CLAUSE 2.—(Loans by Commissioners to allotment holders.) (Hansard, 26 June 1925)

§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
I beg to move, in page 1, line 19, at the end, to insert the words and for fitting such land for use as allotments. It will be noticed that under Subsection (1) of Clause 2 the Commissioners may advance money to these societies for the purchase of land for allotments, and the Amendment which I am seeking to embody in the Bill provides that they shall also be able, on the same terms, to advance money, not merely for the purchase of land for allotments, but for the fitting of such land for allotments. The House knows perfectly well that a great many of these allotments are created out of almost derelict old brick pits and pieces of land whose selling value in its present condition is extremely low, but which have to be made up in order to fit them for allotments. In fact in many cases the expense of fitting them up for allotments far exceeds the purchase price. The security is enhanced by the fitting up of the land for allotments, and we maintain that we are justified in urging that the same facilities that are given under this Clause to these societies to buy land shall be given also for the purpose of fitting the land up. I think it almost more important at present, because we want to use land which at present is under water besides rivers, land which requires almost reclamation. 1925 In fact, if we really develop this allotment movement, we shall have to take land which is not required for other purposes in the suburbs of towns. Town-planning schemes of the future will lay down that certain suburban areas are to be used for allotments. It is almost certain that the land selected for allotments in that way will be land which could not be used for building. At least the tendency will be in that direction. Such land in particular requires money spending on it in order to fit it out for allotments, and therefore I think we ought in this Bill to make provision for that form of expenditure, which is as essential and which is covered by the same security that the other Government advances are. The only further argument I can think of to adduce is that the improvements in these lands are permanent improvements to the whole land of the country. We are spending money to-day on reclaiming the Wash in the hope that that may be remunerative to the country as a whole. But every argument that we use in favour of increasing the land of England by adding to it a slice of the Wash is economically sound as applied to the reclaiming of any land inside the country, and when all that we are asking in the Amendment is that the Government should advance a portion of the sum spent voluntarily by an approved society in the reclamation of this land, I think the House will see that we are not asking for very much, and that, if use is made of the powers given in the Bill, there will be a really great advantage to the whole community.

§ Captain BOURNE
I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment, because I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has quite put the fundamental principle underlying the Clause. The object of the Clause is to enable the Public Works Loans Commissioners to lend money to approved societies. They lend it on the security of the land which the approved societies have purchased for allotments. It is not advanced from the Treasury. It is a loan from public money, but a loan by an independent body for a definite purpose. The money has to be repaid, and there are powers for the Public Works Loans Commissioners to re-enter in the event of the interest and principal not being repaid. Fitting land for allotments may be a very sound principle indeed from 1926 the point of view of the nation, but in this case you have to look at it through the eyes of the Public Works Loans Commissioners, that is, the eyes of the people who advance the money on mortgage. It is by no means certain that permanent equipment in any way enhances its value for selling purposes. We must remember that in this case we are giving power to advance money on mortgage at a very low rate of interest, and we have no business to put any conditions in the Bill which are likely to affect the security on which that mortgage is based. The laying out of roads useful for allotment purposes and equipment of all sorts may or may not add to the value of the land if it is to come into the market, and we should be very careful before we limit the security in that way.

§ Mr. RILEY
This Clause does not make it compulsory for the Commissioners to advance the money, but it says they may do so if they are satisfied. There is a class of land which is eminently suitable for allotment purposes provided you fit it for use for allotments. In the neighbourhood of most large industrial towns there is land that has been used for tipping. In many towns during the War that kind of land was developed for allotment purposes and is still being used, and it has been extremely advantageous to allotment holders. But it requires money to fit that land, and within the limitations of the Amendment I suggest that the hon. and gallant Gentleman might very well accede to it.

§ Major TASKER
There is low-lying land which after heavy rain is waterlogged to the extent of thousands of acres, and it is impossible to pump the water out. Under this Amendment hundreds of thousands of pounds might be involved in order that some people might enjoy the use of the land for allotments.

§ Major CRAWFURD
I should like to add one word of appeal to the other side to accept the Amendment. I am not basing it on the rather extreme case which has just been quoted, but in reference to that case, surely any money so spent to prepare such land for the purposes of allotments must necessarily enhance its value if ever it comes to be used for other purposes. The point I 1927 want to urge is that there are certain tracts of land in urban areas which can only be made available for allotments, for which there is a great demand, by the expenditure of money to bring them into a condition where allotments can economically be worked, and also there is the other point that there are certain tracts of land in my own knowledge which can only be used for allotments if access is provided to them. I think, for all these reasons, it is an Amendment which the promoters of the Bill might very well accept on its merits.

§ Mr. LOOKER
I should like to support the reasons put forward by my hon. and gallant Friend in charge of the Bill for not finding himself able to accept the Amendment. This question of advances of public money to approved societies hinges entirely on the question of security. They have to be repaid and the only tangible security you can get is repayment out of the proceeds of the land that is acquired. Who is to say how much it is going to cost to fit out these derelict lands for the purpose of allotments, and who is to say you are going to get a return of that if ever you have to enforce your security? I sympathise very much with what is in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment, but I think we shall be striking a heavy blow at the security and stability of the finance of approved societies if we encourage them to advance moneys in fitting out derelict lands for allotments when it is impossible for us to see how much they have to spend and exactly how far they will be able to go.

§ Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD
I wonder if the hon. and gallant Gentleman in charge of the Bill is really wise in resisting this Amendment. It is true that, supposing it was inserted in the Bill, an approved society, without any survey of their plan, without any reasonable exploration of the business possibilities of the extra capital they propose to sink, without exercising precaution and availing themselves of ordinary business safeguards, ruin would stare them in the face, and instead of increasing the security they would be decreasing the security. Surely no approved society would pursue such a policy as that. We must assume that the persons to whom the money is to 1928 be lent will have the ordinary business capacity to understand their job. If the promoter of the Bill will give us that assumption, surely this Amendment could be accepted. It has been said that there are lands in Somerset that are subject to floods. Supposing this land which is subject to floods is taken for allotments and it remains subject to floods, what security have the Public Works Loans Commissioners that their original capital will be secure? They have the security which is given in Sub-section (2) that they can make a charge upon other lands belonging to the same company.

§ Major TASKER
This is derelict land because it is subject to floods. If it were not subject to floods it would be agricultural land.

§ Mr. MacDONALD
That land will either be bought for allotments or it will not. If it is absolutely derelict it will not be bought, assuming the business capacity of those who survey it. Assuming that they have business capacity, if that land can be drained by the expenditure of capital, the capital which may be sunk in it will be profitable industrial capital. Surely a scheme like that would enormously increase the possibility of providing allotments. It will increase the value. I do not know this particular land, but I know of land outside towns here and elsewhere, and I know, particularly, certain land outside a Scottish town which, quite easily, could be purchased at its present value, and industrial capital could well be put into it under this Amendment. It could be drained and improved in various ways by the enrichment of the soil, etc., but that cannot be done at the present time, because loans cannot be obtained for that purpose. Roads could be built. I have listened to the Debate quite impartially, and I do submit to the promoter of the Bill that if he would assume the business capacity of the approved societies, this is a well-safe-guarded proposal. If it can be worked carefully it would substantially increase the efficiency of the Bill for the provision of allotments.

§ Mr. PALING
The objection to the Amendment is on the question of cost. I think that objection is met by the opening words of the Clause: Subject to such conditions and during such period as the Treasury may prescribe, 1929 and up to an aggregate amount approved by the Treasury— I do not suppose that if the reclamation of any of this derelict land was to be of such a high cost they would approve it. This provision in the Clause gives the safeguards asked for by hon. Members opposite. Land of this description reclaimed for allotments in urban districts would be most valuable. As one who has had some experience in the provision of allotments, I know that one of the things we have had to contend with has been, not to get agricultural land fit for allotments, but the fact that such land would take the men such a long way out of the town that it is useless for the purpose. I know of derelict land which has not been built upon and is not likely to be built upon, and if that land could be made fit for allotments under the provisions of this Amendment it would overcome the objection of the allotment holders, because it would be within reasonable distance of the men who will cultivate it. There is another point of view, perhaps of less importance, and that is that this derelict land is generally an eyesore to the neighbourhood. In addition to providing allotments within a reasonable distance, it would be adding to the amenities of the neighbourhood if this derelict land were used for allotment purposes. Seeing that the first four lines of the Clause give adequate provision and security against the fears which hon. Members opposite express, I hope the Committee will accept the Amendment.

§ Mr. WOMERSLEY
As one who has had experience for several years as vice-chairman of a very important allotments committee connected with the town I represent, I support the Amendment. For once in my political career I am in agreement with the right hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood). I agree that there is sufficient safeguard against any extravagant scheme, inasmuch as power rests with the Commissioners. I will give a case in point. We purchased a large area of land to lay out for allotments. It was necessary to erect a fence, and that fence cost a considerable sum of money. As the Corporation Allotments Committee, we had to borrow the money for purchasing the land and for putting up the 1930 fence. The cost was proportioned out and a rent was charged that would cover interest and sinking fund on the total cost. If we do not agree to this Amendment, the approved societies will not be in as favourable a position as the corporations are at the present time. These approved societies ought to have the privilege of being able to spend money in preparing land for use for allotments, as well as borrowing money for the purchase of land. To purchase land without being able to make it suitable for cultivation is useless. With the safeguards that we have, the promoter of the Bill ought to accept the Amendment.

Mr. WOOD
I have listened to the Debate with, I hope, a mind not less impartial than the mind of the right hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme. I am not much disposed to be afraid in this case of extravagance, and I am not reluctant to make the assumption of ordinary business capacity in the minds of those whose function it will be to deal with this enterprise; but I cannot help thinking that there has been some tendency on the part of those who have spoken to overlook what we propose to provide—I shall move to alter the wording slightly—in Sub-section (4). We there propose to give power to the Public Works Loans Commissioners to lend two-thirds of the value of the land. I do not think that there is any suggestion to empower them to lend more than that. If they lend up to two-thirds of the value of the land it is possible for the allotments society to utilise that money for any purpose which they like, and if it is convenient for them to utilise a certain proportion of that money for the preparation of the land I know of nothing in the Bill to prevent them from doing so and it may be a very desirable thing to do. But neither by this Amendment nor by any other suggestion, unless I am wrong in my interpretation, is it proposed to increase the amount of money which the Public Works Loans Commissioners are authorised to lend.

§ Mr. MacDONALD
Am I right in reading the last words of Sub-section (1)— money required for the purpose of purchasing land to be used as allotments as qualifying Sub-section (4),

Mr. WOOD
I hesitate to speak about that, but I think that I am right in the view which I have expressed. Perhaps I could relieve the right hon. Gentleman if I advise my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne) to undertake to look further into this point, and, if the Government felt able to support him in the matter, to agree to an Amendment in another place. The right hon. Gentleman will agree that, on the whole, the disposition on the part of the Government has been to meet all reasonable points.

§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
I am very much obliged for the suggestion, and I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend will accede to it.

§ Captain BOURNE
I will certainly accede to it if we can find a form of words to meet the point.

§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Sir HENRY CAUTLEY
Before the Amendment be withdrawn—

§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
If the hon. and learned Member proceeds to debate the Amendment, it cannot be withdrawn.

§ Sir H. CAUTLEY
I object to it being withdrawn, because I wish the Minister to take into consideration this particular point of view. Everybody in this House desires to facilitate the provision of allotments. One of the biggest facilities is the advance of money. In my opinion the suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman will impede the advance of money. The advance in this case depends entirely on the decision of the Public Works Loans Commissioners. They can advance up to two-thirds of the purchase price. Therefore the amount of the loan is to be ascertained before the land is purchased. That is an ordinary everyday occurrence. The land is valued by the regular valuer, and the money is lent. It is now suggested that they are to be entitled to make an advance of money for fitting the land as allotments. How is that amount to be arrived at? Is it to be arrived at after the money is spent? How can the Commissioners advance money on a mere promise to spend it? If it is to be advanced after the money is spent that means another valuation, another inspection and additional cost. 1932 I submit that so far from facilitating the advance of money for allotments this Amendment would very much impede it.

§ Captain BOURNE
I beg to move, in page 1, line 23, to leave out the word "security", and to insert instead thereof the word "property".
The word "security" may be limited in its application to stocks and shares and that was never intended. For instance, other land might be given as security.

§ Sir DOUGLAS NEWTON
I beg to Second the Amendment.

§ Captain BOURNE
I beg to move, in page 2, lines 8 and 9, to leave out the words "and with", and to insert instead thereof the words "by a notice stating the proposal for sale and if."
This Amendment is to meet a point which was raised in Committee and discussed at some length. It was suggested that the approved societies might agree to sell land acquired under this Clause at a meeting without telling the proposal to all the members, and it is therefore now proposed that the notice convening the meeting shall state that it is proposed to sell the land. In that case the notice shall be sent to every member of the society, and it is up to individual members who do not wish the land to be sold to attend. But we feel that they should have fair warning if there is any proposal on the part of the executive to sell.

§ Sir D. NEWTON
I beg to Second the Amendment.

§ Mr. HURD
When this matter wa3 discussed in Committee we felt two things. We felt, first of all, that the consent of the Minister should not be necessary. We felt also that a better method would be to have a second meeting after due notice, as in the case of friendly societies, so that the thing could be finally determined. There would be a perfect safeguard in that case, whereas there is no safeguard in the mere giving of prior notice. I do not know whether the hon. and gallant Member who is the promoter of this Bill has considered those points. I hope that he will enlarge the safeguards in the way 1933 suggested, and then we shall not have the eternal applications and representations to the Minister which mean only more expense and more delay.

§ Captain BOURNE
This matter and the suggestion were discussed very carefully with the representatives of the allotment holders, and they preferred the form of safeguard which has been moved.

§ Mr. LAMB
I cannot think that it will cause any extra work for the Minister. This will be done by the local commissioner, who will be in the district and will be dealing with these matters.

§ Captain BOURNE
I beg to move, in page 2, line 9, after the word "Minister," to insert the words "is obtained."
The object of this Amendment is to make it clear that the consent of the Minister is obtained.

§ Sir WILFRID SUGDEN
I beg to second the Amendment.

§ Mr. HURD
Why is the consent of the Minister necessary? It is a purely local concern, affecting the locality and its own money.

Captain SHAW
On a point of Order. I wish to know whether the moving of the next Amendment by the Minister will rule out my Amendment, which comes later, whereby I seek to limit the amount of money which can be loaned?

§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: (Captain FitzRoy)
The Minister's Amendment is in order, and the hon. and gallant Member's Amendment will have to be moved as an Amendment to the Minister's Amendment.

§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood)
I beg to move, in page 2, line 18, to leave out Sub-section (4), and to insert instead thereof the words (4) The Commissioners shall not under this Section advance a sum in excess of two-thirds of the value as ascertained to the satisfaction of the Commissioners, of the land proposed to be acquired or make any advance to a society except where it is shown to the satisfaction of the Commis- 1934 sioners that an amount equal to one-third of the value of the land to be purchased has been provided from other sources in the manner approved by the Commissioners and has been, or will be, expended in part payment of the purchase price of the land to be mortgaged to the Commissioners. This is simply a drafting Amendment. There is no alteration of principle. The new Sub-section proposed is that which the Parliamentary draftsman considered the best.

§ Major TASKER
I beg to second the Amendment.

Captain SHAW
I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 4, to leave out the word "one-third", and to insert instead thereof the word "one-half."
My Amendment means that the powers of the Public Works Loans Commissioners will be limited to the lending of 50 per cent. of the money for the land acquired. We are the watchdogs of the public purse. Land is a very uncertain valuation. Its value goes up and down, and we have to be very careful in lending money on it. I know it will be said that private individuals, such as those who will cultivate this land as allotments, will not be able to provide the purchase money. But people who get land for allotments acquire the money from approved and other societies. Therefore, that argument does not apply in this case. In Committee the Minister moved an Amendment limiting the loan on the land to 50 per cent. It is apparent that he has changed his mind since then, and I do not see why he should have done so. We do not want money lost and we stand to lose in such a case as this. Those who are to take the land—they are members of a society—should show their belief in the land by being prepared to subscribe up to 50 per cent. of the value. I do not see why the Exchequer should take any risk. All I am asking is that those who take the land should take 50 per cent. of the risk involved, which is certainly fair and reasonable.

§ Mr. W. THORNE
There is no risk.

Captain SHAW
That is a matter of opinion. I consider that there is a risk. Land goes up and down in value. If you try to borrow money on land, nine times out of 10 you will find that your bank is not prepared to lend you more than 50 per cent. of the value. Here we have money that is to be loaned upon the land for a period of 35 years, which is a long period, and a great deal might happen during that time. In moving his Amendment in Committee the Minister said, "It was a prudent course to take." We have had some wonderful figures given by an hon. Member opposite to-day as to the amount which a man was bound to take from allotments. I have found on going through allotments that often the allotment holders have said that they had the greatest difficulty in making even a bare living, on account of the heavy importations from Holland and Continental countries of the things that they were producing. That shows the uncertainty in the matter. When a private company advances money, it is very careful to ascertain the value of the land, and it has better security for it than a Government Department in lending the money.

§ Mr. LOOKER
I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.
Before we depart from the sound principles which should govern the making of advances of public money, we should have some more information showing in what manner adherence to those principles will militate against the money being applied by the approved societies for the acquisition of allotments. The House should be shown in what way the observance of those principles is calculated to interfere to any serious extent with the acquisition of allotments by approved societies.

§ Sir K. WOOD
It is perfectly true that the Minister of Agriculture, in Committee on this Bill, moved an Amendment similar to that which is now moved by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West-bury (Captain Shaw), but I think the Members of the Committee will recollect that on that occasion appeals were made to my right hon. Friend from many quarters to withdraw the Amendment. I observe that on the conclusion of the argument in Committee on this point, he said that he would withdraw it, with a view to considering the matter in the interval and that he did not wish to place 1936 himself in opposition to what seemed a very widespread feeling in the Committee. Since that time my right hon. Friend has given further consideration to the matter and has had several consultations upon it, and in all the circumstances has come to the conclusion that there is no need for him to move the Amendment now proposed by my hon. and gallant Friend and that the House should not adopt it. I think everyone will agree that the Minister has a considerable desire to help the allotment societies—as we all have in the House—and if this Amendment to the Amendment were carried it would greatly hamper the work of the allotment societies. I agree we must be prudent in these matters, and it is quite right that this view should be put forward. We do not want to be led by sentimental reasons away from prudent courses, but I think it will be agreed that in these cases the margin of one-third will be quite sufficient. Having regard to the advice which the Minister now tenders to the House, I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will see his way to withdraw the Amendment to the Amendment.

§ Mr. T. WILLIAMS
I oppose the Amendment to the proposed Amendment. I am surprised that the Mover, who represents an agricultural constituency, should bring it forward as, very likely, he was an ardent supporter of the Agricultural Credits Act of 1923, and of its improvement in 1924; and there Parliament was willing to lend to agriculturists, not one-half but three-quarters of any moneys required for the provision of equipment or for marketing purposes, or for various organisations which are useful and helpful in agriculture. If it is fair to lend three-quarters to a big farmer for those purposes, particularly when many farmers have had little or no faith in co-operative institutions, it seems to me we should extend the same treatment to the average allotment holder who is a comparatively poor person, and who desires his allotment firstly for the production of vegetables, and secondly as a means of healthy recreation. The Amendment to the Amendment would have a retarding influence upon a movement which is good from every point of view. The question of prudence does not enter into the matter, and if the 1937 Mover of the Amendment to the Amendment further considers the consequences of a limiting proposal of this kind, he will see that it would half-kill this Bill which has taken up so much time. From the point of view of equity as between the allotment holders and the great agriculturists, he should withdraw his proposal, and show himself to be, definitely and sincerely, a supporter of agriculture in both its larger and its smaller aspects.

§ Sir H. CAUTLEY
I entirely agree with the last speaker, and I would ask my hon. and gallant Friend to withdraw.

§ Sir GERALD STRICKLAND
I wish to make an appeal to those who have referred to sound principles of banking to consider that what is sound in banking, as between the joint stock company and the private individual, may not be sound as between the Government and the people of a country. I would ask leave to refer to what has happened in Australia, where the Government have gone far beyond what we call soundness in these matters and have not lost money by so doing. The Agricultural Bank of Western Australia, which was a young concern, advanced money for such purposes as this on a very large scale, and went up to the very hilt. Up to the date of the War that Agricultural Bank had made no losses. I further appeal to those who are connected with land, as I am, and who think of broad principles, as I do, to consider that, in order to have the Conservative working men of the country with us, and in order to increase our supporters in the country, we ought to go as far as is safe in taking the wind out of the Socialists' sails by doing this on our own account, instead of leaving it to them to do it on their own account.

Captain SHAW
I do not consider the remark made by the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) at all relevant to the question, because I hold that allotments are in a more precarious position than farms, but as the sense of the House seems to be against the Amendment, I beg leave to withdraw.

§ Captain BOURNE
I beg to move, in page 2, line 35, to leave out the words "or copyhold."
As the House will remember, the Law of Property Act abolishes copyhold, at any rate as from January next—I understand that is the date—and therefore this Amendment becomes necessary.

§ Sir D. NEWTON
I beg to second the Amendment.

§ Sir H. SLESSER
While appreciating the desire of the hon. and gallant Member to relieve this Bill of unnecessary language, I hope he will not press this Amendment. It is quite true that the revolutionary proposals which have been made by the Conservative party to destroy the law of property may some day fructify, but it is very uncertain whether or not we shall actually abolish copyhold. It may or may not be considered to be a good and democratic tenure, but the point is that the Acts to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers have been postponed for another year, and it is by no means certain that at the end of that year they will become operative. They have now been postponed about five times, and it would be much safer, until we know for certain that copyhold tenure is going to be destroyed, to allow the Bill to remain as it is. I think his earlier thoughts in that respect are better than his later ones. If copyhold goes in this Bill and does not go in the law of property, you will have reduced the area over which security can be taken, and I think my hon. and gallant Friend) opposite really proposed his Amendment on the assumption, which I believe to be erroneous, that necessarily copyhold will disappear, which is by no means certain.

§ Captain BOURNE
After the very learned and interesting speech of the late Solicitor-General, I will ask leave to withdraw my Amendment. As he says, I did move it under the impression that copyhold was actually going to disappear from our legal system as from the beginning of next year, but when an hon. and learned Member of his distinction expresses doubt on that point, I do not think we ought to remove it from this Bill.

§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
I would move this Amendment, but I understand that the point is met completely by the Amendment next on the Paper, and, therefore, I do not propose to move it.

§ Captain BOURNE
I beg to move, in page 2, line 36, after the first word "or", to insert the word "other."
In Committee some doubt was expressed whether the words "or charge" would not include charges such as tithe rent-charge, which would obviously be undesirable, and we gave a promise in Committee to look into the matter from a purely drafting point of view. We have now put down the word "other," because I believe that, as interpreted by the Courts, where you have the word "mortgage" followed by the words "or other charge," the words "or other" are limited and mean a charge of the same class or description as a mortgage.

§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
I beg to second the Amendment, which quite meets my point.

§ Captain BOURNE
I beg to move, in page 2, line 36, to leave out the word "any," and to insert instead thereof the word "the."
This is purely drafting, and it makes the sentence clear.

§ Mr. LAMB
I beg to second the Amendment.

§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
In regard to the next Amendment—in page 2, line 38, to leave out Sub-section (8), it is suggested that an earlier Amendment, standing in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne), should be adopted at that place, but I rather understand that it would not fit in there.

§ Captain BOURNE
I think it would be better not to move this Amendment. The only result of doing so would be a very small verbal alteration, and I think it would be better to leave it as it stands.