§ Mr. MAXTONI beg to move, in Page 1, line 8, after the word "lands," to insert the words "who shall be three in number and be appointed by the Treasury."
I do not wish to disturb the harmony which has characterised the Debate to-day, and I hope the expedition that has been shown in dealing with the previous Measure will be displayed on this Bill also. This is a Measure to improve the machinery by which the Crown lands 1286 of this country are controlled and directed. An annual revenue of something like £1,500,000 and a considerable capital value are involved, and it is of general interest that this public property should be administered in the most efficient way and in the best interests of the whole community. An investigation of the control of these Crown lands indicates to me that there is something careless and slipshod about the way in which the higher direction of this important public work is carried on. I am not suggesting that the officials responsible for the sale and purchase of the lands, and for their general administration, have been anything but efficient public servants; but it has been difficult to ascertain who, in fact, is responsible for the higher policy in regard to the Crown lands. Clause 1 says:
The persons for the time being holding office as Commissioners of Crown Lands shall by that name be a body corporate for all purposes.I have done my best to find out who these Commissioners are. We are making them a body corporate, we are giving them an official seal, and giving them power under that seal to dispose of public property amounting to millions of pounds, but there is no arrangement for the appointment of these Commissioners, neither in this Act nor any other Act. When I raised the matter in the Select Commit- 1287 tee I found that at one time there had been three Commissioners. I have never yet discovered how those three came to be appointed, nor how there came to be three. When one of them died no attempt was made to fill his place. On inquiring who were the two remaining Commissioners, I found that one is the Minister of Agriculture, ex officio, and the other the permanent civil servant at the head of the particular Department doing the work. To describe these two men as Commissioners is a gross misuse of the term. A commissioner, if the term has any meaning at all, is something other than a permanent civil servant, and something other than the political head of a Government Department. He is a person independent of the ordinary discipline of a Civil Service Department. He is a man of independent status. He is independent, also, of the votes of the electorate. If we are going to have Commissioners let us have Commissioners. Do not let us have what we have got in fact, the Commissioners of Crown lands merely a Department of the Board of Agriculture's work, about which the President of the Board of Agriculture knows absolutely nothing and cares less. He is not here to-night, and he was not present when the Second Reading was taken.
§ The SOLICITOR - GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip)Yes, he was.
§ Mr. MAXTONPerhaps the right hon. Gentleman's recollection is better than mine, and I am not proposing to dispute his statement.
§ The SOLICITOR-GENERALIf the hon. Member is referring to the Minister of Agriculture, he was present, because he moved the Second Reading.
§ Mr. MAXTONYes, I remember now. What was wrong with my recollection was this—when any point was raised which involved a little knowledge of the Bill it was the right hon. Gentleman the Solicitor-General who had to deal with it, because the Minister of Agriculture obviously knew nothing about it—
§ Mr. STEPHENHe said so on the Second Reading.
§ Mr. MAXTONNeither the Minister of Agriculture nor the Solicitor-General took the trouble to be adequately represented in a responsible way on the Select 1288 Committee. The whole direction and administration of this public property is in the hands of the Minister of Agriculture, from whose ordinary Parliamentary and administrative work it is miles away. The House of Commons and the public generally are being led to believe that the direction is in the hands of Commissioners, men, presumably, like the Forestry Commissioners or like the Electricity Commissioners or the Board set up to look after broadcasting. They believe there is a special body of Commissioners, with special knowledge, looking after this property. Nothing of the kind. One Commissioner is the Minister of Agriculture, and the other Commissioner is a permanent civil servant.
The Secretary of State for Scotland and the Lord Advocate are bringing forward a Bill, which has been before the House already, but has not made much progress—at the moment we do not see much hope for it—called the Reorganisation of Offices (Scotland) Bill. They say in that Bill that in Scotland we do not need any of these Commissioners, or these special Boards composed of expert people brought in from outside, to administer or advise a particular Department, but that the work can best be done by the permanent civil servant acting under the Minister. That is the claim made in regard to the administration of Scottish affairs, but in regard to the administration of Crown lands in England the claim is made that a body of Commissioners must be appointed.
I want to know what is the policy of the Government. Do they believe in having Commissioners or in having a Minister to direct all the different functions that may come within the scope of his Department? If they do not believe in Commissioners I ask them why? If they believe that the permanent civil servant can efficiently do the work I want to be told why they put the country to the expense of setting up this year boards to direct broadcasting and electricity, involving a very considerable expense to the community If they believe this is necessary then we ought to know the reason why. If Crown lands are to be placed under the administration of the Minister of Agriculture then let this Bill say so distinctly. If they are to come 1289 under the administration of Commissioners then let us have men specially set aside to devote themselves to this task, men who will act independently and who will be Perfectly free to do this particular work.
§ The SOLICITOR-GENERALThe hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) who has just sat down was a member of the Select Committee, and he has given, quite accurately, so far as I heard him, the number of the Commissioners, and has mentioned who are the Commissioners. As the hon. Member has stated, the Commissioners are a permanent civil servant and the Minister of Agriculture for the time being. There is power to appoint a third Commissioner. The hon. Member has made a criticism on the ground that these are not proper Commissioners. I do not know where he gets his meaning of the word "Commissioner" from. I understand by the word "Commissioner" a person to whom a commission is entrusted.
§ Mr. MAXTONYou are thinking of a commissionaire.
§ The SOLICITOR-GENERALI am not thinking either of a commissionaire or a bookmaker, but I am thinking of a Commissioner. Whether the hon. Member has misunderstood the word "Commissioner" or not I do not know, but these two gentlemen are entrusted with certain duties which would otherwise be carried out by the person who is the legal owner of the land. The hon. Member for Bridgeton referred to the Forestry Commissioners. They are entrusted with a particular duty. The Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty are Commissioners appointed to carry out the duties of the office of the Lord High Admiral which is in commission. I hope those illustrations will be sufficient to enlighten the hon. Member for Bridgeton as to what is a Commissioner.
§ Mr. MAXTONMy point is that the definition which the hon. and learned Gentleman has given would cover a message boy in any Government Department, and he should treat my point quite seriously.
§ 9.0 p.m.
§ The SOLICITOR-GENERALI am treating the point quite seriously, and I was giving the hon. Member credit for 1290 stating a serious argument. I have given him a serious and accurate answer. If the hon. Member's observations about Commissioners were intended to be facetious, then I was mistaken. The next criticism about the Commissioners was that there were only two of them, and that is quite true. I think the hon. Member also said something about economy. After all, it is a small step towards economy to have two people to do this work, if they can do it properly, instead of three. Of course, somebody must do the work. If the hon. Member for Bridgeton thinks that there ought to be three Commissioners, then he cannot turn round and say we should have no people to do the work. The present position is that the Minister of Agriculture is ex officio one of the Commissioners. That is a great advantage to hon. Members who might desire to discuss the work of the Commissioners, because they will have an opportunity of cross-examining the Minister by questions in this House and by way of debate. It was, moreover, no rusty and stale Act of Parliament that decreed this, but an Act passed, not in the heyday of any wicked Tory Government, but in 1906, and that was the time when the Minister of Agriculture was made an ex officio member of the Commissioners. I hope it will satisfy the hon. Member for Bridgeton that all is well in the administration of Crown lands to-day when I tell him that the right hon. Gentleman, who was formerly Minister of Agriculture, said on the Second Reading:
Crown lands are a model to me of the way lands should be dealt with.When I have an unsolicited testimonial of that character, I think it is advisable that I should call attention to it. It seems to me quite unnecessary to provide that there shall be three Commissioners, because there may be three at the present time. The only question is whether the appointment of three should be voluntary or compulsory. Another point raised is that the Commissioners shall be appointed by the Treasury. We think it is better that one of the Commissioners should be the Minister of Agriculture who is not appointed by the Treasury, and it seems sufficient that we should maintain the existing practice by which the other Commissioners are appointed under the Sign Manual, the lands being held in 1291 the right of the Crown. I hope the hon. Member for Bridgeton will see that neither in theory nor practice is it necessary to press his Amendment, and that he will agree, after the opinions I have expressed, that it is not necessary to consider this particular proposal any further.
§ Mr. TINKERI want to support the Amendment for one or two purposes. When the Bill came before the House for Second Reading, it was very late at night, and my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) protested—
§ The SOLICITOR-GENERALI must interrupt the hon. Member, if he will allow me. I do not think the Bill was brought in late at night, because I notice that it was immediately followed by a Debate on a private Member's Motion which began at a quarter past eight.
§ Mr. BUCHANANWhat happened was that it came on at 10 minutes past eight, and we could have talked the Bill out, but we agreed to allow it to go through on the understanding that, when the matter was again raised, a full and ample discussion would be allowed.
§ The SOLICITOR-GENERALI do not want to keep on interrupting, but it will be just as well to get the matter clear. No fewer than 40 columns of the OFFICIAL REPORT were taken up by the Second Reading Debate.
§ Mr. BUCHANANThat may be quite true, but the point is that it was only on a special plea being made that the Bill would be further examined that we agreed to let it go through. You have counted the pages, but have not read the matter.
§ The CHAIRMANI must point out that the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) is in possession of the Committee.
§ Mr. TINKERI stand corrected, but my recollection was that we had not sufficient time. Speaking for myself, I had no idea at that moment what was meant by Crown lands. I had a vague idea that they belonged to the King, and that in some way or other he got the Revenue, but that was all I knew. Since then I have followed the provisions of the Bill closely, and have also read the 1292 findings of the Committee, of which my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) was a member, and I find that Crown lands are a more important matter than many Members think. The revenues amount to £1,400,000, and there are investments other than in lands amounting to £2,500,000. There was also a sale of land last year to the value of £188,000, and land was bought for £189,000. It therefore becomes apparent that the matter is rather a big one, which warrants the giving of some attention to it by Parliament. I claim that, in so big a matter as this, it is necessary that Parliament should know exactly who controls these lands. During the discussions of the Committee it was shown that the control was left in the hands of two persons, one a civil servant and the other the Minister of Agriculture; and, judging by the Report, it would seem that the Minister of Agriculture really sanctions what the civil servant tells him to do. In a matter like this, greater control ought to be exercised, and three Commissioners ought to be appointed by the Treasury or by this House, so that from time to time we should know exactly what is taking place. I do not think that land in the possession of the State ought to be sold to private individuals without the most careful inquiry and without the control of Parliament, and that is a point which I desire should be closely watched. The Minister of Agriculture, whoever he may be, may be acting in the interests of his party and in the interest of the State, but I think the whole control ought not to be vested in him. For these reasons I hope the Amendment will be pressed to a Division, in order that Parliament may have the fullest possible control over a matter like this.
I should like to ask the Solicitor-General what is paid to the Sovereign when he hands over the lands at the commencement of his reign. I do not know, Mr. Hope, whether you will allow me to put this question, but, under Clause 1 of the Bill, the whole power is vested in the Commissioners, and I understand that, when a new Sovereign takes over, he hands over the lands to the Commissioners, and a certain sum of money is paid to him out of the Civil List or something of the sort, and I would like to know exactly the value of 1293 that transaction. I think that matters like this ought to come right, into the open, so that everyone will know exactly what is taking place. Very few people, I think, realise the extent to which the Crown—
§ The CHAIRMANWe cannot have a Debate on this matter. The hon. Member asked a question, and I rather treated it on what lawyers call the de minimis principle. The Solicitor-General might answer that question, but we cannot have a Debate on the whole question of the tenure of Crown lands.
§ Mr. TINKERI was wondering whether I was in order. However, you have allowed me to put the question. It is for this purpose that I am supporting this Amendment, so that we may have the fullest possible inquiry and knowledge as to the Crown lands and their value.
§ Mr. MAXTONWith reference to the ruling which you have just given, this Bill raises all the questions of how Crown lands are held, how they are let, how they are disposed of, whether they are bought, or sold, or leased, or anything else. Is it not in order, in discussing the question whether the Commissioners should be set up or not, and what powers they have, to consider in very great detail the duties that they perform?
§ The CHAIRMANHardly on an Amendment that the Treasury should appoint them.
§ Mr. MARDY JONESI should like to ask your guidance on this point. I have a very vivid recollection of the Debate on the Second Reading of this Bill, and we did allow it to go through, without taking up all the time that we might have taken in discussing it, on the understanding that it would be taken upstairs to a. Select Committee, and, that when the Report of that Committee was brought back to this House—which I take it is the stage in which we are now—we should have an ample opportunity of discussing the Report as throwing light upon the Bill itself. Certainly, we should not so readily have agreed to the Second Reading if we had been given to understand that we could not debate the whole question of the Bill at this stage in the light of the Report of the 1294 Select Committee. I wish to ascertain from the Government what is their policy on the whole question of the ownership and disposal of Crown lands.
§ The CHAIRMANThat is a question that could, I should imagine, without prejudice to what Mr. Speaker might think, be raised on the Third Reading, but it certainly cannot be raised on this Amendment.
§ Mr. JONESCould I hand in a manuscript Amendment at this moment to delete Clause 1, in order to give us an opportunity of discussing Clause 1 as it is?
§ The CHAIRMANIn Committee an Amendment to delete a Clause is not in order; the Question has to be put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." Whether the hon. Member's observations on that will be in order, I cannot tell until the question arises.
§ Mr. KIRKWOODFurther on that point, I would like to ask your guidance, because the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. (Pinker) was stopped because he was asking how much money accrued to the Crown—that is, the King, though we are not allowed to use his name in this House. I want to know how much money went to the King on that occasion. Whenever this matter comes up, we are turned down, and we have the greatest difficulty in finding out what is the income that the Royal Family has.
§ The CHAIRMANThat cannot possibly arise on this Amendment; the hon. Member cannot pursue that point.
§ Mr. KIRKWOODThe money that is coming from the Crown Lands is income, and it is going to the King. Surely, we are perfectly justified and entitled—or we are entitled to nothing at all—
§ The CHAIRMANThis is not in order. Moreover, the very point that was put by the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) shows, I think, that it is really not relevant to this matter at all, because the revenue from the Crown Lands is surrendered by the Sovereign at the beginning of each reign. The Civil List is granted by special Act of Parliament. The hon. Member asked, I understand, what the amount was in the last reign. That, I thought, might be answered, but 1295 it is impossible to go further into the constitutional position. The income of the Royal Family is settled by the Civil List and the Sovereign does not get the revenues from the Crown Lands.
§ Mr. BUCHANANThe Solicitor-General must be aware that, the Act of 1906 did not in fact appoint the three Commissioners. There were only two members who attended regularly. One was the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) and the other was an hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite. Mr. Bidder said:
Section 1 is as follows:The President of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries for the time being shall, by virtue of his office, be a Commissioner of Woods,'which to me is not giving him a definite appointment as Commissioner of Crown Lands. I may be simple. I know I am. I have all the evidences of it.
§ The SOLICITOR-GENERALIf the hon. Member will read the two following paragraphs, he will find all the information.
§ Mr. MAXTONNo, he will not.
§ The CHAIRMANMay I point out that the hon. Member for Gorbals is in possession.
§ Mr. MAXTONCan the Solicitor-General find any place where the Commissioners of Crown lands are established? I could not find it.
§ Mr. BUCHANANI am very anxious for information. I was going to read on:
The President of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries for the time being shall, by virtue of his office, be a Commissioner of Woods under the Crown Lands Act, 1851, in addition to the Commissioners whom His Majesty has power to appoint under that Act.That is not appointing a Commissioner of the Crown lands. In making a reference to the system of appointment, Mr. Bidder said:This is only as to which servant of the Sovereign shall look after them. They are still in the hands of the Government. On the change of the Crown they could all be resumed by the Crown.On page 4, you again find there is no reference to the appointment of the Commissioners of Crown lands. Who ap- 1296 pointed the Commissioners and whence did they derive their power? They were not appointed by the 1906 Act nor the 1851 Act. They were appointed First Commissioners of Woods. You ought to try to take into account what the ordinary person thinks, and you have no right to take advantage of what he thinks and coin a fancy phrase to which you can give another interpretation. What does the ordinary man think a Commissioner is? It may be argued that we all know what a Solicitor-General is. Anyone who wanted to be foolish might describe him as a General who solicits. The popular mind thinks Commissioners are similar to those appointed under the Electricity Act or the Broadcasting Act. They may think the Commissioners are apart altogether from a Minister who is acting in his capacity as political head of a Department. I wish to ask, first, under what Act are they appointed? Can the Solicitor-General tell me why he is appointed a Commissioner of Woods instead of a Commissioner of Crown lands. At what date was the title changed? What power have you had to alter it since, and is not the appointment by the Minister of Agriculture totally illegal and contrary to the spirit and meaning of the original Act? I hope the Solicitor-General will spare two minutes to answer these questions.
§ The SOLICITOR-GENERALI am always willing to respond to an appeal made so kindly. The hon. Member is, obviously, in search of information, and when I am able to give him any information, I am glad to do so. At the same time, I must not detain the Committee long. The title of the gentlemen who look after the Crown lands has varied. At one time, over 100 years ago, they were called Surveyor-Generals. The change from the expression "Commissioner of Woods" took place recently, in 1923, when the establishment of the Forestry Commissioners made it undesirable to have two bodies in which the word "Forest" appeared. The title was "Commissioner of Woods and Forests" at one time, and when the Forestry Commission was established, there appeared to be a danger of confusion between the two bodies, and by an Order made in 1924 the Commissioners of Woods and Forests received a new name which is the 1297 name they bear to-day, namely, the Commissioners of Crown Lands. The Acts of Parliament which empowered the appointment of two persons to act as Commissioners of Crown Lands are the Crown Lands Act, 1829, and the Crown Lands Act, 1851. I do not know whether this short narrative will satisfy the thirst of the hon. Gentleman for information, but I think that is as much as it would be proper to give.
§ Mr. TINKERThere was a question in the Report of the Select Committee asking what had been paid to the Sovereign for estates.
§ The SOLICITOR-GENERALIt is not the rule, as the right hon. Gentleman opposite, the late Minister of Agriculture, knows, to speak of the Sovereign being paid anything for having owned the estate. By long constitutional practice the Crown lands are surrendered, and the revenue from them goes into the Treasury. His Majesty receives from Parliament, under the Civil List Act, which, of course, dates back to 1910 in relation to his present Majesty, certain sums. I do not bear them in mind, and they seem to me to have little to do with this Bill, but I think they would be found to be somewhere in the neighbourhood of £500,000.
§ The CHAIRMANI understood the question was what was the value of the revenue surrendered after the last demise of the Crown. I do not think we can go into this further point.
§ Mr. TINKERThe point I am trying to get at is this. It appeared in the Report of the Committee where we read:
Question 75: What I understand Mr. Stocks to paint out is that there are lands that belong to the Sovereign, and at the beginning of each Reign the Sovereign hands over the lands to the Commissioners of Crown Lands in return for an income paid into a fund. What is the fund?Answer: The Civil List.I am only seeking for information. I am not seeking to enter into a private matter.
§ The SOLICITOR-GENERALI have given it.
§ Mr. BUXTONPerhaps I may say a word in reference to what was urged by the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) a few minutes ago. He desired that 1298 Parliamentary control should be established over this Department and that is exactly what was desired when the change was made in 1906. The Act of 1906, it appears to me, gave to the Government and the Minister of Agriculture just that control which my hon. Friend desires, and it was owing to that that the Crown lands came to be utilised for agricultural experiments, particularly in connection with small holdings. That method, I think, meets my hon. Friend's view, and it is precisely that method which he and I would like to see applied to the Forestry Commission. It is by making the Minister a member that you get control, and I do not think that from that standpoint the position can be improved upon what it is now.
§ Mr. MAXTONI am not at all satisfied by the Solicitor-General's description of how these Commissioners of Crown Lands have arisen. I have given serious study to this, and have tried to find out where they were established. I cannot find it. I know the 1851 Act, but that was a different body of Commissioners altogether. I know that from them was taken the work of the Forestry Commission and the work of the First Commissioner of Works Department and the residue, after that work had been taken away has been called the Commissioners of Crown Lands, but I do not know where they were set up. I endeavoured to find out in the Select Committee, and I asked a responsible representative who appointed them, but he did not know.
§ The SOLICITOR-GENERALI have stated that this evening.
§ Mr. MAXTONHe stated that the Minister of Agriculture appoints them.
§ The SOLICITOR - GENERALNo. The Minister of Agriculture is ex officio by Act of Parliament and the two other Commissioners are appointed under the Sign Manual.
§ Mr. KIRKWOODWhat is that?
§ Mr. MAXTONThe hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. Kirkwood) expresses my position, and I am not ashamed to admit it. Hon. Members opposite tried when that was mentioned to look wise as if they understood what was meant by the Sign Manual. It did not convey any- 1299 thing to me. I would be glad to find out what is the. Sign Manual that empowers the Minister of Agriculture to be a Commissioner of Crown Lands and select whoever else he pleases. The whole position is irregular, and I honestly put down this Amendment with the intention to regularise the position. This matter is absolutely of no moment to me as an individual. I would abolish the lot and the Electricity Commission and the Broadcast Commission. They are of no importance to me; but I was sent to this House to do responsible work and to examine this Bill. I tried to find out honestly and squarely. I could have killed this Bill in Committee. On the second day of the Committee the Government representatives, seven in number, had so little interest in it that only one junior Member on the second, bench was there. The hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Brown) and myself formed the majority on that Committee, and we could have killed it stone dead at that stage. I was very much tempted to do it, and I do not think that the slight gains that are made in the machinery would justify the House being troubled about it.
I make this proposal to put this irregular matter on a sound, sensible footing. The hon. and learned Gentleman, instead of welcoming that help, tries to come forward with a definition of what a Commissioner was. He knows that is nothing, if one wants to make fun of it, but it is really not right in this House where we are supposed to do responsible work. He knows that a Commissioner in political matters is a very definite Commissioner. It does not mean a man who runs with a message in the way that a messenger boy does. It does not mean that, does it?
§ The SOLICITOR-GENERALindicated dissent.
§ Mr. MAXTONSometimes the hon. and learned Gentleman nods his head vertically and at other times horizontally, but never sufficiently to endanger the stability of his head, unfortunately. It means something more than a messenger boy. He is a person who is carrying out a commission. If the hon. and learned Gentleman calls one of his junior boys in the Solicitor-General's Department to go 1300 over to the Lord Advocate for Scotland to tell him exactly what he has to say on a particular Measure, he carries that in an envelope and is carrying out a commission. The hon. and learned Gentleman himself would not dream of calling that messenger a Commissioner. Why attempt to get the votes of the hon. Members sitting behind him by a trivial argument like that? He will get their votes in any case. He knows that the cattle will be called home at the appointed time without Mary.
§ The CHAIRMANThe substance of the Amendment is that the Commissioners shall be three in number, and be appointed by the Treasury. This bucolic reference is quite irrelevant to the point at issue.
§ Mr. MAXTONSurely, all sorts of animals roam over those lands. What I am endeavouring to do, is to persuade the Minister to accept the Amendment. I think the point with which I was dealing just now is quite close to the matter in hand, and much closer than a lot of things I have said here on various Measures. He knows perfectly well that a more definite meaning is attached to the word "Commissioner" than the very vague general phrase he tries to make. A commissioner is a man with a definite standing. If he had said he was a person holding His Majesty's Commission, as in the Army, a parson who has some sort of independence of ordinary departmental control, then I would have accepted that as a fair attempt to deal with the subject. He did not do that. I suggest that if we are going to have Commissioners, let us have men who can sit and make decisions and bend their energies and their thoughts to this problem. I have tried, in this Amendment, to meet that point of view. No Commissioner of Crown Lands was ever appointed. There is no Statute that Entitles Commissioners of Crown Lands to sit. I am trying to make the thing legal and statutory. Listen to this bit of cross-examination during a Select Committee. Remember, this is the one man who really knows something about the business—a permanent official in the department, and when the hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the statement of my right hon. Friend, the late Minister of Agriculture, and the tribute he had paid to the administration 1301 of the Crown Lands, he was merely repeating what I have already said, namely, that the responsible officials in that department were doing their work very efficiently. It was the higher control, the general application of policy that was wrong, not the day-by-day administration of the business. It is to get that higher control right that I am taking this trouble to-day, with, very little encouragement from the hon. and learned Gentleman who has been left with the job of handling the work of the Ministry of Agriculture, who has run away. This bit of cross-examination is on page 11 of the Report of the Select Committee. I said to this responsible solicitor to the Commissioners of Crown Lands:
Do I understand that there is a vacancy for a Commissioner at the present time?The reply was:No, I do not think there is a vacancy. I think they have decided there shall only be two Commissioners, one commission held by Mr. Gaye who is here, and the other held by the Minister of Agriculture.I said,When you say 'they have decided,' whom do you mean?He replied:I ought perhaps to have said 'you.'I said,I am just as anxious as you are to avoid responsibility.He said:I am not sure, but I think it is under the Act.There is no Act, so it is not under the Act. He does not know who appoints thorn. Nobody knows who appoints them; nobody here and nobody in the whole country. I wish hon. Members to realise that there is a point of some considerable constitutional importance here—you have got three Commissioners to-day charged with the task of looking after Crown Lands. There is an argument for three Commissioners and there is an argument for one Commissioner, but there certainly is no argument for two Commissioners. That is the one possible number that is quite useless. That point is obvious. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why"?] There is no independence of judgment there. You are going to have stalemate if there is a serious difference of opinion.
§ Mr. AUSTIN HOPKINSONThe same thing occurs if there are four, six, eight or 10.
§ Mr. MAXTONI agree. The same thing would apply to an even number, with certain differences. If you have four men, you may have one who is prepared to act as a compromiser or peacemaker between two other very harsh opinions. If you have two men and they start damning each other, there is very little chance of compromise. The hon. Member knows from his own temperament exactly how that sort of thing works. If he and the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Rose) were together they would not agree for more than three minutes, whereas, if I were there, I believe I could persuade both of them to come together. There are three Commissioners. One of them dies. We are left with two Commissioners. One of them holds his title, as alleged by the Solicitor-General, under the Act of 1906. But when reference is made to the 1906 Act, there is no appointment of a Commissioner of Crown Lands there. So that the Minister of Agriculture is doing a job for which he has got no legal sanction at all. He is acting quite illegally in calling himself the Chief Commissioner of Crown Lands. He could have called himself a Commissioner of Forests. He could have called himself a Commissioner of Woods and Forests, but the one thing he is not entitled to call himself is a Commissioner of Crown Lands. He is carrying on an illicit traffic when he is disposing of these Crown Lands.
Then, the Solicitor-General tells us that the other Commissioner is appointed by Sign Manual. I should like to hear the right hon. Gentleman explain what exactly "Sign Manual" means. He is not showing any disposition to do so. I have made one or two tentative suggestions to him that he might rise to explain to a waiting House and a waiting country exactly what Sign Manual means, but up to now he has not responded. Perhaps it is for that explanation that he has sent for the Minister of Agriculture. One of the three Commissioners dies, there are two left, and it seems to be a matter of no importance whether the vacancy shall be filled or not. If it be of no importance about the third Commissioner, then it is of no importance 1303 about the second one at all. The Solicitor-General tries to make some petty point about economy, and that I should be gratified at economy that is brought about by doing with two instead of having three Commissioners. Of course, we are all very anxious to economise about the things on which we think we ought to economise. We could economise, for instance, on the Chinese expedition and things of that description, and that would save much more than by dropping one Commissioner.
You do not save a great deal of money by discarding one unpaid Commissioner. In fairness to the Commissioner who died, I am not suggesting that he was not an unpaid Commissioner. We know there are a great number of men who are doing Commissioners' work and who are unpaid, and I hope there is still that amount of enthusiasm for public service to provide a Commissioner for Crown Lands who does not require to be remunerated; but if you had to get some person who is dependent upon the income he might secure you could get such a person with the necessary anxiety to do public service without paying him a great amount for it. The general direction of the Crown Lands throughout the country would be justified by the small additional expenditure. Therefore, with the best wish in the world—I said when I got up that I was not anxious to destroy the harmony that has characterised the proceedings—I am afraid that unless the Minister of Agriculture or the Solicitor General gives me some more satisfactory explanation of where these Commissioners go. from whence they come, and how they are going to operate, I shall be compelled to press my Amendment.
§ Mr. MARDY JONESI hope the Minister for Agriculture will give us some better reason than he has done. The Solicitor-General has said that the system is very antiquated, and he gave us a little of the history of the last 100 years, but, if it be antiquated, why not modernise it as proposed in this Amendment? Let us have a definite, record by the acceptance of this Amendment of the appointment of the three Commissioners in this way. Surely, there can be no objection to regulating the appointment of these Commissioners? We have had no 1304 evidence up to the present of the origin of their particular functions or of the changes, and it might be a real convenience to the Government to accept this Amendment, which I support.
§ Mr. STEPHENI would like to ask the Solicitor-General to try to make the matter a little more clear than thus far he has been able to do. As I understand it, what he said was, that there were certain individuals who were called Surveyors General over a hundred years ago, and by legislation in 1829 and 1851 there were statutory provisions made for the appointment of individuals, either Commissioners of Woods and Forests, Surveyors General, or other officials. Then under the 1906 Act the Minister of Agriculture was made ex officio a member of Woods and Forests, and under the 1924 Act the Commissioners of Woods and Forests ceased to be Commissioners because of the fact that the Forestry Commissioners had been appointed, and there was a desire that there should be no confusion in regard to the Commissioners of Woods and Forests and the Forestry Commission. I think I begin to see light in connection with this matter. Perhaps it would not trouble the Solicitor-General too much if lie would read us from the Act the relevant sentence in which this exchange is made in title from Commissioner of Woods and Forests to Commissioner of Crown Lands. If I could get the Solicitor-General to give me the definite reference or quote the paragraph, then I would be able to follow the history of this Crown Lards Commission and would understand the position.
§ Mr. KIRKWOODI would not have intervened at this late hour but for the fact that it is beginning to dawn on me that there is something fishy about this Bill, something not just what is generally supposed to be playing cricket, and that the Government that happen to be in power at the moment are doing something that is shady, although this is not the only time that the Government have done shady things. Again, it is beginning to dawn on me that it is just possible that this is one of the shady things that the ruling class of this country is capable of doing and posing that it is quite a friendly thing, and that it is for the benefit of humanity in general, because it appears there are some Labour men who are quite 1305 friendly disposed towards this Bill. But it is not the first time that because of the generous spirit that prevails in this House among Labour men we have been let down. We are not going to be let down so easily on this occasion, I hope, because the Solicitor-General is sitting there on his seat quite tight. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] Being an individual who has never tasted strong drink in my life, it never dawned on me that I was saying anything that could be taken to be wrong.
§ The CHAIRMANI presume that the hon. Member is going to address himself to the Amendment, and I invite him to do so.
§ Mr. KIRKWOODI thank you, Sir, for that breathing space. I was asking for a reply from the Solicitor-General to the questions that have been submitted from this side of the House. I was pointing out that it was evident that the questions that were being put to him were of such a character that he would have difficulty in replying to them, because he has sent for the all-powerful, wise and illustrious Minister of Agriculture, to whom the Bill applies, and who should reply, because he is well paid for the job. The question to which I want a reply from either of the two bright chaps is this: Who appoints these Commissioners? That question has never been answered. Hon. Members would think that we were sent here from Scotland just for the fun of the thing. We were sent here to keep our eyes on the Tories, because we are going to do all we can to chase the Tories out of Scotland. This is another indication that there is something wrong. Why cannot those who are in charge of the Bill—I do not know how many of them there are—tell us who appoints the Commissioners? There is money involved here. You have two or three cushy jobs, as we say among the working classes; jobs that are well paid. Who is going to appoint those individuals, and who has given the people who will appoint them the authority to do so? We cannot find out. Our representative, the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), whom the House is bound to admit has taken an active part and who is an intelligent man, and who therefore would take an intelligent interest in this matter—we gave one of 1306 our most brilliant colleagues to use his brilliant intellect for your benefit—is evidently the only individual who is taking an intelligent interest in the business under discussion. Because he has done so, instead of being treated as he ought and being met with fair and open dealing when he gave his report, which he amplified to-day, we get what is usual from the Solicitor-General. We are told about some Sign Manual. You would think it was King Manuel of Portugal about whom they are talking.
When my colleague was on his feet the Solicitor-General was rubbing his brow. That, as an hon. Friend on our Front Bench suggests, was the sign manual. But all the talk we may do here, and all the holding up of the House that we may do—because we are going to hold this House up, and you had better advise them, Mr. Chief Whip, to give us an answer if you want to get away—
§ The CHAIRMANI would point out to the hon. Member that he must address himself to me.
§ Mr. KIRKWOODI apologise to you, Sir, for addressing the Chief Whip. Really, I was addressing him, through you, although I did not happen to mention your name, because he is the most unpleasant-looking fellow who sits on the Government Front Bench.
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Member should revise his sense of what is humorous.
§ 10.0 p.m.
§ Mr. KIRKWOODI did not catch that, so I am not able to reply to it, humorously or otherwise. If I had caught it, probably I should have replied humorously, but it just depends on how I feel at the moment. I will forgive you for that also, Sir. We want an answer from the Government, or we shall divide the House. We want to know who has the power to appoint these Commissioners, and whether the Government has arrogated to itself, unconstitutionally, the power to appoint them. There is no Act on the Statute Book which gives them the power to do so. I want to warn the Government, who pose as being so tremendously powerful. They have got a good deal of their own way; with their might they have rushed through one of the most terrible Bills that has ever been 1307 before this House, so far as the working classes are concerned, and the result is that they are beginning to be so confident of their strength that they think they can do anything they jolly well like, and that they can treat us with contempt, because that is what it amounts to.
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Member must address himself to the Amendment, which is the appointment of three Commissioners by the Treasury.
§ Mr. KIRKWOODI agree, Mr. Hope. I hope that you see my point, which is that I am anxious to get a reply to the questions, which have never been answered. There is no other way in which we can get a reply than by reasoning together here. We have to force a reply out of the Government, whether they will give it or not. We do not desire to see physical force used in this House. Time and again, we have used our influence, strange as it may seem, against physical violence being used here. It has been used against some of my colleagues, but we are going to block the business constitutionally, of course, Sir, under your guidance. You will tell us when we are acting correctly.
§ The CHAIRMANI must ask the hon. Member for the second time to address himself to the Amendment.
§ Mr. KIRKWOODI want a reply to the questions put by my colleagues. We want to know who appoints the Commissioners, who gave those who appoint them the power to do so and under what Act the Government have taken this action.
§ Mr. STEPHENI want to put it to the Solicitor-General that he might have acceded to my request and told me under which Statute the transfer of title was made. I have been looking at the Minutes of Evidence taken by the Select Committee and I find that it states that it was not under a Statute that the change was made. One of the witnesses, Mr. Bidder, was asked by the Chairman:
The Crown Land Commissioners, if I remember rightly, succeeded the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, did they not?
Mr. BIDDERYes, a year or two ago. I think it was 1924. Of course, it is only a change of name. On the appointment of the Forestry Commissioners, I think it was found inconvenient to continue the Com- 1308 missioners of Woods and Forests, and their names changed by an Order to 'Commissioners of Crown Lands.'"
Are we to take it that the authority for the change of title was made by an Order and not by Statute?
§ The SOLICITOR-GENERALIt was made by the Forestry (Title of Commissioners of Woods) Order, 1924.
§ Mr. STEPHENUnder what Statute was that Order made? I take it that there is a Statute for the issue of that Order. It seems to me to be the one missing link in connection with the evidence, and perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be able to satisfy me on that point.
§ Mr. JOHNSTONSurely the hon. and learned Gentleman might quite well accede to the terms of this Amendment. The experience we have had in this House with the Forestry Commission for whom there is nobody to answer here—and public money is being spent without effective Parliamentary control—is that the defence put up by the Government to criticisms of that extraordinary situation is that at the expiration of the particular period the matter will come under revision. We have been led to believe by the present Financial Secretary to the Treasury that he, at all events, will have no more of it. What my hon. Friends are asking for, I think quite reasonably, is that we shall have three Commissioners appointed by the Treasury. It will then be perfectly clear that this House will have the right of criticism, through the Minister, of any operation in the way of selling or disposing of Crown lands. Otherwise, it seems to me that the disposal of what is virtually public property will be placed in precisely the same position, so far as Parliamentary criticism is concerned, as the present operations of the Forestry Commission.
Mr. GUINNESSThe hon. Gentleman would defeat his own end if this Amend-were accepted. The object of appointing the Minister of Agriculture an ex officio Commissioner of Crown Lands was that there should be some Minister answerable to Parliament for anything which Parliament might desire to know. The hon. Member has quoted the case of the 1309 Forestry Commission, and his complaint is that in the case of that Commission there is no adequate means of Parliamentary criticism, and yet he now wishes to put the Commissioners of Crown lands back into the same position as the Forestry Commission. The Forestry Commission is under the Treasury, and hon. Members opposite never tire of telling us that that system does not give them adequate opportunity of criticism and information. For that reason, instead of this Amendment giving them better control, it would remove that control and that responsibility to Parliament which already exists.
§ Mr. JOHNSTONThe right hon. Gentleman says, if I understand him rightly, that this Bill appointed the Minister of Agriculture as a Commissioner of Crown lands. There is nothing in this Bill which appears to give the House of Commons any right of criticism of the right hon. Gentleman's actions, so far as the Crown Lands Commissioners are concerned.
§ Mr. RITSONI have been amazed at the attitude of the Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), whose abilities no one questions, unfortunately is taken sometimes for a humourist when he is a statesman. He is pleading for information on an important matter dealing with £2,500,000. The Minister of Agriculture seems to be a somnambulist. He seems to walk in his sleep. If I may take an example, there is at the present time a Bill going through this House, the Trade Union Bill, and the Government say they are so anxious that members of trade unions should be protected and informed as to how their funds stand that they are taking away trade union liberties. That Bill has not been asked for by the workers. Here, is this case, the country has a right to ask for information about Crown lands and one would have thought that the Government would have been only too willing to give it. One would expect that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture would, in his own interests, have given us all the possible explanations. We talk about feeling in the country, and about patriotic feeling, and we are asking for 1310 information about the Crown lands and how the Crown Land Commissioners are appointed, and we cannot get the information. We have the fullest right to information on behalf of the public generally.
§ Mr. MAXTONAgain, I express my regret at intervening in this discussion. In answer to the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen), the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General referred him to the Act of 1923. I have taken the trouble to get the Act. I have gone through it very carefully, and I am afraid that, with the best will in the world, I cannot find anything that sets up Crown Land Commissioners in that Act. There is nothing in it which entitles the Minister of Agriculture or any other Government Department to issue an Order setting up Crown Land Commissioners.
§ The SOLICITOR-GENERALThe hon. Gentleman is unwittingly under a misapprehension. The hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) asked me what was the Act of Parliament which empowered an Order to be made, and I named the Forestry (Transfer of Woods) Act, 1923, as the Act which empowers the Order to be made. If the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) looks at Section 4, he will find the authority for my statement.
§ Mr. MAXTONThis is much worse even than I had anticipated:
Where at the time of the transfer of any property under this Act any proceedings are pending to which any other Government Department"—an existing Government Department not a new Government Department—or the Forestry Commissioners are a party, and such proceedings have reference to property transferred under this Act,"—
§ The SOLICITOR-GENERALindicated dissent.
§ Mr. MAXTONAm I wrong?
§ The SOLICITOR-GENERALThe hon. Member is reading the wrong part. That is not Section 4.
§ Mr. MAXTONSection 4! This is not quite so bad. By exercising a fair amount of elasticity the Minister could, I admit quite frankly, under this Section claim that he had the right. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Yes, I am making the 1311 admission quite genuinely, and a tremendous lot of time would have been saved had the hon. and learned Member referred me to this Section before I went on to the Select Committee:
His Majesty may by Order in Council provide for altering the title of the Commissioners of Woods in such manner as may seem appropriate, and, if such provision is made, the Crown Lands Acts, 1829 to 1913, and any other Act or instrument relating to the Commissioners shall have effect accordingly with the necessary modifications.There is nothing in that Section about three Commissioners or two Commissioners, and I am certain that the Section was never intended to set up a new Government Department, as we are now doing, with its special legislation, special powers and special duties. I admit that, by stretching this Section to its very widest, the Minister could claim the right, but judging from the time that it has taken him and his assistants to discover this Section, he recognises that it is straining the Statute very far to make this the basis for setting up what is, to all intents and purposes, a new Department.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
§ Mr. BUXTONMay I ask whether the Minister of Agriculture has any statement to make in regard to the adaptation of the town planning schemes to Crown lands?
Mr. GUINNESSWe are considering this matter, and we hope to be in a posítion to bring up a Clause in another place.