elsewhere.
    Mr. HOOD: May I make a short appeal to the Attorney-General to consider this point. We know that several actions have already been brought under this old Act.
    Mr. CLEMENT EDWARDS: Have they succeeded?
    Mr. HOOD: I believe not. There is no doubt in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman that though these cases may be brought, that in all probability the County Court judges will decide the case on the lines he suggested. That may be so or may be not; but it does not prevent an action being brought and the tenants being put to the expense of defending them. I therefore hope that he will consider this matter from the point of view of the tenant.
    Sir G. HEWART: Ihope it will not be necessary to prolong this discussion. What my hon. Friend is inviting me to do now is to insert in this Bill a Clause which I regard as superfluous in order to prevent people from bringing actions in which they cannot succeed. I cannot do that.
    Amendment negatived.
    Bill reported.
    As amended, considered.

    CLAUSE 2.—(Limited Power of Increasing Rents During the Extended Period.)
    (1) An increase in the rent of a dwelling-house to which the principal Act applies payable in respect of the extended period or any part thereof which would but for the principal Act be recoverable, shall be recoverable if or so far as the amount of the increase does not exceed ten per centum of the standard rent:
    Provided that no such increase shall be due and recoverable if the sanitary authority of the district in which the house is situate on the application of the tenant certifies that the house is not reasonably fit for human habitation or is not kept in a reasonable state of repair, nor in any case until the expiry of four clear weeks after the landlord has served upon the tenant a notice in writing of his intention to increase the rent, and informing the tenant of his right to apply to the sanitary authority for such, a certificate as aforesaid.
    (2) The increase of rent permitted by this Section shall be in addition to any increase permitted by Section one of the principal Act.
    Mr. R. YOUNG: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "shall" ["shall be due"], to insert the words "commence to."
    This matter was raised by the hon. Member for York on the Committee stage. I think it so important that I would ask the
    1642
    right hon. Gentleman to reconsider it. I am sure that when I explain what is desired the Amendment will commend itself to the House and to the right hon. Gentleman. There is some doubt about the interpretation of the Clause. The tenant is under the impression that he is entitled to four weeks' notice without any increase of rent. That is not made plain in the Bill. We are of opinion that he ought to be entitled to four weeks' notice. Under the original Act tenants took that view, and in certain cases property owners took the opposite view, namely, that the increase of rent was due from the date of notice. I can mention a case on that point. The London County Council owns certain property inhabited by the working classes. They gave notice on 21st November that they intended to increase therent on 2nd December, and they took steps on 30th December to recover the rent from 2nd December. There was a case in the County Court, and the working man who had to bear the brunt was put to fairly heavy expense, which would have placed him in difficulties if tenants who took the same view as himself, that he was entitled to four weeks, had not come to his rescue. The case was heard in the Wands-worth County Court. I understand that the learned judge, in summing up, took the same view as the tenant, but found himself held fast by a decision in the Divisional Court, which laid it down that the increased rent was to be paid from the date of notice. This is giving considerable dissatisfaction to tenants throughout the country. The object of the Amendment is to secure that the four weeks' notice of the increase of rent will be given, and that the tenant will know that within four weeks from that date his rent is going to be increased, instead of receiving notice now that in four weeks afterwards he will have to pay up the four weeks that have elapsed. Law is a very expensive luxury which workmen cannot very well afford, and for the purpose of securing that occupiers of these small houses will be protected from having to contest this matter, we desire this Amendment made. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot accede to the Amendment, I would suggest to him that it is still necessary that the Clause should be made more easily understood, to prevent litigation taking place.
    Sir G. HEWART: I have not had the advantage of seeing this Amendment. As

    1643
    I understand it, my answer is that the words in the Bill already expressed, without ambiguity or tautology, if I may say so with respect, exactly the same idea as that of the hon. Member.
    Mr. YOUNG: Are those same words not in the original Act, and, if so, how was it that a learned judge since then has taken the contrary view?
    Sir G. HEWART: The words in the principal Act are undoubtedly very much the same. I cannot explain why a particular judge has had any difficulty about the correct meaning of those words. These difficulties are constantly arising in Courts; but what I do say is that the words "commence to be due and recoverable" do not express what is meant. What is "commence to be due"? What is "commence to be recoverable"? It is either due or it is not. It is recoverable or it is not. The process of being due is not a gradual one. The words suggested to my mind give rise to a great deal of doubt, and are, on the wording of the Clause, unnecessary.
    Mr. YOUNGrose—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has already addressed the House
    Amendment negatived.
    Sir G. HEWART: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert the words
    "On any such application to a sanitary authority a fee of a shilling shall be paid, but if the authority as a result of the application shall issue a certificate as aforesaid the tenant will be entitled to deduct the amount of the fee from any subsequent payment of rent."
    It will be within the recollection of the House that when we were discussing Clause 2, a suggestion was adopted that in certain cases the sanitary authorities of the district might be asked to certify that the house was not reasonably fit for human habitation or was not kept in reasonable state of repair. Thereupon the question arose at whose expense that certificate should be obtained, and I now make the supplementary proposal, which I hope will be accepted on both sides, that the tenant shall pay a fee of a shilling on making the application, and if he succeeds in the application then the fee of a shilling is to be deducted from any sub-subsequent payment of rent.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 4.—(Extension of principal Act to Higher-rented House.)
    As from the passing of this Act the principal Act and the enactments amending that Act shall extend to houses or parts of houses let as separate dwellings where such letting does not include any land other than the site of the dwelling-house and a garden or other premises within the curtilage of the dwelling-house, and where—
    c) in the case of a house situated elsewhere, both the annual amount of the standard rent and the net rateable value of the house or part of the house exceed twenty-six pounds, and neither exceeds fifty-two pounds;
    and shall also extend to mortgages (not being mortgages to which the principal Act as originally enacted applies), where the mortgaged property consists of or comprises one or more of such dwelling-houses as aforesaid or any interest therein, subject, however, to the exceptions mentioned in Sub-section (4) of Section two of the principal Act, but in the application to those houses and mortgages the principal Act and the enactments amending that Act shall have effect, subject to the following modifications:—

    (i) for Sub-section (1) of Section one of the principal Act, exclusive of the provisoes to that Sub-section, the following provisions shall be substituted:—

    Where the rent of a dwelling-house to which this Act applies or the rate of interest on a mortgage to which this Act applies has been since the twenty-fifth day of December nineteen hundred and eighteen, or is hereafter increased and such increase would apart from this Act have been recoverable, then, if the increased rent exceeds by more than ten per centum the standard rent, or the increased rate of interest exceeds by more than one half per centum per annum the standard rate, the amount of such excessshall, notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary, be irrecoverable from the tenant or the mortgagor, as the case may be, and if paid may be recovered by the tenant or mortgagor in the manner and subject to the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section five of the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act, 1917;

    (ii) in Sub-section (2) and (4) of Section one of the principal Act, the fourth day of March nineteen hundred and nineteen shall be substituted for the twenty-fifth day of November nineteen hundred and fifteen;

    Sir G. HEWART: I beg to move, in paragraph (c), to leave out the word "net" ["net rateable value"].
    The object of this Amendment is in order not to say the same thing twice over, as the contrast is between the gross rental on the one hand and rateable value on the other.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Sir G. HEWART: I beg to move, in paragraph (i), after the word "excess," to insert the words

    1645
    "above ten per cent. or one-half per cent. as the case may be."
    This is a mere alteration of drafting, in order to show quite clearly what the intention is. Grammatically the sentence now gives rise to certain difficulty.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In paragraph (ii), after the word "in," insert
    "proviso 1, Sub-section (1), and."—[Sir G. Hewart.]

    CLAUSE 6.—(Minor Amendments of the Principal Act.)
    (1) A landlord of a house to which the principal Act, either as originally enacted or as extended by this Act, applies shall, on being so requested by the tenant of the house, furnish to him a statement us to what is the standard rent of the house, and if he fails within fourteen days to do so, or furnishes a statement which is false in any material particular, he shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding ten pounds.
    (2) Where a person who has, since the thirtieth day of September, nineteen hundred and seventeen, purchased a house to which the principal Act, either as originally enacted or as extended by this Act, applies, requires the house for his own occupation or that of some person in his employ, or in the employ of some tenant from him, nothing in the Increase of Rent, etc. (Amendment) Act, 1918, shall be construed as preventing the Court from making an order for the recovery of possession of the house, if, after Considering all the circumstances of the case, including, especially the alternative accommodation available for the tenant, the Court considers it reasonable to make such an order.
    Mr. ADAMSON: I beg to move, after Sub-section (l), to insert as a new Sub-section,
    "(2) Notwithstanding anything in Sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the principal Act no order for the recovery of possession of a dwelling-house to which this Act applies, or for the ejectment of a tenant therefrom shall be made so long as the tenant continues to pay rent at the agreed rate, as modified by the principal Act or by this Act, and performs the other conditions of the tenancy, except on the ground that the tenant has been guilty of conduct which is a nuisance or an annoyance to adjoining or neighbouring occupiers, and where such order has been made but not executed before the passing of this Act the Court by which the order was made may, if it is of opinion that the order would not have been made if this Act had been in operation at the date of the making of the order, rescind or vary the order in such manner as the Court may think fit for the purpose of giving effect to this Act."
    I moved this Amendment in Committee stage and withdrew it on the understanding that the right hon. Gentleman would give it further consideration between then and the Report stage. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman
    1646
    has seen fit to make any modification in the direction in which my Amendment goes. The object of the Amendment is to put employers of labour who are owners of house property on exactly the same footing as private owners of house property. In large industrial centres there are many employers of labour who own a considerable amount of house property. They are in a superior position to the private owner, and, as a consequence, workmen who are occupying their houses are in an interior position to workmen who are occupying houses belonging to private individuals. This difference has given rise to a very large amount of dissatisfaction, and to such an extent had this been the case that in certain areas where employers who are owners of house property have got notices of ejectment served upon workmen, their fellow-workmen in the same industry, in order to prevent them from being turned out of the houses, have had to take industrial action.
    Mr. B. DENNISS: Do they pay rent?
    Mr. ADAMSON: Yes; they are paying rent. Their fellow workers have had to take industrial action in order to prevent their ejectment for the simple reason that there was not a single house to be got for the workmen in case the men were ejected from the houses they then occupied. The House can very well understand that in circumstances such ns those you are bound to have dissatisfaction. There are also a considerable number of widows and dependants of our men who have fallen in the War who are still tenants of the class of house with which my Amendment seeks to deal. When the War took place all sections of our people appealed to the workmen of this country to take their share in the defence of the country, and, as hon. Members know, a very large number of our men went, and considerable numbers of them have fallen. My Amendment deals with those cases, and those widows and dependants would find the same difficulty in obtaining suitable places as there is such a scarcity of houses in many of the industrial areas. The working classes of the country think that this is giving to employer owners of house property an unfair advantage, and consequently we have been asked to move this Amendment, and I hope that the Attorney-General may be able to give effect to the particular ideas contained in it.
    Mr. E. GARDNER: I hope the Attorney-General will not accept this Amendment. I have no doubt there are hardships without it, but with it the hardships would be still greater and the hindrance to taking back men out of the Army would be almost insuperable. When men joined the Army in the early days of the War in a large number of cases the wives were left in the cottages, but there are many cases in which the wives would not stay at home. They went out to occupations and left for various reasons, with the result that many of these cottages were empty, and were kept empty for some considerable time in the hope that the men would come back at an early date from the Army and resume their occupations on farms, estates, and so forth in these cottages. But everyone knows, too, that the War lasted much longer than was expected, with the result that the owners of these cottages were hardly pressed, and particularly in populous districts, to let these houses to outsiders. After a time they were so let, and on the condition that they should be surrendered when the previous occupants came back or when tenants who took up similar work applied for the cottages for the purpose of enabling the estates or farms to be carried on. Those cottages were occupied in that wayby various kinds of persons, and I am not sure that a good many week-enders from town did not go into them. If this Amendment is passed it will be absolutely impossible for the owners of those cottages to regain possession of them for the purpose of again employing the men who left them to go into the Army, and I am sure that that is a condition of affairs that the Attorney-General will not allow.
    2.0 P M.
    Sir G. HEWART: This proposal was moved in Committee in the very same words as those which are now employed, and it was dealt with very fully by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Education. It is quite true that he said he would consider the matter further before Report, but upon that further consideration I am bound to say that the objections to this proposal appeared even stronger than they did in Committee. May I call attention to what it is that the right hon. Gentleman proposes to do? The principal Act was passed so long ago as December, 1915. It was further considered with reference to an amendingAct which was passed in May, 1918, but the particular proposals which are now being attacked were con-
    1648
    tained in the original Act and were not affected by the amending Act of 1918. What are they? It is provided by the principal Act that there shall be certain exceptions to the rule that an order for the recovery of possession of a dwelling-house to which the Act applies or for the ejectment of a tenant therefrom shall not be made, and the exceptions are, first, upon the ground that the tenant has committed waste; secondly, upon the ground that the tenant has been guilty of conduct which is a nuisance or an annoyance to adjoining or neighbouring occupiers; thirdly, upon the ground that the premises are reasonably required by the landlord for the occupation of himself or some other person in his employ or in the employ of some tenant from him; and, fourthly, on some other ground which maybe deemed satisfactory by the Court making such order. What is the effect of the right hon. Gentleman's proposal? Of these four exceptions he desires at a stroke to take away three. That is to say, if this proposal were to be accepted it would be impossible to obtain an order for the recovery of possession or for the ejectment of the tenant, although the tenant had committed and was committing waste. Is that seriously suggested? Then it would be impossible to obtain such an order because the premises were reasonably required by the landlord for the occupation of himself or some other person in his employ or in the employ of some tenant from him; and, finally, it would be impossible to obtain an order for possession or ejectment on any other ground, although that ground did appear to be satisfactory to the Court. I can only say, as was said the other night, that this proposal, whatever may be the individual hard cases that may arise—and I do not want to belittle them—would take away a large part of the protection that was given by Sub-section (3) of Clause 1 in the principal Act of 1915, and was deliberately allowed to remain when the amending Act of 1918 was discussed in Parliament.
    Mr. SPENCER: I am very sorry that the Attorney-General cannot see his way to give effect to the proposal which has been moved by my right hon. Friend. He laid stress upon the fact that we propose to do two or three things, but as a matter of fact we have no intention of removing numbers 1 and 2 of those exceptions which

    1649
    he quoted under the principal Act. The Amendment is directed, undoubtedly, against No. 3. We have cases of men who have actually gone out as soldiers and who have returned to collieries but who now cannot find them employment. Furthermore, the wife and children must give up the house because the house is required for some other work. I put it to hon. Members, is that a fair method of dealing with men who have been out to fight? That has actually taken place, and it is because we are desirous of protecting the position of men of this character that this Amendment is being moved to-day. The second ground is this. It may be very desirable, indeed, for a workman to remove from one house to another, when he can get it, when circumstances are such that he must leave his work at one colliery and go to another, but because he goes to another colliery in the neighbourhood hegets a notice to quit the house as soon as he has left his employment. Under such circumstances, I think hon. Members will admit that this is a very real grievance, and one which deserves the attention of the learned Attorney-General.
    Amendment negatived.
    Major HENDERSON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the word "the" ["including the alternative accommodation"], and to insert instead thereof the words "any suitable."
    When this Clause was discussed in Committee, the learned Attorney-General agreed to insert the words "in particular,"and the hon. and learned Member for Warrington (Mr. H. Smith) pointed out that that might be taken as a direction to the Court that any alternative accommodation would be sufficient, quite regardless as to whether the alternative accommodation was suitable or not. By leaving out the word "the" and inserting the words "any suitable" the difficulty pointed out by the hon. and learned Member for Warrington would be removed.
    Sir G. HEWART: At a somewhat earlier stage in the afternoon we had a discussion on the difference between "in particular" on the one hand and "especially"on the other. I hope we are not going to have a discussion now on the difference between "suitable accommodation" and "alternative accommodation."Does not my hon. Friend perceive that the Clause already contains what he is seeking to put in? How can that be said
    1650
    to be accommodation which is not suitable? It is not accommodation. How can it be said to be alternative accommodation if it is notsuitable? And how can it be said to be alternative accommodation available for the tenant if it is not suitable accommodation? I hope this Amendment will not be pressed.
    Mr. H. SMITH: I regret having to differ from my right hon. and learned Friend. I do, with all respect, think there is a great difference between "any suitable accommodation" and the words "alternative accommodation."I have seen a striking case in the village in which I live. Had these words "suitable accommodation" been in the Act, what took place in this particular instance could not have taken place. An application came before the magistrate for an ejectment order, and in this particular case there was alternative accommodation in the village. It was most unsuitable. My right hon. and learned Friend said that it is not accommodation, but he has to remember that, in the case of houses rated under a certain amount, an ejectment order must be applied for before a lay bench, and in the case I have in my mind the wording of the amending Act was so construed by a lay bench that an order was made to turn out the tenant merely on the ground that there was in the village some sort of accommodation, which, I should maintain, knowing the village, was not suitable accommodation. That mistake would nothave been possible had these words been in. Nor could benches in future make such a mistake if their minds were directed to the fact that they must not make such an order unless the alternative accommodation is at the same time suitable accommodation. Take the case of a tenant, his wife, and three children, living in a house, say, of 3s. or 4s. a week in that village. There is a house available, perhaps, in a very inferior part, the accommodation is less, and the rent 6d. a week more. That obviously is notsuitable, but surely a lay bench of magistrates might easily, as they have done to my knowledge, regard that under the circumstances as alternative accommodation. It is not suitable accommodation, and I do ask my right hon. and learned Friend to accept this point of view, that the insertion of these words can do no possible harm to the Clause, and might be of assistance even to a County Court judge. My right hon. and learned Friend knows well that a clear

    1651
    indication of this sort would be of great assistance to a lay bench. It cannot injure the Bill, and it makes the wishes of the House perfectly clear beyond any question. Under these circumstances, I do hope he will reconsider his decision, which, I think—if I may say so—was taken—I will not say rashly—but without that thought he might have given to it, and without appreciating the fact that the words cannot possibly do any harm to the Clause.
    Amendment negatived.

    CLAUSE.—(Application of Act to Scotland.)
    In the application of this Act to Scotland—

    (a) the twenty-eighth day of May shall be substituted for Lady Day and the local authority under the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897, shall be substituted for the sanitary authority;

    (b) as from the commencement of the extended period the principal Act shall be amended by the insertion in proviso (iv) of Sub-section (1) of Section one, after the word "dwelling-house" where first occurring therein, of the words "or where by the law of Scotland owners'rates are chargeable on the landlord of any dwelling-house."

    Mr. N. MACLEAN: I beg to move to leave out paragraph (b).
    I move this Amendment with the object of getting some further information with regard to this paragraph, which was moved this morning by the Secretary for Scotland. I understood him to say that any increase in the rates of a house in Scotland will be put, not, as at present, half upon the occupier and half upon the owner, but that the increase will be put wholly upon the occupier. That is establishing, Ithink, a new precedent for Scotland, and I move this Amendment to ascertain whether it is really the intention of the Government to put forward a new method of assessing the taxation upon the Scottish tenant. I think it was rather stealing a march upon the Scottish Members for the Secretary of Scotland to bring it in this morning in this manner, without giving adequate notice that he was going to start a new taxation principle in Scotland and carry it through in the Rent Restrictions Bill. It seems, if his Amendment is correct, that upon the lower-rented houses there is going to be anything like 25s. saddled upon the tenants, which means an increase in rent to them. On the higher-rented houses it will mean more, increasing as the rent goes up.
    1652
    I have some experience of what has happened in Scotland during the past eighteen months in regard to the attempts made by landlords where the assessment of a house has been increased, and where that assessment has been compounded with the rent, and the proprietoror factor of the house has endeavoured to get a little extra out of the house by increasing the assessment rate which had been levied even where that assessment rate only amounted to a few coppers a month upon the rent of the house. We have found proprietors and factors trying to get more than the actual assessed rate, representing to the tenant that he ought to pay more, and charging more; as a consequence there has been friction, notices of eviction, rent strikes, and the picketing of houses even within the last month or two. If this particular Clause means what I understand it to mean, then I am certain that trouble in Scotland, so far from being allayed, is going to be increased, in consequence of the attempt which is likely to be made to saddle what atthe present time is recognised by the Scottish people as the owners'tax, and making the tenant pay on property that the landlord is drawing rent from.
    Mr. ADAMSON: I am sorry that the Secretary for Scotland is not present at the moment. I want to join my hon. Friend who has just sat down in expressing regret that the Secretary for Scotland has seen fit, on such short notice, to introduce an Amendment that means the upsetting of the basis of assessment in Scotland. As my hon. Friend has already pointed out, we have had a different method of charging assessment in Scotland to England. In connection with this Amendment I am certain that many Scottish Members will not like the idea of such a drastic change being proposed at such short notice. I was hopeful that if the right hon.and learned Gentleman had been present he might have been prevailed upon to agree to the deletion of this paragraph (b) of the Clause which he moved in the Committee stage. If it is allowed to stand part of the Bill it will lead to dissatisfaction and trouble. As hon. Members are perhaps aware, in the first instance the necessity for the Rent Restrictions Act had its origin in certain industrial parts of Scotland. This present Amendment will, I fear, intensify the dissatisfaction that exists in connection with housing conditions. The Amendment

    1653
    raises an issue which I do not think ought to have been raised. It is very unfortunate. If we cannot get some modification we shall have to divide the House in order to express our dissatisfaction with what has been done by the Secretary for Scotland in the Committee stage.
    Sir G. HEWART: I regret that for the moment my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary for Scotland is not in the House. The principal Act provides that in certain cases an increase of rates is not to be deemed an increase of rent for the purposes of the Act, and, as that Act stands, those cases are cases where the landlord pays the rates chargeable on, or which by some other Act relating to compounding would be chargeableupon, the occupier of any dwelling. In other words, to put it shortly, the Act is dealing with what we call the case of the compounding householders. My right hon. and learned Friend in making the amending Bill fit with the case of Scotland proposed to add after the words "dwelling-house" the words "or where by the law of Scotland owner's rates are chargeable on the landlord of any dwelling-house." The effect, therefore, would be this: that where under the Scottish law owners' rates are chargeable on the landlord of any dwelling-house—which, I take it, is analogous to the position of the compounding householder in England—the increase in the rent is not deemed to be an increase for the purpose of the Act if the amount does not exceed any increase in the amount for the time being payable by the landlord in respect of these rates. The intention I should have thought was in this respect to bring the law relating to this class of property in Scotland on to the same plane as that relating to the compounding householder in England. However, I am glad to see that the Secretary for Scotland is now here, and I have no doubt he will deal with the matter, and, if need be correct what I have said.
    Mr. R. YOUNG: Hon. Members who have preceded me have protested against the idea that we were to be caught napping on this particular point. The Secretary for Scotland put forward a statement which seemed to us to be clear. As he also explained, the law of rating in Scotland is different, in some respects, from that in England. Under the paragraph which the hon. Gentleman has moved (paragraph (b)) we have now given the landlord power
    1654
    to recover not only that portion which the tenant pays directly himself, but the other portion which in Scotland always has been paid by the property owner, and that is also to be put upon the tenant. That is the position, and we think it is unfair because it alters the method that has been pursued for a considerable number of years if not in the whole of Scotland at least in the major part of that country. I would point out that this provision which is now being enacted will add considerably to the difficulties in Glasgow, where the problem is now acute, and the rents are very high, and by adding this small portion to the already high rents to the class of houses there, industrial discontent is going to be greatly intensified. Our objection is that the method has been altered and at short notice in such a way that the equal proportion hitherto paid between the tenant and the property owners is now set aside. There are also great difficulties in front of some of us because we foresee even in this temporary measure the beginning of trouble in the days to come. I hope the Secretary for Scotland will explain why this provision has been thrust upon us, and I hope he will agree to its deletion.
    Mr. MUNRO: I am very sorry that I did not hear the speeches on this subject. I thought I had made the point fairly clear when I moved the Amendment in Committee. The reason of the Amendment is that there is a difference between the rating system in Scotland and in England. In England, at the present time, all the rates are paid by the occupier with very few exceptions. The net result is that the English landlord can, by virtue of the existing law and under the Act now being amended, add to his rent every penny which is added to the rates, and can secure his net rental just as it existed before the War. That was the intention of the Act of 1915, namely, that the English house proprietor should continue to draw his pre-war standard rent, and that if his rates were raised he might add to the rent every penny by which the rates were raised.
    Mr. ADAMSON: You provided the same percentage for the Scottish landlord.
    Mr. MUNRO: That is exactly my point, and I think I can show the right hon. Gentleman that he is under a misapprehension in what he has said. But I am now dealing with England, where the landlord can raise his rent

    1655
    by every penny which is added to the rates, and so secure his pre-war net rental. In Scotland the position is entirely different for this reason, that the rates in Scotland are leviable partly upon the owner and partly upon the tenant. Now if my hon. Friends will look at the Clause of the Act of 1915, they will find that the Scottish house proprietor is only entitled to increase his rent by the amount by which the occupier's rates have been increased. In that particular the Scottish landlord is in a disadvantageous position as compared with the English owner. The purpose of this Clause is to put the Scottish house owner in the same position as the English house owner. The Scottish landlord to-day can only recover and increase his rent by the amount whereby the occupier's rates have increased. But he cannot increase his rent by the amount whereby the rates payable by the owner have increased, and to that extent he is in a different position to the house owner on this side of the Border.
    The Hunter Committee, which went into this matter very fully, made a definite recommendation that, as a matter of fairness and equity between house owners on this side and house owners on the other side of the Border, there should be an Amendment made to the effect of the Amendment which I have moved. In moving that Amendment I am carrying out the express recommendation of the Hunter Committee for the purpose of placing the house owner in Scotland in precisely the same position, no better and no worse, than the house owner in England. My hon. Friend opposite and the right hon. Gentleman opposite, who are opposing this proposal, desire that the owner of house property in Scotland should be placed in a worse position than he is in England. In Scotland the tenant is not in any worse position than the tenant in England. The purpose of the Amendment is to place theScottish house owner and tenant in tie same position as the English house owner and tenant. If hon. Members think that the landlords in Scotland should be placed in a worse position than in England, then I do not agree with them. Therefore I suggest that an Amendment which has for its object the carrying out of the Report of the Hunter Committee, which places the Scottish house owner in the same position as the English house owner, and the tenant in no worse position
    1656
    in Scotland than in England, is an entirely reasonable Amendment which ought to command the assent of the Committee.
    Amendment negatived.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
    Mr. LORDEN: I understand that I shall now be in order in making a protest against an omission from this measure. My protest is that it does not deal with the question of rating, and this is a very serious defect, because wherever the compound limit is exceeded it will add to the rates because it will do away with the compounding, and the tenant will be liable for paying the addition. In the end I am afraid it will result in extra assessment, and this will mean an extra increase of rent, and you will keep on in a vicious circle. Consequently the Act will practically have no effect at all, and it will only create a great amount of unrest, particularly between landlord and tenant, which does not exist to-day. I think that is a grave defect in the Bill. The Hunter Committee recommended in Clause 46 of their Report as follows:—
    "The result of making an increase in rent which we recommend will be that the rateable value of houses will be increased, and this in its turn will be likely to cause increases in rates, and consequently further additions to rents to cover the increased rates. This will cause a great deal of extra friction which we think might well be avoided during this exceptional period. We therefore recommend that the rateable value of houses should not be increased during the continuance of these restrictions in consequence of the additions to rents which we recommend should be permitted. This recommendation will not, of course, include alterations of rateable value due to other causes."
    That seems to me to be a great defect in the Bill, and the Government ought to take some steps to remedy it. There is not the slightest doubt that it will have that effect, because, though many rating authorities will not be keen to increase the assessment, they are linked to other rating authorities and have very little control over it. I served on an assessment committee for a number of years, and I went through one quinquennial valuation, so that I know the effect that this is likely to have. There will be a large increase in rating, and that is a defect in the Bill. An Amendment which I had in Committee dealing with Schedule A tax was ruled out. The tax under Schedule A is based on the gross rate, less one-sixth, and if you put 10 per cent.

    1657
    on to the gross rent up goes Schedule A tax immediately. That is practically going to doaway with the effect of the Bill. I was very sorry that Amendment was ruled out upon the score that it did not come within the scope of the Bill. The Bill attempts to deal with certain points in the Hunter Committee's report, but it has left out others which are absolutely vital to make the thing work properly. I hope that the Government will see their way to put something into the Bill to prevent this vicious circle being continued, because the rating authorities will say that it is their duty to put up the assessment. It seems to me very stupid and landlord will claim to be entitled to add that to the rent, and the rating authorities will then say that they are again entitled to increase the assessment. It seems to me very stupid and wrong, and it is a great pity that the Amendment was not allowed to be moved. Probably it was quite right to rule it out, but the title of the Bill should have included the necessary increase in the rent. I do press upon the Government even at this late stage to take steps toprevent what is going to upset the whole of this emergency legislation. It is a very serious defect in the Bill, and I hope that they will give us some idea how it can be dealt with before the Third Reading is taken.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: I desire to thank the Government for having listened to the great demand of the public throughout the country to deal with the grievances which have arisen, especially among those outside the scope of the Act of 1915. Taking all things into consideration, the Government have responded very well indeed, and in a broad spirit have done what is required to meet the emergency. We are all aware that this is emergency legislation, but it is only one of a series of emergency Acts that have been passed from time to time to meet an abnormalstate of things which the War has brought about. I thank the Government sincerely, and I am sure that their action will be appreciated in the country and that they will earn the gratitude of a large section of the community. I thank them for some of the concessions that they have made, but there is always something of Oliver Twist about us, and we should have liked a little more than we have got. I desire to thank the two right hon. Gentlemen who have had charge of
    1658
    the Bill. We are used to the urbanity and kindness of the Minister for Education in connection with any measure of which he has charge. They have listened with due consideration to the cases which have been put from various quarters of the House, and on the whole the concessions that have been made are of a generous character. The Attorney-General has shown that clearness and capacity that healways shows. His enunciation of the position taken up by the Government, and of the reasons why he could not accept that which we desired him to accept, was as clear on this occasion as it has always been, and we appreciate the way in which hehas conducted this measure through the House. I do not expect that the Government will make any further alteration in the measure, but I sincerely hope that it will come back to us from another place in the form in which it is at the present time, so that it may speedily be placed on the Statute Book, and that those who are in a state of anxiety owing to the notices that they have received and the position in whichthey have been placed will feel themselves relieved of their worry, and know that they now have the protection of this Bill.
    Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.

  CIVIL CONTINGENCIES FUND BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [MR. J. H. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

  CIVIL CONTINGENCIES FUND BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Power to Issue Sums from the Consolidated Fund to the Civil Contingencies Fund.)
    (1) With a view to providing working capital for the purposes of exchange operations and undertakings for the manufacture, purchase, and sale of food and other commodities, conducted by or under Government Departments on account of exigencies arising out of the present War, and to providing funds for making advances in respect of urgent services in anticipation of the provision made or to be made by Parliament for such services becoming available, the Treasury may issue out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom, or the growing produce thereof, to the Civil Contingencies Fund such sums and may from time to time berequired for the purpose of increasing temporarily the capital of that fund:
    Provided that

    (a) the sums so issued and for the time being outstanding shall at no time exceed one hundred and twenty million pounds:

    1659

    (b) no sums shall be so issued after the thirty-first day of March nineteen hundred and twenty:

    (c) any sums so issued shall be repaid to the Exchequer not later than the thirtieth day of September nineteen hundred and twenty.

    (2) In cases where advances of working capital are made from the Civil Contingencies fund for the purposes aforesaid, the Treasury shall from time to time lay before Parliament Minutes specifying the purposes for which the working capital has been provided and the amount advanced in each case.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "food and other," and after the word "commodities" to insert the words "other than food"I move this Amendment because I am very much afraid that the result of giving these powers to the Government has been notonly to impose upon certain classes of the community special taxation, but also to cause an unnecessary rise in the cost of food. Yesterday or the day before questions were asked in this House as to the charge of 11s. 4d. which was made upon every cwt. of cattle sent into market for sale, and the reply stated that the Government had received the sum of £3,400,000 as the result of that charge. The farmer is thus taxed, in my opinion, to that extent, and the consumer suffers accordingly in the price he has to pay for his meat. There has been a good deal of grumbling at the prices charged for meat, and in some quarters it has been asserted that those high prices are due to the greed of the farmer. But it now appears that the real cause is the greed of the Government, who have extracted this large amount out of the pockets of the farmer at the expense of the consumer. This is a very important matter which deserves the attention not only of this Committee and of the House but of the country at large. We have had a great deal too much of this profiteering by the Government in articles of necessity. The excuse was made that the taxpayers had gained something, but the real fact is that this money, or the greater part of it, goes to provide for the salaries ofthe hordes of officials employed by these various Departments, whose activities are not only expensive but unnecessary, and add to the cost of our necessaries of life.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of FOOD (Mr. McCurdy): I regret I had no notice that the right hon. Gentleman intended to raise this point, otherwise I would have
    1660
    fortified myself with information which would have enabled me to give a more satisfactory answer than the one I fear I am in a position to make at the moment. It is true there was a question on the Paper the other day as to this charge of 11s. 4d. per cwt. imposed upon cattle coming into the English markets, and some doubt was expressed as to whether that charge was a lawful and proper charge to be made by the Ministry. With regard to the amount, I am informed that, as a matter of fact, at the present time the charge is not 11s. 4d., but only 2s. 4d. I cannot, however, vouch for the exact figure, as I am relying upon my memory. I venture to suggest that before it is asserted on the floor of this House, and through this House to the country, that the price of meat to the consumer has been increased by the greed of the Government, it is desirable not to confine our attention to a small item like this, but rather to look at the general results of the administration of the Department. With regard to the price of meat, the position is that we have just reduced it to the consumer by 2d. per lb., and this has been done after very close investigation on the part of the Treasury. Hitherto we have been selling meat to the consumer for loss than it cost us. I can only express my regret that, owing to the absence of notice, I am unable to give a fuller reply to the right hon. Baronet, but I hope that under the circumstances he will accept my statement.
    Captain Sir B. STANIER: I would like to ask if it is not the fact that when we were told yesterday, in answer to a question, that there was a difference of £3,400,000 between the price paid to the farmer and the amount paid by the butcher, it was based on the charge of 11s. 4d. per cwt., and that we have still to find out what will be the result of charging 2s. 4d. per cwt., and how much the Department will thereby be enabled to put into their pocket? I should also like to ask my hon. Friend if he can enlighten us on the subject of the legality of these charges. We were informed yesterday that the Law Officers of the Crown had not been consulted on that point. I do not know how we can raise the question in order to induce the hon. Gentleman to consult the Law Officers, but I can assure him that I am not alone in this House in thinking that it is a point which ought to be submitted to them, and that there is a desire

    1661
    to know whether this is or is not a proper way of taxing the food of the people. The farmers are being denounced for creating these high prices for meat, when, as a matter of fact, it is not the fault of the farmer, but is rather due to profiteering on the part of the Food Controller. I hope my hon. Friend will give an answer to these two questions which are exercising the minds of the farmers and of the community generally.
    Mr. CAUTLEY: I only intervene in the Debate because in the discussion so far as it has gone it has not been brought to the attention of the Committee that the matter does, not rest only with a charge of £3,500,000 in respect of cattle. A similar charge has been made is the case of sheep and pigs, and very large sums have been extracted by a similar process in their case. So long ago as last November, in the last House of Commons, I raised this very point, and I also raised a question as to the legality of making these charges at all. So far as my recollection goes, the average amount taken by the Government on the sale of every sheep is £2, and on the sale of every pig £1. That, throughout the country, amounts to a very large sum. It is unfortunate the Ministry of Food is so ignorant of the disposal of this money that they can give us no information at all about it. My own idea is that the great bulk of it went to make good the excessive prices the Government paid to the American Meat Trust, from whom they bought their meat abroad. Perhaps about 20 per cent. of the amount was used for paying salaries to the horde of officials referred to by the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) with which the farming industry is now burdened from one end of the country to the other. I beg the hon. Gentleman to take some steps to diminish this crowd of officials. In the small markets in my Division alone we have four or five men attending each market, each of them drawing a salary of £150 to £250 a year, the whole of which has to be paid by the taxpayers in some way. I believe—we cannot get accounts out of the Food Controller—that that money is paid out of the excessive charges and taxes that are put upon the production of home-grown meat. Another ground on which I strongly support the Amendment is because I object to this gambling or trading or speculating in food in which the Government is now indulging. The War Office commandeered the
    1662
    whole of the wool grown in Great Britain. They have done that for two years, and possibly more. They resell that wool to our own manufacturers in this country, and resell it at a profit. For two years we have been trying to ascertain how much profit the War Office is making out of the wool they seize at prices they fix themselves, but we have never been able to ascertain what it is. We do not know how much wool they have commandeered, except that they have taken it all, and we do not know what is the result of this trading. For this reason, and in the hope that by this action we may possibly be able to get some accounts not only in regard to wool, but in regard to the trading in meat and wheat, I support this Amendment.
    3.0 P M.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I should like to say I am extremely sorry that I did not give notice to the hon. Gentleman of this Amendment. The reason I did not see him was that an Amendment was put down in another form in the name of another hon. Member, and I thought that, knowing that that Amendment was put down—I did not agree with the form in which it appeared—he would have made himself acquainted with the facts that would be raised on that Amendment. I understand that the charge has now been reduced from 11s. 4d. to 2s. 4d. I am rather surprised that that was not stated yesterday when a question was asked. It is important to know for how long that charge has been reduced. However, it is a step in the right direction. I would point out to my hon. Friend this: He says that his Department is at present selling meat under cost price. That is quite likely, because my point is that the trading of the Government in these commodities involves an enormous number of officials who cause such great expense that in order to arrive at a reasonable price to the consumer there must be a loss. I maintain that that loss ought to be borne by the general taxpayer and not by one particular class. As a result of the trading in food in this particular instance, and in many others, a special toll, not a sufficient toll, to recoup the Government has been put upon a particular class in order that the Government might indulge in dealing in food and becoming butchers in a very extravagant manner. I am glad that the charge has been reduced from 11s. 4d. to 2s. 4d. What I want is that all these officials should go. That is the point. We want to get rid of all these

    1663
    officials and let things get back into the old lines when a man took his risk. If he has a beast to sell he took the natural risk and the advantage, or disadvantage, of the market, and the butcher dealt in the ordinary way and bought a beast at a price he thought right; and, if he could obtain a large profit for himself, so much the better. We want no interference from all these Government officials. You have no right to charge this expense to a certain class of the community.
    Sir B. STANIER: Can we have an answer from the Government
    Mr. BALDWIN (Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury): With reference to the last remarks that have fallen from the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury), I understood that the Amendment to which he referred was not going to be moved this afternoon, but that the subject—that of potatoes—was going to be brought up, if in order, on the Third Reading. Probably that is the reason why my hon. Friend (Mr. McCurdy) was not so well posted as the hon. Baronet would have liked in the subject this afternoon.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Then I apologise for raising it.
    Mr. BALDWIN: I do not complain of the right hon. Baronet for having raised it. I would merely say, as being in charge of the Bill, that so far as his Amendment is concerned I am unable to accept it, for this reason: This Bill is a Bill, as he knows, to enable us to undertake certain necessary finance in, the course of the ensuing year, and the principle of the Bill has been accepted by this House on Second Beading. With regard to the first part of the first Clause, the part in which the word "food" occurs, the Committee will recognise that it gives the Government power to provide working capital, if necessary, for what really in effect amounts to a continuation and winding up of the business of supplying certain food materials that had to be undertaken owing, as the words of the Bill say, to the exigencies of the War—that and nothing else. As a matter of fact the sum mentioned which will be required for the purposes defined in the first part of the Clause will be very small. The large amount is in the second part. It is quite possible that with regard to the subjects discussed this afternoon not one penny will be required, but there is a possibility that at some time
    1664
    deliveries may overlap receipts and money may be required, and I dare not run the risk of leaving out of the Bill these offensive words to my right hon. Friend, and therefore I must respectfully ask the Committee to leave them there. Of course if the policy of the Food Controller is to be arraigned on this Clause, it makes it difficult for me, who have no knowledge of the policy of the office, and I should have thought that as the question of potatoes was going to be raised on the Third Reading—
    Lieutenant-Colonel WEIGALL: Now?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I was going to suggest that if the office of the Food Controller had not notice of all the points which could be raised on this it might be an advantage to let them know, so that they could give a detailed and responsible reply on the Third Heading. I understand it has been decided to go on with the discussion on those lines now, and at the moment I will say no more.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I would rather have the Amendment negatived. I will not divide in view of the fact that apparently the subject has not been gone into by the Ministry, but if it had been gone into it would not have altered the fact. It might have enabled them to give a little more plausible excuse, but that is all that would have happened.
    Amendment negatived.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move to leave out the words
    "for the time being outstanding shall at no time,"
    and to insert instead thereof the words
    "shall not."
    I am not at all sure the object which I desire to attain is not the object which the Government has in view. When I read paragraph (a) I thought at first that £120,000,000 was an enormous sum, even in these days, and that the Bill would limit the expenditure to that sum—that is to say, that until a fresh Bill was introduced it would be impossible for the Government to spend more than £120,000,000. But on looking at it again, I came to the conclusion that it might possibly not mean that, and being of rather a suspicious nature, this is what occurred to me: that as the taxes come in they will be used to repay this money. Supposing the whole £120,000,000 has been spent during the next month, and the taxes come in in that

    1665
    time, and suppose the Government wants to do something they would rather the House of Commons had no control over, what is to prevent them using these taxes to repay the £120,000,000 already borrowed, so that there will be nothing for the time being outstanding? They can then take another £120,000,000 from the Consolidated Fund without coming near the House of Commons. I propose to leave it
    "The sums so issued shall not exceed one hundred and twenty million pounds."
    That is a very simple phrase, understandable by everyone, and it seems to me that the words "for the time being outstanding" are either unnecessary and superfluous, in which case they ought not to be in, or they have been put in with an object. If they have been put in with the object I have described, the sooner they come out the better. Now that we are spending such large sums of money and there is no control over finance, the least this House can do is to see that when it gives power that power is limited to the amount which is stated in the Bill.
    Mr. BALDWIN: I do not think the question is of as great importance as the right hon. baronet thinks. There is not very much in it. We have put these words in for a reason, but not for the reason which he has suggested. He asked if it were possible that we had devised this form of words so that we might do something without the knowledge of the House. We have precluded ourselves from doing that under the very terms of the Bill itself, because the money is only used for one or two kinds of purposes, as defined in the first and second part of the first paragraph of the operative Clause. Where the money is advanced for the purpose of what I may call trading capital for convenience, there is a provision in the second Sub-section that a Minute shall be laid before Parliament specifying the use for which that money is advanced, so that Parliament will have full cognisance of every transaction of that nature.On the other hand, where money is advanced to Departments in advance of their receipts coming in, as in the case of the temporary financing of the Ministries of Shipping and Munitions, there the House is safeguarded by the fact that they can obtain full knowledge of what is being done when the consideration of the substantive Estimates for those Departments comes up later in the year. Let me briefly epitomise what really happens in the transaction contemplated
    1666
    under this Bill. The hon. Baronet is as familiar as I am with the working of the Civil Contingencies Fund in normal times, and the practice under this Bill will be exactly the same as the normal practice. A sum sanctioned by this Bill will be paid into the Civil Contingencies Fund, which will actin exactly the same position as a banking account, and from that banking account will be paid as is requisite, either to the trading account or the Department which may be in need of funds. When repayment is made the usual practice would be to pay the sums received back into the Consolidated Fund and to draw out of that Fund again to replenish the banking account as desired. The only practical effect of the hon. Baronet's Amendment—I have no objection to it—will be that it would immobilise the capital of this banking account, or in other words, we should not consider it a safe thing to do to pay the receipts as received back into the Consolidated Fund. But at some time we might find ourselves tied up when some sudden demand for cash came on the Civil Contingencies Fund. We should keep our balance open in case of accident. I submit that it is better business to act in the other way and to keep up your balance as small as possible, taking over everything you pay out and replenishing it as you want. But there is very little in this. If my hon. Friend, after what I have said, cares to press his point I am willing to accept the words that he proposes, but it has that effect of immobilising the fund, and I do not think that from a business point of view this is as good a method as the method we have put down.
    Sir D. MACLEAN: I hope the right hon. Baronet will ask the Secretary to the Treasury to adopt his Amendment because I am quite certain that it will have a useful effect as to the opportunities which will be given to the House for revision or discussion on the matter. All that is going to happen, if my right hon. Friend will look at Sub-clause 2, is that a Minute will be laid before Parliament. What that means we all know. Unless we say in the Statute itself that there shall be Parliamentary opportunity for discussion and decision thereon, we know what happens to the Minute. It passes and we have no chance of control over it. When we come to Sub-clause 2 I am going to move an Amendment to secure as far as we can that we shall have adequate Parliamentary opportunity for discussing these Minutes.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I am very much obliged to my right hon. Friend for agreeing to accept the Amendment. I am afraid I must press it because I still think I am right and he is wrong.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Colonel WEIGALL: I beg to move, in Subsection (1 a) to leave out the words "and twenty."
    My object in moving this Amendment is to allow the Government to save itself from itself. I desire to ask whether or no any of this £120,000,000 inserted in the bill is to be applied to meet the very large liability which the Government is now under. Rightly or wrongly potato growers, large and small, in this country are under the impression, an impression I do not share, that the Government is not going to play the game under the definite contract they enter into. I refuse to believe there is any intention on the part of the Government as a whole to repudiate a definite contract entered into with the growers of this country at a time when the country was suffering the gravest strain and stress, nor do I believe that the present Food Controller would lend himself to any action of this sort. By his early association, by the high standard of his conduct in various public offices, and by his sympathy in the last Parliament with all agriculturists, I am convinced that if he has any leaning at all it would lead him rather to the producer than to the consumer. I do not wish to delay the Committee by going over the past, but that a contract was entered into there is no possible doubt. I agree that I share the individual responsibility in this matter. In the early part of 1918 I was seconded in the Army for service under Lord Rhondda. I well remember Lord Rhondda telling a farmer one day how grave, owing to the submarine peril, the whole situation in the country was, and informing him that he had determined to concentrate on the potato as the saviour of the country.
    He instructed me to go to my part of the world in Lincolnshire and to meet mass meetings of farmers and to authorise them with his full authority to enter into this definite contract that if they would grow potatoes as from the 1st November the Commission would purchase, on behalf of the Government, the whole of their crop. The conditions that were attached have been incorporated in a Ministerial document which has been issued recently,
    1668
    "M.G. Potatoes 9" Potato Commission, and the conditions applied to that contract were these"The increment fixed in the schedulemust be accepted as covering compensation to the growers for wastage and loss and for deferred delivery. Price, weight, and conditions are to be determined in accordance with the scale set out, as above, at the date when the delivery is taken." The Order goes on to explain that no grower can claim compensation except under these conditions, but the grower had the further opportunity that if there was abnormal wastage he could claim compensation from the Government if he could prove these three things (1) that the site for the potatoes has been properly chosen, (2) that the potatoes were in sound condition when they were planted, (3) that due care was exercised in constructing the pits and examining their contents from time to time. That sounds delightful on paper and in theory it is delightful, but these potatoes have been lying for several months now and the position to-day is that owing to the extremely unfavourable harvest and to deferred delivery over which the farmer had no control there has been enormous and abnormal wastage.
    The whole point is how the Government are going to meet this enormous loss. I understand—and I shall be glad if my hon. Friend will confirm this—that the financial obligation will amount to something between eight, nine or ten million pounds. That is a very large sum which has to be met. I realise the difficulty. No one could serve in the Food Ministry last year without realising the enormous difficulties, and I would ask hon. Members who are apt to criticise the operations of the Food Ministry to remember that any Government Department carried on under war conditions is a very complicated and very complex organisation. The Food Ministry had this additional difficulty to face, that it had to hold the scales equal between the producer and consumer. That from my own experience was a difficult matter. Often advice was completely upset owing to circumstances over which one had no control whatever and the whole foundation of some great commercial operation was upset. I fully realise that owing to the Armistice in the early part of November, and owing to the difficulty of transporting potatoes, you had your transport both at home and abroad upset. If the War had gone on you would have had the normal flow of supply and

    1669
    demand and a great many of these potatoes would have been absorbed, but by deferred delivery they have now become unfit for human consumption. It is an unfortunate position which has arisen and it is not so much due to the incompetence or avoidable delay of a Government Department. What the Government are responsible for is that they have not taken the agriculturists more into their confidence during the last two or three months. Questions have been asked in this House, and it would have been easy for the Government to dispel the suspicion that has arisen. There I must blame the Food Ministry. If only the agriculturists had been taken into the confidence of the Department half these difficulties would have been swept away.
    I know there are very many difficulties which are outside the control of the Government, but dealing with this matter I am perfectly sure we shall get absolute justice. If they err at all, they will leave to err on the side of generosity. In my part of the world, in Lincolnshire, the men responded admirably, and had it been anything like a normal season there would have been an enormous increase in the potato crop. They planted their potatoes and in the ordinary course these would have been delivered, and while they were being delivered the farmer could have got on with his ordinary spring work. He has not been able to do that, so that you have hit him in two ways. You have hit him by not being able to take delivery of the crop and you have hit him by preventing him carrying on his normal spring operations by taking delivery at an abnormal time. Further, many of the smaller men have relied upon this increased acreage of potatoes to pay their Michaelmas rent. In my part of the world they are allowed three months' grace as a rule to pay their Michaelmas rent. They have not been able to do that. Therefore on both these grounds I do ask that my hon. Friend will give us a satisfactory answer. I only move this Amendment in order that this matter may be discussed and that the whole of this suspicion maybe swept away once and for all, but I do make a strong appeal to the hon. Member that after the response that has been made by the agricultural producers, not only in this direction, but by every other direction when demands have been made by the Food Ministry, they should receive justice. When an appeal has been made to the agricultural community as a whole to do their utmost, either by Lord Rhondda or the late
    1670
    Food Controller, and I hope I may say the same of the present Food Controller, the agricultural community as a whole have responded splendidly. Therefore, in justice, I hope that, if the Government err at all, they will err on the side of generosity.
    Mr. J. W. DENNIS: I rise to second the Amendment of my hon. Friend. Like himself last spring, I was engaged on platforms up and down the country persuading farmers to grow potatoes for the crop of 1918, on the basis of a well-defined scheme which had been put before them in a pamphlet dated the 1st of January, 1918. At the present moment there is great anxiety in the country, and there is great anxiety in the minds of consumers, because of the enormous amount of wastage of a commodity that presumably belongs to the Government since the 1st of November, but with regard to which the Ministry of Food appears to have some doubt, judging from replies to questions in this House, as to whether the property in that commodity is vested in the Ministry or in the grower. That it the real issue about which my hon. Friend has appealed to the hon. Gentleman (Sir A.Boscawen). Being only an ordinary business man, not versed in the ways of politicians, I have been somewhat nonplussed at the answers given to questions which I have addressed to the hon. Gentleman.
    Unlike my hon. Friend opposite, I can only take those answers as they have been given to me. Hitherto I have, not succeeded in reading into them anything which inspires me with that confidence with which my hon. Friend has been inspired. On the 6th of March the hon. Gentleman, in reply to a question put by myself, said that the Commission fixed no separate prices for blighted potatoes, but took the prevalence of blight into account in fixing the price to be paid for the total crop. To previous questions my hon. Friend answered, that the Government accepted no responsibility for or no ownership in any blighted potatoes which were in the hands of growers. The man who has grown those potatoes thinks, and I, as one who did his best to induce him to grow those potatoes, believe that he thinks rightly, that as from the 1st of November all those potatoes belong to the Government, and from this it surely follows that ownership in these potatoes which the Government now repudiate does

    1671
    vest in the Government. I may draw attention to various announcements of the Government on the question of potatoes. On the 1st of January, 1918, there was issued a leaflet which has been described correctly, at a public deputation, by the President of the Board of Agriculture as the Magna Charta of the potato grower. It sets forth distinctly that as from the 1st of November the Food Controller will purchase the entire crop of Great Britain, with some exceptions that are immaterial to this issue. In Clause 3 we are told that, subject to proper precautions having been taken, the Food Controller will bear the risk of damage other than normal wastage. That is the contract on which the grower planted the potatoes.
    But the contract does not stand entirely by itself. It was not considered to be sufficiently definite by the grower upon the question of normal wastage. Therefore, in various parts of the country when officials at the Ministry were doing propaganda work, they were asked by farmers to specify more particularly what was meant by normal wastage. I may give one or two quotations out of many, perhaps twenty or thirty, of things that were said in different parts of the country. I will mention first a statement of the Director of Vegetable Supplies at Doncaster, in which he says that if the potatoes are visited by disease the farmer will receive payment for them although they have not actually gone into consumption. A further platform utterance at Maidstone was to this effect—in direct reply to a question—"Potatoes even if rotten will be taken. Potatoes can be used for producing spirit whether rotten or not. The Government have distilleries, and the Government propose to absorb in this way any potatoes that may go rotten."
    That is the position of affairs up to the time when the crop was grown. Upon those representations the farmer plants his crop, and until the crop is produced in the autumn little more is heard or said of the potato question from the point of view from which we are now discussing it. But in October the Potato Prices Commission was to have been appointed to fix prices for the whole of the potato crop, other than the portion which was to be used for seed purposes. It duly reported that it had fixed those prices. It is worthy of note that in the Commission's Report no prices were fixed, and indeed no men-
    1672
    tion was made of blighted potatoes other than blighted potatoes which were also under size. At that time there were in existence no blighted potatoes, and the crop was sound when prices were fixed. I submit that growers had every right to infer, as they did infer, that the reason why blight was not mentioned by the Commission was that the members of the Commission knew well that if blight did not exist at that time that any potatoes that might become blighted or diseased subsequently became so at the risk of the Ministry of Food. That view is borne out by a leaflet which was issued, as my hon. Friend said in answer to a question of mine the other day, prior to the Commissioners making their Report. That is perfectly true, but it was in force when the Commissioners made their Report, and, therefore, it was clearly in force in the minds of those responsible and doing this work.
    The Order No. 4 distinctly tells the farmer that the Ministry of Food will purchase any surplus of blighted potatoes which he may have but does not require to use, and which he does not otherwise dispose of. In connection with this point, in the Holland Division of Lincolnshire, which is perhaps the biggest potato-growing district in the country, the Commissioners, under the impression that the assessors did not assess the tonnage in the way it should be taken, took the extraordinary precaution, as they did in no other county, of sending down their own representatives in order to make test weighings of the crop. It is passing strange that the Commissioners or their representatives chose what were the biggest crops, and it was upon those prices were fixed. One field which those representatives visited contained twenty-five acres of the variety King Edward, which was not allowed on to the market. The Commissioners' representatives found as follows: Ware 12 tons per acre, seed 1 ton per acre, waste—that is blights—nil. The Commission, therefore, finding some 325 tons of sound potatoes, upon which they based the price, it is interesting to know what happened to that crop. I have it upon the signed statement of the grower that out of that 325 tons and which contained no blights, 29 tons 12 cwt. of sound potatoes have been dispatched and that the remainder are rotten. In another field of eighteen acres the Commission found a huge crop with 15 tons to the acre and

    1673
    waste—that is blights—nil. Out of that field, which according to their estimate should have sent 300 tons of potatoes, there have been dispatched 26 tons 14 cwt. The remainder, not having been dispatched, are there practically rotten. I could go on with similar instances, but I do not wish to weary the Committee. I can assure hon. Members this is by no means an uncommon occurrence, and it is happening now with respect to potatoes grown in East Anglia. This is an exceedingly serious question not only for the grower but for the Treasury and also for the consumer. I do not agree with the Mover of the Amendment that the question is one as between the producer and the consumer. This question is one between the producer and the general taxpayer, and does not in any way affect the interests of the consumer except in this way, that through, I think, maladministration all those thousands of tons of potatoes which are rotting to-day ought to have been available for the consumer, and I presume, therefore, they would have had some benefit in getting potatoes cheaper than they have done. The consumer would also have had potatoes better than he is getting them to-day, because theresult of the first Order, which was issued in the teeth of what trade opinion was sought, was to bring about this position that in London and in all the great towns there were practically no potatoes to be had for a couple of months. Estimates have been made, and I myself made one, that during those two months when the whole distributing trade in potatoes in the country was thrown into confusion and chaos as a result of the first Order, some 300,000 or 400,000 tons of potatoes which should have been consumed during those two months did not get into consumption at all. Those potatoes were varieties which should have been lifted at that particular time. The result has been, therefore, that the consumer has had potatoes of a comparatively inferior quality imposed upon him for consumption and at a price higher than should have been imposed for this particular inferior quality.
    4.0 P M.
    I do not acquit the administration of the Ministry in this respect. Potatoes could have gone into consumption much more quickly than they have done if they had taken into account the fact that the potatoes of poor quality were generally in much greater supply than potatoes of the higher quality, and if they had put down the price for the poor quality sufficiently
    1674
    low to induce consumption and given the benefit in the price to the particular classes who would have been content, for the sake of the lower price, to eat the lower quality, whilst putting the higher price upon the potato of higher quality. But, to get back to the real position in which we find ourselves to-day, the Ministry of Food has told us inside this House, and through their officials in the country, that it is their intention to honour to the strict letter the obligations which they undertook. But I have a difficulty in harmonising that statement with the particular reply which tells me that blighted potatoes are not the property of the Ministry of Food. I will ask my hon. Friend on the Treasury Bench as to what is the policy he intends to pursue with regard to these potatoes, which were sound on the 1st November, which were taken possession of by the Government, and which, therefore, in the mind of the grower and, I think, the mind of any business man, became the property of the Government, and any risk incidental to holding that property must be the risk of the Government. The position which these growers are in is strengthened very materially by the fact that when the second Potato Order came out, whilst freedom of sale was afforded to what were called deficitzones, no freedom of sale was given to the surplus zones, and in addition to that they were deprived even of their natural markets which had been allocated to them under the first Order. The consequence of that was that London was opened up to the deficit zones of Kent and Oxford, and we have to-day this position, that whereas supplies in these deficit zones should have been drawn upon coincident with supplies coming into those zones from the exporting zones, instead of that, we have had these deficit zones practically clear themselves of potatoes entirely, so that in the future they will become importing zones themselves. The result of that has been that the growers in the big exporting zones have been obliged to stand idly by and see orders coming forward for their potatoes in very much smaller quantities than they required those orders to get rid of their stuff. Therefore this position has been created, that a grower who had sound potatoes on the 1st November is prevented by the Government from moving a single one of them, except and until they give him the order to do so, and as the result of an

    1675
    abnormal season, which we all admit it was, those potatoes became diseased, and the Government now turn round and say, "We do not recognise any property in these diseased potatoes. They are yours to do the best you can with, and our interest in potatoes begins only as and when the potatoes are put on rail." I submit that that position is an untenable one or, at any rate, would be an untenable one as between any other two contractors where one was not a Government Department. I cannot think, after all, that the ethics of commercial morality will be entirely ignored by the Government in this matter, and I am hoping that in reply to my hon. Friend opposite the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry will be able to tell us not only that the Government are going to honour their obligation to the letter, but will also be able to tell us what is the machinery which they intend to set up before whom these claims are tobe considered, when that machinery will get to work, and whether the claims from all growers will come before the Commission or Committee at once. The need is exceedingly pressing. You have potatoes in large quantities rotting to-day, to the prejudice of the Treasury, the grower, and the consumer, and not to the prestige of the Ministry, and I beg therefore that the minds of growers will be relieved and that we shall hear that a Commission or some other machinery is to be set up before whom these claims can be brought immediately, and that justice will be done to those men who answered the call made to them by the Prime Minister at the beginning of last year, and have produced a bumper crop of potatoes which, had the War not ended, would have been needed in their entirety.
    Mr. J. GARDINER: I would not trouble the Committee at this late hour were it not for the fact that the subject is one about which I have personal knowledge. I have been connected with the committees dealing with potatoes that have been brought into being since the War, and I therefore know the facts fairly well. I will not refer to details, but only to one or two general principles, and mention one or two things that have happened. I do not think that anything that has ever been done by any Prime Minister in connection with agriculture was more fraught with importance to the country than the pronouncement of
    1676
    January 1st, 1918. The agriculturists of this country, believing in the good faith of the Prime Minister, rose to the occasion, and, although they did not give him a million acres of potatoes, they gave him the greatest quantity of potatoes this country has ever produced. I do not know if it is because I come from the far North, and am not in touch with the things that happen in the Metropolis, but I confess I am an optimist, and not a pessimist, on the potato question. I believe, and have always believed, that the Ministry of Food intend to fulfil in the spirit and in the letter every promise that the Prime Minister or the Department has made.
    There was a promise of a two-fold nature. The first was that there was to be a minimum price fixed. In the case of England it was £5, and, of course, as usual, my poor country came in second, and was only to get 90s. a ton, but the Prime Minister was generous enough to say that, in the event of this not being found a sufficient remuneration to the grower, he would be allowed the cost of production, plus a fair and reasonable profit. Therefore, we must remember that at whatever price the potatoes may have been assessed, or whatever is the position, the promise of the Prime Minister still holds that the grower who has done his part properly, and complied with all the necessary conditions, is entitled to be remunerated at a price that will pay him the cost of production and a fair and reasonable profit. When this promise was made, those of us who knew anything about the subject—I mean the practical men on the Advisory Committees—knew immediately that whoever had given this advice to the Prime Minister did not give him the best advice. Those men who knew anything about the trade and about potato growing felt it was first of all impossible for the Government through any instrumentality to take delivery on the 1st November of all the potatoes grown, and many of the things that have come to us have come not unexpectedly, when we remember that, at one meeting, there was a gentleman connected with the Ministry of Food who is not in this House, and is not one of the principal officials, but who, when he discussed the potato question, suggested that potatoes were perennials, and that they just grew like timothy hay, and you could cut a crop whenever you wanted them. Another gentleman dealing with the question, and trying to solve the

    1677
    difficulties, suggested that, because matches had been treated in a certain manner, potatoes could similarly be treated; and there was one gentleman in a fairly high position at the Ministry who really thought you could put these potatoes aside, and leave them in the pits for one, two, three, or more years, as required. The unfortunate thing was that practical men in the country sometimes found themselves in this position, that when it came to a vote, if a certain gentleman in the chair desired a certain course of action to be followed, all the officials voted for him, and the minority often consisted of the practical men. I am quite sure that if the advice of these committees had been taken we should not occupy the position we do to-day. You will find thatit has been said that the Scotsmen are always complaining. You do not, however, hear so very much about difficulties with the Scottish potatoes this season, the reason being that we have had the audacity to demand home rule on this particular question, and having received practical freedom to trade in potatoes, we do not occupy the difficult position that our friends in the South occupy at the present time.
    May I, before I finish, point out one or two things about the cost? If an individual purchases a quantity of potatoes to be taken delivery of on a certain date, and if he fails to take delivery on that date, he is responsible for whatever loss and damage; happens to the potatoes from that date onwards. I am quite sure that the Ministry of Food will not act in any unfair manner. What about the present position? Why is it that we have so many potatoes wasting in the pits at the present time? One of the reasons is that one Department of the Ministry of Food promised that they would set machinery in motion that would absorb a very great proportion of the potato crop, and that that would be in operation in the early part of 1918. Unfortunately that has not developed. Private representations were made to the Ministry. Machinery for the purpose was proposed by quite a number of leading agriculturists and others, but the proposition was turned down because of several causes into which I need not for the moment enter, except to say simply that the proposal from the Ministry's point of view made it impossible financially for any individual to support it. I only wanted to say, in conclusion, that I think the Ministry
    1678
    of Food will welcome the discussion this afternoon. It will give them the opportunity of setting at rest a feeling which has somehow or other been spread over the country—I do not know why—it is one in which I do not share, and one in which the best informed men in agricultural circles do not share. Should that assurance be given it will alleviate a lot of the anxiety that has been created, for instance, in crofting districts and amongst smallholders and others who have had a very hard lot and have done their very best. I thank the House for having heard me so patiently on this, the first opportunity I have had, of addressing hon. Members.
    Mr. ROYCE: Potato production has been so fully dealt with by hon. Members that I will not venture, except in a special manner, to bring before the representatives of the Ministry of Food one more argument in favour of action, and that that action should be immediate. Whatever intentions the Ministry of Food may have—and I believe they are good—it is absolutely necessary that they should carry those good intentions into action at the earliest possible moment. One phase of food production was, as hon. Members know, the constitution by the Board of Agriculture of certain agricultural war executive committees. The insistent demands for more food that were made upon them forced their hands to a very considerable extent. I should like to draw the attention of the hon. Member opposite on the Government Bench to the position that those agricultural war executive committees occupy now in their respective districts. They were called upon to increase the acreage under potatoes, and for that purpose they issued cultivation orders for the ploughing up of grass land. Those orders gave a good deal of dissatisfaction, and a considerable amount of resistance was offered to them, and the position of a good many farmers is that they have grown potatoes not because they wanted to grow them but because they were compelled to do so by the Cultivation Orders. In the case of some of the small men it is extremely hard, because when the Cultivation Orders were issued they were not in a financial position to grow potatoes, and in some instances as the cost amounted to about £40 per acre they had to borrow money, and consequently these men were left in a very serious position and immediate action is now necessary.

    1679
    I think I could offer a suggestion that might perhaps meet the case, and I think it would satisfy the farmers. I think if Committees were immediately instituted—I would suggest two representatives from the Ministry of Food and two local representatives with an independent chairman—to go over the various pits or graves where these potatoes have been contained, I think they could make an estimate of the quantity which have been destroyed based upon the acreage grown, and they might arrive at a conclusion and payment on account should be made.Why has this not been done? In many cases orders for removal have not been sent, and therefore the farmer has been saddled all this time with a very large outlay. Why could not the principles which have been applied by the Forage Department in dealing with hay and straw be applied to the growers of potatoes I Why should the grower of potatoes not have some advance on account What is more, I think there ought to be a date fixed by the Ministry laying down when the responsibility of the farmer ceases, and if the potatoes are not removed, say by the 1st July, payment in full should be made. That is a suggestion of a constructive character which I hope may help the Department out of their difficulty.
    There is another thing that the Minister might very well do. The present scarcity of labour renders it necessary that the farmer should employ a considerable amount of labour for the cultivation of his spring crops, and I think the Ministry of Food might take it into consideration, in the matter of the removal of these potatoes, the inauguration of a few gangs of workmen who might be shifted about from farm to farm in motor lorries, and thus help the farmers at a critical period of the year. I would like to join with the hon. Member opposite in believing that the Ministry of Food have no desire to repudiate their obligations: in fact, they have given me some encouragement that they will assist smaller growers up to fifty acres. I wish to state, however, that I have received a telegram which informs me that up to now no steps have been taken in that direction. Time is of the utmost importance, and I ask the representative of the Ministry of Food to take immediate action.
    Mr. McCURDY: I welcome the opportunity which has been given by the moving
    1680
    of this Amendment to make a statement which I hope will allay some of the unfounded suspicions which appear to have been recently prevalent with regard to what we propose to do with reference to the potato crop. I say at once that nothing is further from our minds than to repudiate any obligation, whether it be a legal obligation or an obligation of honour which we have entered into towards the potato growers of this country. We are not, of course, dealing with an ordinary commercial problem, because the growing of potatoes for this season was undertaken, not upon any ordinary commercial lines, but as an urgency measure against what was then regarded as the very serious menace of the German submarine. It was thought that an abnormal development of the potato crop would be a useful weapon against the submarine. It is quite true, and I do not disguise the fact from myself for one moment, that on behalf of the Government and of the Ministry of Food every inducement was held out to the farmers and the potato growers of this country to increase their crop, and I desire to acknowledge that in respect of those appeals and other appeals they did their utmost. They did not fail in their patriotic duty towards their country. There is undoubtedly, as appears from the speech of the hon. Member for the Deritend Division (Mr. Dennis), some doubt with regard to what really is the contract that the Government made with the growers and whether the Government really intend to carry that contract out. Therefore, I desire briefly to state what is the actual contract that was made last year on behalf of the Government between the Ministry of Food and the potato growers.
    The hon. Member has referred to a circular which was issued on behalf of the Ministry of Food on 1st January, 1918. I think he referred to it as the Magna Charta of the potato growers. That was a circular stating that it was the intention of the Food Controller, as from 1st November, 1918, to purchase the entire crop of potatoes, with certain exceptions which we are agreed are quite irrelevant to the discussion to-day. The circular announced that the purchase price would be eventually assessed with due regard to the size of the crop and the quality of the potatoes and that for some potatoes it would not be less than the scale therein mentioned. The scale, as the hon. Member for Kinross (Mr. Gardiner) has reminded us, provided that for sound potatoes the price should

    1681
    not be less than £5. The circular made it quite clear that it was contemplated at the time by the Ministry of Food that the purchase should be of the entire potato crop, coupled with the guarantee that so far as the sound portion of the crop was concerned the price should not be less than £5 and also with the intimation that regard would be had to quality in assessing the price. Therefore, speaking strictly, I suppose that was an intimation that we were prepared to buy the potatoes whether they were blighted or sound, whether they were eatable or rotten; but of course it did not impose any obligation upon the Ministry to pay for rotten potatoes as though they were sound, or to pay more for them than for Rotten potatoes.
    Mr. CAUTLEY: Will the hon. Gentleman read the last portion of the circular?
    Mr. McCURDY: I will read it with pleasure.
    "Delivery in both cases is to be madeas and when required, and the price, weight, and condition are to be determined in accordance with the scale set out above as at the date when delivery is taken. Subject to proper precaution having been taken, the Food Controller will bear the risk of damage other than normal wastage."
    That circular also announced that the purchase price would be eventually assessed, merely indicating for the moment that it was not to be less than the figure I have named. Upon that the Potato Growers' Purchase Commission was appointed for the purpose of fixing the price to be paid in accordance with the circular, the said price to be fixed having regard to the condition of the potatoes at the date fixed for delivery. The Potato Growers' Purchase Commission proceeded to issue an inquiry form to typical potato growers up and down the country, to make local investigation, and to draw up what I may describe as a kind of rough balance-sheet, giving the cost of the potato crop which the Government proposed to purchase on the one side, and what was to be expected to be the result in sound potatoes on the other. Forms were sent out which required growers to state, on the one hand, what expenses they had incurred in respect to the acreage of potatoes planted, their rent, rates and taxes, and the cost of cultivating, lifting, clamping, and inspection. On the other side, the estimate was to show how many tons of sound potatoes they expected ultimately to be in a position to deliver at
    1682
    the date fixed for delivery. Then the Potato Growers' Commission fixed the prices for the crop in this way: They said, "Here, on the one hand, are so many acres planted with potatoes. The cultivation cost so much. On the other hand, here, after allowing for the incidence of potato disease,blight, and the casualties which may be expected in cultivation, is the net result expected in sound potatoes. We will fix such a price for the sound ware potatoes, and the sound undersized potatoes as will give the grower a reasonable profit not merely on the proportion he has grown of sound potatoes, but on the whole of the production, including the cost of producing potatoes which have been wasted and failed to come into account with the sound crop.
    Mr. B. DENNIS: May I ask on what authority my hon. Friend is making that statement?
    Mr. McCURDY: I am making it on my own authority. I am merely stating the effect, in the first place, of the form of inquiry which was undertaken by the Potato Growers' Commission for the purpose of arriving at the price. The document which I hold in my hand is headed "Joint Commission of Inquiry on the Potato Crop, 1918—Forms for the use of assessors and witnesses in assessing the cost of production." Then follows a schedule of cost on the one hand, and an estimate of the crop of sound ware potatoes to be ultimately harvested, and coupled with that document is the report of the Potato Growers' Prices Commission which was issued in July, and which made perfectly plain the basis on which the prices of the potato crop had been fixed. That is my authority for the statement I have made. That document is headed, "M.G. Potatoes 9."It has already been referred to. That is a document addressed to the Food Controller and the Minister of Agriculture by the Commission. It begins by saying:
    "We beg to present our unanimous report on the results of our inquiries, and we give in the Schedules annexed hereto the prices we have fixed for the potato crop of 1918 produced in England and Wales."
    Paragraph 2 says:
    "We have conceived it to be our duty so to fix the prices that they should be such as would, having due regard to the average cost of production and yield per acre in different districts, give to the grower a fair profit; at the same time we

    1683
    have endeavoured to fix such prices as, having regard to all the circumstances of the present time, shall be just to the consumer.
    (3) We have devoted one day in each of the fifteen districts selected by your Departments to hearing local evidence submitted by representative merchants and growers. Wherever our meetings and itinerary allowed, we have inspected typical potato crops in the areas. Since our return from the country we have heard a number of representative witnesses on matters relating to costs of production, and equitable scale of profits on cost, estimated yields, the incidence of the various potato diseases throughout England and Wales, and other points germane to our inquiry."
    Then they fixed the prices in this manner: Instead of giving a flat rate, which would have been, of course, the natural way of fixing the price for the crop if you intended to take delivery of the whole crop upon a given date, they fixed not a flat rate, but a rate varying from month to month, increasing practically month by month as the dates for delivery were postponed; so that as regards potatoes of which the Government chose to take delivery in November they obtained them at a less price than they would have to pay if delivery were delayed for a month, and a still less price if delivery were delayed for two or three months. Having given these substantial increments of prices, which brought up potatoes which would cost £7 in November or December so that by May and onwards the Government were paying as much as £9 for them, what was the extra £2 for?
    Mr. CAUTLEY: Normal wastage.
    Mr. McCURDY: I should prefer to be allowed to answer my questions in their own words, because I think they know best. They said:
    "The increments fixed in the above Schedule must be accepted as covering compensation to the grower for wastage and loss in pits, and for deferred delivery. Price, weight, and conditions are to be determined in accordance with the scales set out above as at the date when delivery is taken. No grower is entitled to claim further compensation for any losses save those which are quite exceptional in character. In such cases it will be the duty of the grower, when making application for compensation, to satisfy the Government that (1) the site of the pit has been properly chosen; (2) the potatoes were in sound condition when pitted; and (3) due care was exercised in constructing the pits, and in examining the condition of their contents from time to time."
    Do not let it be supposed, because I have read the exact terms of the contract, that I am going to take any hard and fast line, and say that outside the limits of our liability in this matter we are not pre-
    1684
    pared to go. That is not the attitude of the Ministry of Food. It never has been the attitude of the Ministry of Food, and there has never been a shadow of excuse for any man in this country saying that it is. The hon. Member for Deritend appears to have fallen into some confusion. He says that the real difference between himself and the Government with regard, I suppose, to the meaning of this document—which contains the contract—was whether the property in blighted potatoes was vested in the Government or the grower. From my point of view that is a wholly irrelevant question. If I may be allowed to say so, we do not care in the least in whom the property in blighted potatoes vests. In view of this contract, which I put forward with some diffidence, I should say it was vested in the Government. But the question is not in whom the property is vested, but what are the terms of payment. What was contemplated by the Government was that they were to take the entire crop, and no doubt the entire crop would include blighted potatoes and wasted potatoes of every kind. But they were to pay such a price for the sound potatoes as wouldgive the grower a profit upon his blights as well as upon his sound potatoes. That is my construction of the actual contract, and I hope it will clear away the misconception that there is any legal quibble as to the persons in whom this property is vested. The intention of the Government, as was quite fairly stated by the hon. Member for Kinross, was to fix those prices in such a way as to give the potato grower a fair profit on the whole of his expenditure, on the whole of his labour, after the strong appeal which the Government made to him. I think it would probably be agreed between myself and most of the hon. Members who have spoken, that, whatever construction be put upon the words which I have read, the words which define the increments provided by the Prices Commission were intended to cover compensation for wastage and loss. I suppose we should all agree that those increments were intended to cover such compensation as may be due to what would be described as normal wastage. The question that really will arise and on doubt will have to be determined—and I will say a word or two presently as to the best way of determining it—will be the serious question whether there are not in some parts of the country losses being incurred

    1685
    by potato growers owing to the wastage of potatoes or the rotting of potatoes which is not due to any normal causes, or, which is more material, to any causes which were contemplated or brought into account by the Commission who fixed the prices. If and so far as potato growers can satisfy the Ministry of Food—and there must of course be some cases in which they can—that they have sustained losses by reason of wastage which was not intended to be covered by the compensation included in the prices fixed by the Commission, I can assure hon. Members that we are prepared to meet such claims in the most sympathetic and unprejudiced manner. There are obviously two possible grounds upon which such claims may be put forward. As to the first, I am not in a position to say much.
    The first is obviously a question of some difficulty. I cannot assent to the suggestion of the hon. Member (Mr. Dennis) that blight had not appeared in this country at the time the Potato Commissioners say they were considering the incidence of potato disease, and allowing for it in their prices. I am otherwise informed. But this much I can assent to: When the time came for lifting the potato crop last year we not only had exceptionally wet weather, but there were also in some parts of the country exceptional difficulties with regard to labour, and it may be, if not on legal, certainly on compassionate, grounds there may be farmers who may have a claim to put forward which we should be very glad to accept. The interpretation which I have put upon the documents issued by the Ministry of Food appears not only to be my interpretation, but to be the interpretation which commended itself to the Lincolnshire farmers at the time when that document was first issued. At a meeting of farmers and small holders held at Spalding on 5th November shortly after the issue of the schedule of prices, a Resolution was passed which contained the following passage:
    "In consequence of the development and continuance of blight the estimate of yield then presented to the Commission has been found to be much higher than the facts warrant. The price appears to be based on the tested weight of the present crop. The tested weight will be far above the actual weight delivered, in some cases up to 30 per cent."
    In December, 1918, in view of representations to the Food Ministry by the Lincolnshire farmers, and in view of the fact that the prevalence and increase of blight had falsified the calculations of the Commis-
    1686
    sioners so that the prices allowed were no longer adequate, an increase of price was made upon the prices fixed by the Commission to apply to Lincolnshire and certain other counties.
    Mr. DENNIS: It was to meet the extra cost of labour.
    Mr. McCURDY: The "Lincolnshire, Boston, and Spalding Free Press" in the following week expressed a different view. It said:
    "A feeling of gratification was prevalent at the meeting of the General Committee of the Holland Farmers' Union at Spalding on Tuesday that, as the result of their efforts, the Food Controller had given the farmers of Lincolnshire an additional 10s. per ton on their potatoes. This means, as stated in the column last week, roughly an extra £200,000 in the Holland Division of Lincolnshire, not as the farmer contends in extra profit, but in mitigation of the losses he has suffered through blight."
    Mr. DENNIS: That is what the newspaper says. I was present at the deputation.
    Mr. McCURDY: The newspaper merely confirms our own records and I am very much surprised that the hon. Member should think fit to suggest that when in December, in response to representations made by the growers of Lincolnshire and three or four other counties, the Ministry granted an extra 10s. on the prices for those counties, the abnormal development of blight, which was certainly apparent all over the country, was not taken into consideration and was not, in fact, one of the grounds upon which that 10s. was granted. It does not rest either with the records of the Ministry or with my assertion. I will read a letter from the secretary of the Holland Farmers' Union. I do not know whether the hon. Member (Mr. J. Dennis) will suggest that that union have no authority to speak for the farmers. This letter is dated 28th December, four days afterwards, and is sent to the Food Ministry:
    "I am directed by the Holland farmers' Union to thank you for the courtesy with which you recently received our deputation on the question of price of potatoes in Lincolnshire, and for the increase of 10s. per ton which will be very helpful in mitigating the very serious loss which is being suffered by the extensive development of blight."
    I do not know if the Holland Farmers' Union include any potato growers.
    "Our members are repeatedly writing of their clamps falling in as a result of disease, and from a farm in Holbeach Marsh, which was weighed

    1687
    by your inspectors, who based their estimate of about 10 tons an acre upon this and other crops, not more than 1 ton an acre of sound ware potatoes will be secured."
    Mr. ROYCE: The hon. Member will hardly suggest that they contemplated that the 10s. would cover the clamps which had already fallen in?
    Mr. McCURDY: I do not know to what extent the clamps had fallen in by December of last year; but I should be surprised to hear that there had been any extensive subsidence of raised potatoes by December of last year. The point I want to make—and I am not speaking in any controversial spirit, or with any desire to stand upon technicalities—is that whatever may be suggested to the contrary, so far. as have ruin of food was concerned we did receive representations in regard to the abnormal blight in December of last year, and as a result of those representations we went beyond our legal responsibilities at that time. We voluntarily gave them an increase of 10s. a ton, and if it be a fact that there are substantial reasons why the potato growers should come to us and say, "There are other facts which have arisen since last December, by reason of which we are incurring losses which were never contemplated and which we ought not to suffer,"is there any reason to doubt that we shall meet them in the same friendly spirit and with the same practical desire to remedy their grievances as we did last December? The hon. Member for Holland and Boston threw out some very useful suggestions in regard to the actual machinery for dealing with these grievances. Let us get to the practical question as to where is the actual damage that is complained of, and let us investigate it and see what it is due to. Then possibly we shallfind that there is no misunderstanding. The hon. Member for Holland and Boston was good enough to suggest that possibly it would be a good step at a very early date, as soon as such machinery were available, to conduct local investigations in every district where there is any substantial claim of this kind being put forward. I agree entirely. So far as actual machinery is concerned, whether it should be a Committee appointed on such a basis as he suggests, is a matter which I would have to refer to my right hon. Friend the Food Controller and my right hon. Friend
    1688
    the President of the Board of Agriculture. We are already in communication, or if not already we certainly shall be in a few hours, with them on the subject. There is one other suggestion of the hon. Member which is very reasonable—that this is a contract under which the Government are open to take deliveries at such times as suit them, and that they should promise to insert a time limit at the end of which they must either complete the delivery or must pay for the goods. I think that a very reasonable suggestion and will lay it before my right hon. Friend. I desire to thank hon. Members who have taken part in this Debate. On the whole they have expressed confidence in the Ministry of Food in this matter and they will not be disappointed.
    Mr. CAUTLEY: I am a little disappointed that the Food Controller has not told us how he intends to deal with this question. With a great deal of what he says I entirely agree, but I think that he was wrong on one point. I have not the slightest doubt that, from the document of the 1st January, every farmer or grower who grew potatoes thought that he would be paid under the terms of that document. The vital condition, so far as it affects growers at the present time, was the Clause which he has read at my request, which states that in the case of a grower who had taken proper precaution the Food Controller would bear the damage other than normal waste. There is not the slightest doubt as to the meaning of that contract. I understand the Minister of Food to take up the position that under this contract he is bound to pay for everything except normal wastage. In other words, where there is abnormal wastage he has to pay. It is immaterial whether the abnormal wastage was caused by blight or any other cause. It is on this point that I take exception, because he seems to suggest that he is not bound to pay where the blights are abnormal, though he is bound to pay for any other cause. There is no ground, legal or otherwise, for that attitude, and the whole position, as I understand it from communications that I have had, is that they claim to be paid for abnormal wastage, whether caused through wet or labour or excessive blights, and if the Minister of Food has any doubt as to accepting that position, then I would ask him to take the advice of the Law Officers of the Crown,and that

    1689
    will solve a great deal of the difficulty and dissatisfaction that exist at the present time.
    Lieutenant-Colonel WEIGALL: Having heard the explanation of the Government, I prefer to withdraw my Amendment on one condition. I do not agree with the last speaker that the Government have not satisfied us as to payment for abnormal wastage. I understand from my hon. Friend that wherever there was abnormal wastage which had occurred under the three conditions laid down in the document, then a claim for compensation will lie. The other condition I make because my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is sitting on the Treasury Bench, and in these matters once bitten twice shy. I was in a precisely similar position to this on the last day of the last Parliament in a discussion with the War Office representative. I made a similar suggestion to that made to-day, and the War Office representative gave an answer similar to that which has been given that he would consult his right hon. Friend, and that the matter would be considered. It was referred to the Treasury three months afterwards, and the whole thing was wiped out. I am perfectly prepared to withdraw my Amendment if I can get an indication that the Food Ministry and the Treasury will most sympathetically consider the suggestion made by the hon. Member for the Holland Division.
    Captain FITZROY: May I ask about the position of those farmers who have not yet received any payment. I would like to know whether the Government propose before they take charge of the crop to pay something on account.
    Mr. McCURDY: I had the pleasure of meeting a deputation of Lincolnshire farmers the other day, and the point was there made that this was a hardship upon men of limited financial resources. At that conference an assurance was given by the Food Controller that if cases of that kind were brought forward they would be dealt with promptly and sympathetically. With regard to the assurance asked for by the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Weigall) I can assure him that I know the matter is under the consideration of two Departments, and there really is an intention to set up an inquiry.
    Lieutenant-Colonel WEIGALL: Will the hon. Gentleman use his powers of persuasion with the Treasury?
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move, at the end, to add the words
    "If either House of Parliament within twenty days resolve that the Minute be not approved it shall cease to have effect."
    As a matter of fact, the Clause as it was drawn afforded very little protection, and my Amendment, if accepted, would afford a great deal more. I think the House ought to have some opportunity of discussingthese Minutes, and I therefore hope the Government will accept the Amendment.
    Sir D. MACLEAN: Although the proposal in the Amendment is nothing like an adequate Parliamentary opportunity, I am afraid it is the only one which under the circumstances we canget, and I hope my hon. Friend will see his way to grant our very moderate request.
    Mr. BALDWIN: This is a manuscript Amendment, and raises a matter which requires some consideration. I have told my hon. Friend that if he would withdraw his Amendment now I would look into it before the Report stage, and I hope he will consider that that is fair, as it is impossible for me now to see what is exactly the bearing of the Amendment. I shall be very pleased to consider it between now and the Report stage.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Under those circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 2 (Short title) agreed to.
    Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.

  SUPPLY [13TH MARCH].
  Resolutions reported.
  SUPPLY [13TH MARCH].

    AIR ESTIMATES, 1919–20—NUMBER OF AIR FORCE.
    "That a number of Air Forces, not exceeding 150,000, all ranks, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom of Great Britain

    1691
    and Ireland at Home and abroad, excluding His Majesty's Indian Possessions, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930."

    VOTE ON ACCOUNT.
    "That a sum, not exceeding £45,000,000, be granted to His Majesty, on Account, for or towards defraying the Charges for Air Force Services at Home and abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920."
  SUPPLY [12TH MARCH].
  Resolutions reported,
  SUPPLY [12TH MARCH].

    NAVY ESTIMATES, 1919–20.
    1. "That 280,000 Officers, Seamen, and Boys, Coast Guard, and Royal Marines be employed for the Sea and Coast Guard Services borne on the books of His Majesty's Ships and at the Royal Marine Divisions for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920."
    Ordered, That the Resolution, which upon the 3rd day of March was reported from the Committee of Supply, and which was then agreed to by the House, be now read:—
    "That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 2,500,000, all ranks, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland at Home and Abroad, excluding His Majesty's Indian Possessions, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920."
    Ordered, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide, during twelve months, for the discipline and regulation of the Army; and that Mr. Churchill, Major-General Seely, Mr. Long and Dr. Macnamara, do prepare and bring it in.

    ARMY ANNUAL BILL.
    "To provide during twelve months for the discipline and regulation of the Army," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 18.]
  SUPPLY [12TH MARCH].
  Resolution reported,
  SUPPLY [12TH MARCH].
    NAVY ESTIMATES.—VOTE ON ACCOUNT.
    2. "That a sum, not exceeding £60,000,000, be granted to His Majesty, on Account, for defraying the Charges for Navy Services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920."
  SUPPLY [11TH MARCH].(STANDING COMMITTEE C).
  Resolution reported,
  CIVIL SERVICES SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1918–19.—Class VI.
  "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £20,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1919, for the Ireland Development Grant (Grant-in-Aid) and for other purposes of development and reconstruction in Ireland."
  SUPPLY [4TH MARCH].
  Resolutions reported,
  CIVIL SERVICES SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1918–19.—Class VII.
  1. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £196,456, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1919, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Labour and Subordinate Departments, including the Contribution to the Unemployment Insurance Fund and Repayments to Associations pursuant to Sections85 and 106 of the National Insurance Act, 1911, and the National Insurance (Part II.) (Munition Workers) Act, 1916."
  Class II.
  2. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,090, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1919, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Lord Privy Seal."
  ARMY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1918–19.
  3. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1919, for Pay, etc., of the Army."
  NAVY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1918–19.
  4. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1919, for additional Expenditure on the Wages, etc., of Officers, Seamen, Boys, Coast Guard, and Royal Marines.'

  WAYS AND MEANS (13th March).
  Resolutions reported,

  1. "That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ended on the 31st day of March, 1919, the

  1693
  sum of £1,133,852 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."

  2. "That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, the (sum of £440,310,000, be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the united Kingdom."

  Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolutions by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Baldwin.

  Consolidated Fund (No. 1) Bill,
  "To apply a sum out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the years ending 31st March, 1919 and 1920," presented
  1694
  accordingly; read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 19.]
  The remaining Orders were read and postponed.
  Whereupon Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3.
  Adjourned at Twelve minutes after Five o'clock.