§ (1)Subject as hereinafter provided, the provisions of the Act of 1917 shall continue in force until Parliament otherwise deter mines:
§ Provided that it shall be lawful for His Majesty, on an address presented to him by both Houses of Parliament praying that the Act of 1917 shall cease to be in force, by Order in Council to declare that that Act shall cease to be in force on the expiration of the fourth year subsequent to the-year in which the Order is made.
§ (2)In the event of an Order in Council being made under this Section, the expiration of the Provisions of Part I of the Act of 1917 by virtue of the Order shall not affect the right to any payments under the said Part I in respect of the wheat and oats of the year on the termination of which these Provisions expire or of any previous year, or any rights, privileges, obligations or liabilities acquired, accrued, or incurred under these Provisions before the date on 321 which these provisions expire, or any penalty, forfeiture, or punishment incurred in respect of any offence committed under these Provisions before that date, or in respect of any statement or representation made in connection with a claim under these Provisions, whether the statement, representation, or claim was made before or after that date.
§ Mr. CAUTLEYI beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "Act" ["that that Act shall cease to be"] to insert the words "and this Act."
This Clause continues the provisions of the Corn Production Act, and Part I of the Corn Production Act provides for the minimum prices of wheat and oats. The proviso in this Clause provides that the Corn Production Act shall cease to be in force on an Address presented to His Majesty by both Houses of Parliament, and an Order in Council made there under. Therefore, if both Houses of Parliament decide that the guaranteed prices or the Wages Board, one or other, shall come to an end, they shall both come to an end. The other provision of the Bill we are discussing is to continue and amend the provisions of the Agricultural Holdings Act in various particulars. The object of this Amendment is to provide that if the Houses of Parliament agree that any part of this Bill shall come to an end, the whole shall come to an end, instead of only part of it. The theory, as I understand it, of lumping together the extension of the Corn Production Act and a further Amendment of the Agricultural Holdings Act is that the two things depend on one another, or, in other words, are interdependent, and it is argued somehow in this way. The agricultural labourer was, before the Corn Production Act, badly paid, I agree. By the Corn Production Act a Wages Board was set up to make his wages quite independent of the state of the industry, to enable him to bring up his wife and family, and live in that degree of comfort as the state of society reasonably demands.
That conclusion—a perfectly proper one from my point of view—having been arrived at, the farmer said, "I cannot pay these wages in the face of the dumping down of all the corn that is grown in the world, and if you are going to tie one arm behind my back, and insist on the agricultural labourer being paid a proper wage, and one more proportionate to the wages paid in the town, you must 322 guarantee me against loss when this competition is so severe so that I shall be able to pay these wages," but not so that he shall make a profit. The only way that the Corn Production Act ensures that is that the State shall guarantee him minimum prices on the wheat and oats that he grows. To that extent these two things are mutually interdependent. The Government having done that, somebody says, "Oh, but if the State does this, where does the State come in? The State, therefore, must have control over the farming operations of the farmer." For this purpose this Bill provides a series of Clauses by which the farmer is put absolutely at the mercy of the county councils, and this Bill provides that the farmer is to farm according to the dictates of the county council.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Member seems to be covering the whole ground of the Bill. This is a very small Amendment. The proposal is that if the Houses of Parliament ask that the Act of 1917 shall come to an end, His Majesty, by Order in Council, will not only bring that to an end, but also this Bill. That is a very small Amendment, and perhaps the hon. Member will confine himself to that. We are not discussing the Bill as a whole now.
§ Mr. CAUTLEYWith that statement I entirely agree. I was only stating the general effect of the Act to show that the things are mutually interdependent, and that if one comes to an end the whole ought to come to an end. With deference, I was not explaining the whole of the Bill—far from it. Of course, if it is ruled out of Order, I cannot proceed, but I was not going to be very much longer in what I had to say. I will endeavour to carry out the directions of Mr. Speaker, as I always do. I had got as far as saying that, if the State controlled the farmer's operations, the farmer must be secured in his occupation, and the Clauses further in the Bill are directed to securing to the farmer compensation for the restrictions under which he is put by the control. I should have been glad to enlarge on it, I will only say that if the two Houses of Parliament decide that one part of the Bill ought to be put an end to, the whole ought to come to an end, and the whole matter ought to be reconsidered by Parliament.
Lieut.-Colonel ROYDSIn supporting the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend it seems to me that if Part I of the Bill goes Part II must go also. The objection may be raised that Part II is an Amendment of the Agricultural Holdings Act, and that this—Part I—is only called an Amendment of the Corn Production Act. But when the provisions of the two parts of the Bill come to be examined, it will be found that Part I deals not only with minimum and average prices, but also like Part II with the Agricultural Holdings Act and the relations between landlord and tenant. I understand that something in the nature of a compromise has been come to by the Government with the representatives of the Farmers Union, something to this effect: that if the representatives of the Farmers' Union will support the Government in relation to the ploughing-up Clauses of Part I of the Bill, then the Government, in return, will give them Part II and compensation for disturbance.
Lieut.-Colonel ROYDSThat is the case in relation to Part I. There is to be a concession by the Government on the question of guaranteed prices. In Part II there is to be a concession by the owners of land in consideration of the guarantee, and in order to encourage the greater production of corn. If Part I of the Bill, which gives a Government guarantee, goes altogether why on earth should the owners be left saddled with the provisions of Part II? It seems to me the two parts of the Bill are quite indivisible on any ground whatever, and that Part I should not be repealed unless Part II goes also.
Sir A. BOSCAWENIn so far as the Amendment applies to the first part of the Bill I submit it is unnecessary. It is proposed to terminate by Order in Council in the way suggested in the Bill the provisions of the Corn Production Act. But if hon. Members will look at Clause 25, Sub-section (5), they will see that this Bill is to be read with the Corn Production Act, as amended by this Act. It is, therefore, so far as the 324 termination of this Act is concerned, already provided for in the Bill as it stands. In so far as the Amendment would give the power to terminate at the same time the provisions of Part II, although I did not interrupt my hon Friend, I venture to submit that that is really not in order, because this is a Clause, the title of which is the continuance of the Corn Production Act of 1917. The second part refers to the continuance or discontinuance of another matter altogether, namely, the Amendment of the Agricultural Holdings Act. I do not see how that can be done in the Clause which is limited by its title to the continuance of the Corn Production Act. But on the merits of the case, putting aside the question whether it is strictly in order or not, I cannot conceive hon. Members really expect that the new conditions of tenure which are proposed in this Bill should be terminated by Order in Council in four years! That may be a quite proper proceeding in the matter of guaranteed prices. It may be a quite proper proceeding in the matter of control and cultivation, and it is provided for in the Bill as it stands. But really when you have certain conditions of tenure laid down, to suggest that this House should alter these which are of a permanent character by Order in Council is such that I can hardly believe my hon. Friend wishes to see it carried. My hon. and gallant Friend who spoke last suggested a bargain. He has absolutely no foundation at all for that suggestion. My hon. Friend (Lieut.-Colonel Royds) said he knew something about it. If there had been any bargain I should have known something about it, and I know nothing about it. Neither I nor the Minister of Agriculture have entered into any bargain whatsoever. I submit that you cannot terminate conditions of tenure by an Order in Council and four years' notice. Then there is my point of order as to whether you can continue or discontinue a Bill which deals with an Amendment of the Agricultural Holdings Act on a Clause which is limited to an Amendment of the Corn Production Act.
Sir F. BANBURYI do not think the words of Clause 25, Sub-section (5), will be clear to the people who will be affected by this Act. The words are:
References to the Act of 1908, or to the Act of 1917, or to any provision of either of these Acts, shall be construed as 325 referring to that Act or to that provision as amended by any other Act, including this Act.I would point out that the right hon. Gentleman is doing now what I said he always did do when any Amendment was moved with which he did not agree, that is, he says it is superfluous and not necessary, and yet when we showed him that a former Amendment was superfluous and unnecessary, simply because it was moved by hon. Gentlemen opposite, we thought possibly at the instigation of the Government, my right hon. Friend immediately accepts it, although it is superfluous.
Sir A. BOSCAWENI never accepted any Amendment from hon. Members opposite, or any other body of hon. Members, which I said was superfluous.
Sir F. BANBURYI did not say my right hon. Friend said the Amendment was superfluous. What I said was that we proved that it was superfluous. Possibly we did not prove it to my right hon. Friend, because he had made up his mind that he would not listen to any new arguments. I have much pleasure in supporting this Amendment. The Corn Production Act was justified on the ground that, if the Government put its hand into its pocket and gave a subsidy to the farmers, in return the farmers must do certain things. I think it was unfortunate that the farmers accepted that arrangement. That is what I think probably will happen when this Bill comes to be put into operation. In this case the Bill only continues, for four years, the guarantee (under the Act of 1917) of money which the Government will give to the farmers. But all the other things which the farmers were supposed to give to the Government in return for that guarantee are to be continued, although the guarantee no longer exists. The object of my hon. Friend is simply to make certain, not in any ambiguous words such as I read just now, but in clear phrases which can be understood of the common people, that in the event of the Government guarantee coming to an end, all the obligations which were imposed on the farmers because they were going to have that guarantee shall equally come to an end. If that is not a reasonable and sensible proposition, I do not know what would 326 be, and I trust that my right hon. Friend will show some of that spirit of reasonableness which induced him to accept what Welsh hon. Members on the other side put before him, although he was at the same time told of the probable dire results that would occur at the next Election if he did not do as they wished.
Mr. E. WOODIf I understand this point, it is rather less simple than the right hon. Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) would lead us to believe. It may have been quite simple to him, but there are these of us who find it rather more difficult as he explained it. The point is this. If my hon. and learned Friend's Amendment were accepted, the only result would be that if the guarantee were withdrawn, Part II of this Bill would go as well as Part I. My right hon. Friend (Sir F. Banbury), in his concluding observations, said it was quite reasonable that if the guarantee went, all the obligations imposed on the farmers should also go. As the Bill now stands, the whole of Part I will go if the guarantees are revoked at any time. But the veal point is whether we shall extend the same abolition to Part II. I suggest to my hon. Friend who moved this Amendment that that is not a reasonable proposition. Part II deals with a wholly different subject— with agricultural holdings and tenancies. Suppose you revoke your guarantee and your obligations under Part I at the end of four years, it is a light matter; but by that time you will have established a new system of agricultural holdings, and to upset that is really to suggest something which is impossible. The right course, I suggest, is that recommended by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) earlier in the evening, that we should not confuse two things which are essentially distinct, but should take stops to get Part II so as to act as to make it worthy of being incorporated in the whole structure of the Agricultural Holdings Act.
Mr. ACLANDI hope that the hon. Member (Mr. Cautley) will see fit hot to press this Amendment. Hon. Members opposite really succeeded very well in Committee in bolstering up the guarantees, and making them very much stronger than they were when the Bill was introduced. At first it was only necessary to petition with regard to the guaranteed 327 prices, but in Committee they made that impossible, and as the Bill now stands it is necessary to petition, not only against the guaranteed prices, but against the whole of Part IV of the Act of 1917. The Wages Board—including the new Wages Board for Wales—would also have to go if you wanted to do anything with regard to the guaranteed prices. Surely that is enough bolstering up of these guaranteed prices. Surely it is not necessary also to say that Parliament can do nothing whatever with regard to modifying the position in regard to guaranteed prices, even after four years' notice. Of course, the Act can be repealed, but otherwise nothing at all can be done in that direction, since this Amendment would involve petitioning also to have all the provisions of Part II deleted as well. I think that would really be a mistake. It shows undue nervousness. There are excellent provisions, with which everyone agrees, in this Bill. For instance, with regard to the extension of the Evesham custom, with regard to compensation for high farming—about which there is a difference of opinion—with regard to reducing the costs of arbitration, and simplifying arbitrations, and with regard to the tenure of allotments, which is to be dealt with when the Bill is re-committed. All these would have to go. It is rather absurd to try to link up the question whether Parliament might or might not want to modify the guaranteed prices with all these other questions, which stand on their merits, and ought to be allowed to form part of our legislation, if Parliament signifies its approval of them by passing this Bill. Whether or not it is right to guarantee prices for agricultural products is a separate subject, and I do not think this further suggested bolstering up is really needed.
Mr. PRETYMANI hope that the Government will not try to ride two horses at once. I think we all agree that Part II deals with matters which are quite different from these dealt with in Part I, but the Government have tied them together, and have created the impression in the country, and amongst these connected with agriculture, that the whole of this structure is one essential whole, all hanging together, to increase production. That really is not so, and I think my hon. Friend, in moving this 328 Amendment, has made that perfectly clear to the House. At any rate, we must recognise now that Part II has t6 stand by itself on its merits, and that it cannot be argued that Part II is a necessary corollary to the other provisions of the Bill, like minimum wages, increasing production, and so on. If the discussion of this Amendment brings that clearly to the mind of the House, I think my hon. Friend will have served a good purpose.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments made: In Sub-section (2), leave out the words "of Part I" ["the expiration of the provisions of Part I]; leave out the words, "the said Part I" ["any payments under the said Part I"], and insert instead thereof the words, "Part I of that Act."—[Sir A. Boscawen.]