Amendment proposed: In page 2, line 5, at the end, to insert the words:
Provided that the affairs of the corporation as regards Scotland shall be administered, controlled, and managed by a sub-committee of the board, which shall hold its meetings in Scotland, and such subcommittee shall have the right to co-opt additional members to the extent of one-third of its number."—[Mr. R. W. Smith.]
§ Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
§ Amendment negatived.
§ The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. William Adamson)
I beg to move, in page 2, line 14, at the end, to insert the words:(c) provide for the administration and management of the operations of the corporation in Scotland by means of a committee of the directors acting in consultation with such number of persons having practical experience of agriculture in Scotland as may be specified in the order.This Amendment has been put down by the Government after the discussion which took place on the last occasion when this Bill was before the House. I understood from what was stated on that occasion that such an Amendment would meet with the approval of the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot) and those associated with him in moving the Amendment which immediately preceded this one, and I do not think there is any need for me to elaborate the matter, which was fully discussed on the last occasion.
§ Major ELLIOT
I think that we shall be more than glad to facilitate the insertion of these words. It is true that they do not in every way fulfil the Amendment which we had upon the Paper, in that the Amendment proposed that the sub-committee should hold its meetings in Scotland. No doubt it will 1838 be possible for the Secretary of State to make some arrangements, or to give some assurance, when any Scottish business has to be considered, so that it may be possible for the sub-committee to meet in Scotland. It would save expense. I see that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Louth (Lieut.-Colonel Heneage) has an Amendment upon the Paper about the members giving their services gratis. I do not know whether that Amendment will be called, but, obviously, as travelling expenses are heavy, if the committee could meet in Edinburgh it would much reduce expenses in the way of people coming over to consult with the sub-committee. I think it will be possible for the Secretary of State to give that assurance, and, if so, I am sure it will much facilitate the discussion on the Amendment, because, in that case, practically speaking, the Amendment which the Minister has upon the Paper would meet the case which my hon. Friend the Member for Central Aberdeenshire (Mr. R. W. Smith) put in the course of what was a very short discussion upon the last time that this matter was before the House.
§ Colonel ASHLEY
Before the Secretary of State replies to my hon. and gallant Friend I should like to ask him a question upon a point which, I think, should be cleared up. The corporation is to be managed by a board of directors, and in the Amendment it is sought to hand over certain duties of that board of directors to certain directors, with certain co-opted members, when dealing with large-scale farming in Scotland. Is it perfectly clear that the directors as a whole shall control the whole operations and that only the administration shad be left to the Scottish committee? I want this matter to be made clear. I think that it must be so because the words "administration and management" are introduced in the Amendment, whereas in the. Bill the word "controlled" is also inserted.
§ The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Dr. Addison) indicated assent.
§ Colonel ASHLEY
If, as I gather from the right hon. Gentleman opposite, that is so, I have nothing more to say.
§ 4.0 p.m.
§ Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE
I realise that the Government are going to meet 1839 the wishes of the Scottish Members in this matter, but, after all, there is a chance that a certain amount of expense may be put upon England. If Scotland is to have a separate committee, and if these people are to be paid and have travelling allowances, the money will be paid by the English taxpayers as well as the Scottish, though their services will be available only for Scotland. England is not to have one of these committees, and, therefore, Scotland will be getting some money out of England for nothing. I should very much like some assurance from the Secretary of State for Scotland that the charges will fall upon Scotland. We English Members realise that when Scottish Members get together about Scottish matters, they are unanimous and get what they want, but when they talk about English matters, they act according to their political complexions. I think that it is well worth while for English Members to make a stand for economy where the English taxpayers' money is in question.
§ Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE
It is because Scottish Members urge the claims of their own country in season and out of season that they get as much as they do. I wish to make a strong protest at the way in which England is being treated. I see no reason why Scotland should be given special treatment over this country. If Scotland is to have a special committee, why should not the West-country? Why should we be treated differently?
§ Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS
I want to say a word in support of the argument of my hon. and gallant Friend. If Scotland is to have its special committee, why should not really important agricultural centres like Devon, and the West-country generally, have one? Of course, I quite realise that the weak agriculture of Scotland has to be bolstered up in some way or other, which is the reason for this Amendment. Because this is a gift horse, I will not look it in the mouth too closely, and, therefore, I put two points only. We ought to be told what is to be the number of persons on the proposed committee, and we ought to have some clear definition as to what is to be the extra cost under the Bill of a separate committee of this kind. The 1840 House ought to be informed on these two points from a purely financial point of view. Every Member will realise that it is the primary duty of the House of Commons to examine these appointments from the point of view of the taxpayers as a whole. Eventually the numbers of these people will come out in an order. I do not suggest that it is possible to act otherwise than by an order in this particular case, but, quite frankly, legislation which entails afterwards a considerable number of orders is against the best interests of the House of Commons and the people as a whole. I protest against the time of the House being taken up, and a series of orders afterwards being necessary because the Government of the day have not been capable, or have not been able to make their legislation clear and definite. I make this protest, and ask that the House may be informed, before accepting this Amendment, of the approximate cost and the number of persons who will form the committee.
§ Mr. W. ADAMSON
By leave of the House, I will reply very briefly to some of the points put to me. With regard to the question raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot), in the event of it being decided by the directors of the corporation that large-scale farming will be undertaken in Scotland, the chances are that some of the directors on this particular committee with which the Amendment deals will require to go to Scotland. Therefore, there will be no difficulty in their having meetings with the persons who may be appointed to consult with them. The hon. and gallant Member may take my word for it that there is very little difficulty about the matter. I can give him my assurance that the point he has put will be kept in mind. With regard to the point raised by the right hon. and gallant Member for the New Forest (Colonel Ashley), of course the directors will control the operations, and will have the final word, so far as the corporation is concerned, both in Scotland and in England.
§ Mr. ADAMSON
As a matter of course, the sub-committee will report to the directors. With regard to the question 1841 of expenditure, any expenses involved will be met out of the funds of the corporation. I expect that those expenses will simply concern travelling and sustenance, whatever may be allowed for that.
§ Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE
Is it not clear that the expenses of the Scottish committee are to be paid for by English taxpayers?
§ Mr. ADAMSON
On that particular point, there is no doubt that Scotland pays its share of all taxes, and there is very little doubt that, in the spending of the money, Scotland does not get its share. I do not think that the hon. and gallant Member need have any fear that in this matter that will be mitigated any more than in any other.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Colonel ASHLEY
I beg to move, in page 2, line 17, to leave out the word "let."
Although I admit that the extent of the evil will not be very large, this Amendment to leave out the word "let" raises a principle of some importance. In Sub-section (1) large-scale farming is handed over by order to the corporation and, in Sub-section (2),An order made by the Minister and Secretary of State under the last foregoing sub-section, shall"—And then, in paragraph (c),empower the corporation to purchase or take on lease land by agreement, and, subject to any conditions specified in the order, to sell, let or exchange for any purpose any land vested in the corporation.I admit it is common sense that if the corporation are to carry on this large-scale farming—I think quite unnecessarily—but if that is admitted and agreed to by the House, it is quite obvious that they must be able to purchase or take on lease land by agreement, and it may well happen that, having bought the land, they will find that the whole of the land they have purchased is not needed. Some of it may turn out to be unsuitable, and, therefore, it is quite right that they should be given the power to sell off land they do not want. But why should the corporation be empowered to let land? If they have got more land than they want, let them get rid of it as soon as possible by selling it. The whole object of the corporation in spending large sums 1842 of public money is that the corporation may have land in order to carry on large-scale farming, but money should not be given, in my opinion, in order that they may acquire land, nationalise it to a certain extent, and then proceed to let it, not for the purpose of large-scale farming, but to bring money into the State.
It seems perfectly obvious that that is the cloven hoof of Socialism. By a back door it is sought to increase the amount of land owned by the State. That may be good or bad. Right hon. and hon. Members opposite are perfectly entitled to consider that all English land should be owned by the State. I notice that now that English farming does not pay, and trade is in a bad way, there is not so much demand for nationalising the land as there used to be, just as there is not so much demand for nationalising the railways. But by a back door, to enable an unscrupulous Socialist Government, backed by a subservient Treasury, to buy much more land than is needed for large-scale farming, to keep what they want for that purpose, and then to let the rest, is absolutely wrong. If the Government wish to nationalise the land, let them bring in a Bill for it, and we shall know where we are. What possible argument can be advanced for retaining the word "let." The Chancellor of the Duchy, in Committee upstairs—I hope I am not doing him any injustice—did not give, I think, any reason why it was necessary to retain the word "let," and a subservient majority of his own supporters voted for the retention of the word. I am quite willing to be convinced by the Minister, if he can prove to me that it is necessary for the purposes of the Bill, and to reconsider my view as to the necessity of this word, but I cannot conceive it to be necessary, and, therefore, I beg to move the Amendment.
§ The CHANCELLOR of the DUCHY of LANCASTER (Mr. Attlee)
We all know that the right hon. and gallant Member has got cloven-hooves in his mind just now, but I think it has rather led him astray here. This is not a Bill for nationalising land, and this particular provision is one that, obviously, is needed for ordinary estate management. Supposing a site is bought, there may be cottages on it. Should not the corpora- 1843 tion have power to let those cottages to the existing tenants?
§ Colonel ASHLEY
Am I to understand that there will be no labourers needed on these large-scale farms, and that all the labourers will be taken away? Surely in farming land you want cottages for your agricultural labourers? This means letting them have land for no purpose.
§ Mr. ATTLEE
That is not so. If you are dealing with a large estate you do not want to be absolutely tied down at any moment either to use the land acquired or to sell it straight away. You might let it for a time. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman says that I did not give any reason upstairs for the retention of the word "let." I think I did, and it is a very obvious reason. Except for the right hon. Gentleman's own fantastic idea on the subject, there can be no reason why the word should not be in.
§ Mr. ORMSBY-GORE
I think the reply of the Chancellor of the Duchy is inadequate. There are two very good and obvious reasons why it is undesirable that this corporation in addition to acquiring and holding land for the purpose of experiment should not buy additional land and then let it off to other farmers. The first major reason is, that the whole value of this experiment in bonanza farming is that it shall be an exact model which other people are to be able to follow. Therefore, it must be based on the most careful and scientific statistical data. It is impossible to get that scientific data unless the whole of the land paid for and acquired, and the cost of equipping and working that land, is clearly included in the various statements of account. If the corporation has land which it lets off to tenants of its own, over and above the land on which it is carrying out this important statistical and, to judge from the speech of the Minister of Agriculture, interesting, novel and scientific experiment in mechanised farming, the whole of the accounts will be vitiated and the character of the corporation will be changed. With £1,000,000 at its disposal the corporation will be able to nationalise much land. This will be a statistical experiment by the State in bonanza farm- 1844 ing, plus income from the rent of land which it has acquired and let off to ordinary common folk. The second reason why we on this side of the House always oppose the efforts of the Minister of Agriculture or of any Department, especially a central Government Department, even more than a local authority, acquiring land for letting purposes, is because we hold, in common with the whole agricultural community, especially the agricultural community which has ever experienced it, that the State, and particularly Whitehall, is the worst agricultural landlord in the world.
§ Mr. ORMSBY-GORE
Yes. If you ask the farmers on Crown lands they tell you that when they go to the agent he is bound by Treasury regulations. He is given a minimum of latitude this way and the other. He is compelled to do this, that and the other because of Treasury regulations and because it is a Government Department that has control. The ordinary landlord and the ordinary agent are not so bound. They judge by common sense and the facts of the time and are not restricted by regulations. Everyone knows that in every country where nationalisation of land has been attempted in this form it has been the curse of the State as a landlord that there are regulations of this kind, which are inevitable under State control. Anyone who has served in the Army or in a State Department knows of the inevitable growth of regulations, red tape, returns, and what they mean. That inevitably happens when the State as a State, and especially a great central Government Department, has control; where access to the Minister is rare and difficult, and where there is no personal contact except through a man sitting at a desk in the office of the Department of Woods and Forests, or in the office of the Commissioner of Crown Lands. Everybody knows that it is perfectly hopeless, and that there is no progress for agriculture and no happiness for the tenant or anybody else under such conditions.
On general principles we object very strongly to the acquisition of agricultural land for the purpose of letting it to other people over above what is required for the purpose of this experiment. We think that it is undesirable in the in- 1845 terests of the statistical experiment itself that land over and above what is actually required for the personal supervision and work of this new State Corporation, should be acquired. Therefore, we intend to press this matter to a Division.
§ Mr. MacLAREN
I intervene because I have listened carefully to my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore), and I claim that no argument that he has advanced is relevant to the matter in hand. I might say, in passing, that I am against these bonanza schemes. The right hon. Gentleman says that there will be a mixing of the accounts and that there might be some mismanagement on the side of the bonanza farming enterprise, which might be made up by revenue from rents drawn from land that has been let. That is surely a question of book-keeping and apportioning the income under the proper heading. That is not relevant to the question whether the corporation, as such, should have power to let land. His next argument was that it was the historic prejudice of the Conservative party against corporations beinc, landowners that leads them to oppose the giving of powers to the corporation to let land. He also advanced the argument that, very often, the State or a corporation where they own land may let it fall into desuetude, through bad management or otherwise. If that is to be advanced as an argument against the State or a corporation letting land, it applies equally to many private landowners in this country. Therefore, the argument is not relevant to the issue now before us.
If we substitute for the word "Corporation" the letter "X," and say that "X" is to hold land. If "X" is holding land, whether "X" be a corporation or a private individual, where is the reason in saying that a person who holds land shall not be empowered to let land. He may have power to sell it, or transfer it, or manage it. What is the argument against his having the power to let the land?
§ Colonel ASHLEY
The answer is simply this, that the corporation are empowered to acquire land for one specific purpose, namely, large-scale farming, and they are not to have land for any other purpose.
§ Mr. MacLAREN
That is more relevant to the point under discussion than the arguments of the right hon. Member for Stafford, but I still hold that if the corporation have a large area of land for experimental farming, they should not be prohibited from letting land in the area under their control. There might be a farm in the market and they could get a large area of land for a song. If I am to believe the statements of hon. and right hon. Members opposite that agricultural land is of very little value in this country to-day, then the corporation might come in for a good bargain and get a large area of land under their control, but if you are going to cut it up into pieces and say that one piece shall be used for experimental farming purposes and, perhaps, right in the centre of the land you are going to cut out a slice and say that this shall not be under the jurisdiction of the corporation, because they have no power to let land, you might be upsetting the management which is so essential to the successful carrying through of the bonanza scheme.
I would rather deal with the arguments of the right hon. Member for Stafford, because he let the cat out of the bag when he said that it is the inherent prejudice of the Conservative party—I say this advisedly, because it has not been advanced on a logical basis—that no corporation, no corporate body shall have power to let land, that has led to their action to-day. If a private landowner can do what is proposed, I can see no reason that can be advanced to prohibit the corporation from having the same power. Therefore, while I am not at all enthusiastic about the bonanza scheme, I am trying to meet the logical point of view involved in the discussion of the Amendment.
§ Major GEORGE DAVIES
When I saw this small Amendment on the Order Paper and noted its implications, I thought that sooner or later the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) would not be able to refrain from taking-part in the discussion. He has some satisfaction in thinking that he has shattered some of the arguments put forward by my right hon. Friend, but there is one serious flaw in his argument, and that is, that so much hinges on the personality of Mr. "X." Mr. "X" is brought out in previous parts of this Clause. The statement of the Chancellor 1847 of the Duchy was as unsatisfactory as it was in Committee upstairs. He rode off the really big issue that is involved in this apparently simple Amendment. This is not a question of letting a cottage here or an orchard there, or of letting a spot that is left in the middle of the land. Under Subsection (1) this corporation is set up for the development of such land as may be vested in the corporation, and paragraph (c) deals with the land vested in the corporation and purports to give them power to let land. The whole point at issue is this, that we object, and the hon. Member for Burslem somewhat shares our objection, that the money of the general taxpayer, the money of the nation as a whole, is being spent for this purpose, to wit, large scale farming operations. That has, however, been agreed upon. The principle that has been decided is that, under certain conditions and for certain reasons only, it is justifiable for the State to undertake these operations and to try and carry out an experiment which the Minister of Agriculture, with his usually optimistic nature, thinks is going to be a useful success.
The corporation is to carry out this experiment in order to show the rest of the farmers that this type of mechanised, big-scale farming is going to be a success. The excuse for our voting this money is limited by the object for which it is to be expended. That object is the carrying out by the Government of an experiment which is to show the rest of us whether it is going to be a success or not. For the carrying out of that experiment, the corporation is to be allowed to acquire land, which is to be vested in the corporation, in order to carry out the operation of large-scale farming. The moment they let it they are breaking the terms of the contract entered into with the House of Commons and the country to allow them money for acquiring land for this purpose. The moment they let it they are breaking that contract and getting in private individuals, private enterprise, to carry out this experiment; they are utilising the land for a purpose other than that for which they asked the House to grant money under this Bill. I say that a large issue of national importance is involved.
§ Mr. MacLAREN
Suppose you had an enterprise of this kind and the land was not immediately required for the develop- 1848 ment of large-scale farming and the corporation wished to hold the land in reserve, does the hon. and gallant Member suggest that in those circumstances we should not allow the corporation to have the power to let?
§ Major DAVIES
I maintain that the corporation, which we have been assured hour after hour is going to consist of the most able people conceivable will give the closest attention to this matter before they act, and when they do act will know they need the land they are going to acquire for the purpose of this experiment, and for no other purpose. It is true that if the word "let" is struck out of the Bill it will entail a certain handicap in the trivial directions indicated by the Chancellor of the Duchy and which have been commented upon by the hon. Member for Burslem as being the point at issue. It is not the point at issue. We on this side of the House have views on these matters diametrically opposite those of hon. Members opposite, and while we may be reluctant to see the State come in and carry out an experiment, because it may be advantageous to the community, we are decidedly opposed to the acquisition of land with power to let it out. That is an object which was never intended by the promoters of this Bill, at any rate in the language of the Bill, although it may have been at the back of their minds, and because we know it is at the back of their minds we are opposed to it. I am quite prepared to meet a well-thought-out Clause which would not unnecessarily hamper the administration, this is going to give the Government powers through this corporation, which is merely a department of the Government, to acquire great areas of land not to use but to let it out to other people. To that we object.
Marquess of HARTINGTON
The hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren), usually so acute and up-to-date, has really failed to apprehend the reasons for our objection to the inclusion of this word in the Clause. Our point of view has been ably explained by the hon. and gallant Member for Yeovil (Major Davies), but there is one word in addition which I should like to say. The hon. Member for Burslem said that there was no need to be afraid of the financial results of the operations of this corporation being confused with those in land, 1849 because it is a mere matter of accountancy. We reach the question of accounts later in the Bill and, therefore, I will not deal with that matter at the moment, but the Minister of Agriculture so far has been very unwilling to undertake to keep the accounts in any form which will be at all satisfactory to those who are anxious to make sure that there shall be no possibility of confusion, and that the accounts of this corporation shall be presented to us in such a form that we shall be able to see what is the actual farming loss, as we believe, or the actual farming profit, which the Minister of Agriculture optimistically supposes will be the case. It is a question of considerable importance. The House is being asked to vote a large sum of the taxpayers' money to an experiment in farming, to a particular kind of agricultural research, and the last thing we should be asked to do is to devote money to what may develop into a gamble in real estate. It is perfectly open to the Government to acquire land under favourable conditions, possibly at a cheap price in bad times, and then let is out at considerable profit. That is a reasonable possibility if the word "let" remains in, and we feel that it, should be omitted. I hope that the question will be taken to a Division.
§ Captain CAZALET
Hon. Members on this side of the House would be satisfied if we had an assurance that the word "let" is included merely for the purpose of the routine business of running an estate. I am somewhat fogged by these bonanza schemes, and I hope that at some later stage we shall be told exactly what the word means. The whole object, as I understand it, is that the corporation shall buy a large area of land in order to show that it can make the whole of that area pay as a farming unit, and the insertion of the word "let" may mean that it will take out the "eyes" of that area and then come to the House of Commons and say, "Look how marvellously we have farmed this large area of land." We shall have to hunt into the details of the accounts to find that all the bad patches and fields have been let out and not accounted for in the accounts presented to us. That is a genuine point, and I should be satisfied if we had a more definite assurance from the Government that the word 1850 "let" is put in merely for the routine purpose of running the estate.
§ Colonel ASHLEY
I do not want to be unreasonable. I quite appreciate that the corporation may buy a few acres more than they want to use immediately, and they may buy a cottage or two more than they immediately want. If the Minister of Agriculture will bring in an Amendment to confine the letting of land to such things, I shall be quite satisfied. Nothing that the Chancellor of the Duchy has said has allayed our apprehensions that the word "let" can, and could, and easily might be, used for a gamble in land, and I should like the Minister of Agriculture to tell us whether he is prepared to move an Amendment to prevent any gamble in land. If so, I should not object, to it.
§ Dr. ADDISON
I feel glad that the course of the Debate has convinced the right hon. and gallant Member for Christchurch (Colonel Ashley) of the necessity for the insertion of this word. Every authority empowered by Parliament to acquire land has this power, because it necessarily follows that here and there there are pieces of land which they must be able to let. You find it in every Act of Parliament, and I have no doubt that the right hon. and gallant Member when he was a member of the Conservative Government gave it his blessing. As to those mythical people with whom the right hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore) has been consorting lately, I can take no responsibility for the misapprehensions which these inhabitants of the higher regions have inspired in him. As far as this Amendment is concerned, this humdrum small affair, it is essentially part of the management of the business. They would not be able to buy land and let it for the purposes of speculation. If hon. Members will look at the words of the Clause they will see:subject to such modifications as may he specified in the orderIt must be in accordance with the purposes of the corporation. We are not setting up a gambling corporation: that view is the result of consorting with those queer people with whom the right hon. Member for Stafford has been in touch lately. This is quite an everyday power and I hope hon. Members opposite will agree with that and that we may be 1851 able to dispose of the matter without further delay.
§ Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND
I think hon. Members on this side have been extremely reasonable. We are prepared to accept any words which will insure that the power of letting shall be confined to the purposes for which the land was ostensibly acquired. I cannot think of a more reasonable request. Without desiring to controvert what the Minister of Agriculture has said, I must point out that there is really no analogy between a local authority acquiring land and a corporation of this kind acquiring land. The main duties of a local authority are of a very different nature to this. The holding of land is only one small incidental part of its functions, but the holding of land here is the main purpose and essence of the being of this corporation. It is perfectly illogical to use the one as an analogy for the other. The Minister of Agriculture has said that the words:subject to such modifications as may be specified in the orderare a sufficient guarantee. I should have thought that recent events in this House have shown how extremely loose certain definitions may be. I do not know what the primary purpose of the Order may be, or what the meaning of this loose phraseology may be. We appreciate the point made by the Chancellor of the Duchy—namely, that there are certain subsidiary or ancillary purposes for which the corporation might wish to let land. I have come across a number of such cases, but that is no reason at all against this Amendment. The Clause as it is covers far too wide a range of powers, and it was obviously the duty of the Opposition to bring forward this Amendment pointing out that the Clause was far too wide.
It is true, as the Chancellor of the Duchy has said, that there are certain objects for which power should be given to a corporation like this. It may want to let certain buildings to be occupied by its own employés, And it should have power to let for this purpose. Similarly, granted that the principle of the corporation is accepted and that the corporation is to carry out large-scale farming, it is clear that in certain cases it will have to 1852 acquire quite a large Acreage of ground. It may be that it cannot at once utilise the whole of that large acreage, but that for a comparatively short period it may want to let some of it to be used by its former owner until it can be brought into the general scheme of large-scale farming. I have one case of that kind in my mind at the present time. A large Acreage may be acquired, but the whole of it may not be utilised at once, though it will undoubtedly be brought in comparatively quickly as circumstances warrant. That is a case where for a temporary purpose it may be right to let the land. For purposes which are definitely ancillary to the main object of the corporation it may be right to give a limited power of letting.
On the other hand, I am sure that the Minister and the Chancellor of the Duchy recognise that we do not want to give a power which, whether we wish it or not, may quite clearly be used for objects entirely different from and beyond what are the ostensible purposes of this large-scale farming scheme. It is quite possible to frame an Amendment which would give power to the corporation to let land for the subsidiary or ancillary purposes, and at the same time circumscribe the letting so that it should not be carried beyond the purposes contemplated in the scheme. I have drafted an Amendment roughly in this form:Provided that if any land so acquired by the corporation is let on lease, such letting, except in the case of cottages let for human habitation, shall not continue for a longer period than four years from the date of acquisition, and the land so let shall thereafter be sold, unless taken back into direct occupation by the corporation.I think that that Amendment entirely carries out the legitimate object in view. From practical experience I can say that four years is ample time. In my Amendment I have exempted cottages let for human habitation. For any normal purposes of agriculture it is hardly conceivable that a corporation of this kind would not, within a period of four years, have brought under its operations all the land that ultimately it would require to bring into the scheme of large-scale farming. I hope that the Minister will accept my draft Amendment if the Amendment before the House is not pressed.
§ Mr. C. WILLIAMS
The Minister said that the Amendment was of a trivial character. When he said that he clearly did one of two things: Either he was under-rating the purpose of the Bill, in which case he is prophesying that the Bill will not be of very much value, or else he did not understand what was the purpose of the Amendment. I do not wish in any way to tie the corporation down so that it is not able to let a cottage. I should have thought that under the Bill it would have been able to let a cottage to any workers on the property or to any who are working in connection with the property, even if this word "let" were omitted. What I am concerned about is lest there should be abuse of the power given by this word, and lest the corporation should merely collect money and buy land and then let great plots of that land to various people for various purposes. We know that the Minister is not very well acquainted with agricultural things. I am not sure whether, with the word "let" included, he would know whether it was being used for a golf course or a sheep run. I am not sure that he would have sufficient knowledge to know these things. Frankly, we ought not to have in the Bill a word that permits a possibility of that kind.
Let me put a further point which has not so far been mentioned. It would be possible for the Minister to take a large area of land, to put it down under grass and merely to sub-let it to certain people for grazing purposes. That is not the purpose for which the Minister is professedly coming here. The period of four years, which has been mentioned in the draft Amendment suggested by my right hon. Friend, is too long. The suggested Amendment would not be water-tight for the purposes of this House. I am sorry to disagree with my right hon. Friend. I do not pretend to be anything of a lawyer, but, knowing the Minister of Agriculture, and knowing some of his wiles on certain lines, I can conceive his letting land for four years, then taking it into occupation for a few months and re-letting it. The best thing to do is to cut out the word "let" altogether and to rely on the procedure provided in the rest of the Bill. The Minister said that this word was in many previous Acts. Far be it from me 1854 to say that his predecessors were not the perfect angels which he is always telling us that they were, but I am not certain that they were right in every case. But that is not the point here. Previous Acts have not dealt with a corporation of this kind; they have dealt with local authorities or other bodies of the kind. This Bill deals with a new corporation. We do not know how it is going to act, and over it the House of Commons has very little control. It is, therefore, essential that we should vote for the Amendment. I hope that some Liberals, who are naturally anti-Socialist in their origin and outlook, will on this occasion join with the Conservative party in trying to eliminate from this part of the Bill a singularly objectionable word.
§ Dr. ADDISON
I have read, two or three times, the Amendment suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the New Forest (Colonel Ashley), and I can see at least half-a-dozen difficulties which it would present—difficulties which might give rise to prolonged and repeated debates. Our intention is quite sincere. I am perfectly willing to consider in a friendly way anything which makes it clear, but the suggested Amendment would be quite impossible. The Debate has been on a very narrow point. I suggest that it has gone on long enough and I would like to move, "That the Question be now put."
§ Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
§ Viscount WOLMER
The subject calls for a little more consideration from the Minister. He says that he has half-a-dozen reasons against the suggested Amendment, but he does not condescend to mention one of them. This subject is one to which we attach a great deal of importance. Not only is the whole of this land being provided by the State at the public expense, but it is land which will be acquired compulsorily by the Minister.
§ 5.0 p.m.
§ Viscount WOLMER
By Sub-section (5) of the Clause the Minister is empowered to acquire this land compulsorily. He then hands it over to the corporation, ostensibly for farming, or not even for that, and then the corporation can let 1855 or exchange for any purpose, any land vested in the corporation. Therefore, it is perfectly possible under the Bill as it stands for a Socialist Government to acquire land compulsorily and to hand it over to this corporation and the corporation could then let the land. In other words, you have here the entire machinery for the nationalisation of the land.
§ Dr. ADDISON indicated dissent.
§ Viscount WOLMER
It is no use for the right hon. Gentleman to shake his head. That is what the Bill says. We are perfectly willing to credit him with sincerity when he says that that is not what he intends and all we ask is that he should put words into the Bill which will carry out what he says is his intention. The form of words which has been proposed by my right hon. Friend seems to meet the case. The corporation could go on letting cottages to its labourers without any restriction whatever, and, furthermore, our Amendments propose that the corporation should be given four years in which to make up its mind whether it wanted to farm any land or not. That surely is a long enough period and if the right hon. Gentleman says that it is not long enough we shall be very glad to consider the point. But we feel that in framing these Amendments we have met exactly what both the Minister and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster have stated to be the intention of the Bill. Therefore we cannot rest satisfied with the Minister's assurance as to what he intends, so long as he is unwilling to include words in the Bill which implement his avowed intention. As the Bill stands, it would enable the right hon. Gentleman or more violent successors of his, to carry out the nationalisation of land on a very big scale.
§ Lieut. - Colonel ACLAND - TROYTE
The Noble Lord has said very much what I wished to say concerning nationalisation. The Minister has made no real defence whatever for retaining the word "let" in this Manse and there is no reason for that word, if the intention of the Bill is what the Minister has declared it to be. If, on the other hand, it is intended by this Bill to bring in the nationalisation of land, then, I agree that it is necessary to retain this word. As the Bill stands a Minister could appoint 1856 a crowd of subservient Socialists an this corporation, and a corporation so constituted could purchase land compulsorily and unfortunate landowners and tenants alike might wake up one morning to find that all their rights had been acquired by such a body. That could easily be done if the Bill remained in its present form. I am not sure whether the corporation would pay taxes or not, and they might have a chance of trying to make out that it was possible for large profits to be made out of the letting of land when in fact, in ordinary conditions, that is not the case. The real objection to the present wording is that it is a step towards nationalisation, and that is the only reason why the Government wish to retain this word. I therefore hope that all Members of the House who are opposed to the principle of nationalisation will vote with us for this Amendment.
§ Sir DOUGLAS NEWTON
I with to draw attention to one point on which, I think, the Minister has unintentionally misled the House. The right hon. Gentleman said that in retaining the word "let" in this Clause he was only following precedents established under the Smallholdings and Allotments Acts and other Acts of that kind. But is that a true, a fair, or a proper analogy? I suggest that it is not. In the first place, local authorities in those cases are limited in their activities by the purpose for which the land can be acquired. In other words, the land is acquired for the purpose of providing smallholdings. In this case there is no such limitation. The activities of this corporation may be directed to acquiring large tracts of land; they have no conditions to fulfil, and are only limited by the sum of money which the Bill entitles them to spend. The sugestion, therefore, that powers similar to those conveyed under the wording of this Clause are exercised in other eases by local authorities cannot, I think, be supported, and I feel that I ought to point out to hon. Members that the conditions are not actually similar.
§ Sir HENRY CAUTLEY
May I submit to the Minister another important point which might have to be met in connection with this Measure. In the earlier part of Sub-section (1) of this Clause the corporation is described as being: 1857for the purpose of promoting and improving the agricultural development of such land in Great Britain as may be vested in the corporation by conducting thereon large-scale farming operations and otherwise.On the Committee stage and also on the Report stage I put down Amendments seeking to leave out the words "and otherwise," and to insert some such words as "or purposes ancillary thereto." That was with the intention of limiting the powers of the corporation to promoting the development of agricultural land by large-scale farming operations and purposes ancillary thereto. I understand from the Minister that that is what is intended by the Bill, and those words would, I submit, include all powers of letting that were necessary for the carrying on of large-scale farming operations. Those words would also come in useful as regards the possibility of litigation,
§ and it seems to me that that is a matter which the Minister might very well consider. Otherwise, as the Bill is drawn, the observations of the last speaker appear to be well-founded. If the Minister wished to purchase land and develop part of it as a housing estate under these powers, it might be contended that the housing estate was for the purpose of promoting and improving the agricultural development of the rest of the land. If the corporation were limited in the earlier part of the Sub-section to large-scale farming operations and purposes ancillary thereto, no such point would arise and I commend that consideration to the Minister.
§ Question put, "That the word 'let' stand part of the Bill."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 261; Noes, 150.1861
|Division No. 104.]||AYES.||[5.9 p.m.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife. West)||Dailas, George||Hopkin, Daniel|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Dalton, Hugh||Horrabin, J. F.|
|Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher||Dayles, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Hudson, James H. (Huddertfield)|
|Aitchlson, Rt. Hon. Cralgie M.||Day, Harry||Hunter, Dr. Joseph|
|Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')||Denman, Hon. R. D.||Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.|
|Alpass, J. H.||Dukes, C.||Isaacs, George|
|Ammon, Charles George||Duncan, Charles||Jenkins, Sir William|
|Angell, Sir Norman||Ede, James Chuter||John, William (Rhondda, West)|
|Arnott, John||Edmunds, J. E.||Johnston, Thomas|
|Aske, Sir Robert||Edwards, E. (Morpeth)||Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)|
|Attlee, Clement Richard||Elmley, Viscount||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)|
|Ayles, Walter||England, Colonel A.||Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.|
|Baker, John (Woiverhampton, Bilston)||Forgan, Dr. Robert||Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston)|
|Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)||Freeman, Peter||Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)|
|Barnes, Alfred John||Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)||Kelly, W. T.|
|Barr, James||Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)||Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas|
|Bellamy, Albert||George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)||Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M|
|Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood||George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)||Kinley, J.|
|Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)||Gibson, H. M. (Lancs. Mossley)||Knight, Holford|
|Bennett, William (Battersea, South)||Gill, T. H.||Lang, Gordon|
|Benson, G.||Gillett, George M.||Lathan, G.|
|Blindell, James||Glassey, A. E.||Law, Albert (Bolton)|
|Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret||Gossling, A. G.||Law, A. (Rosendale)|
|Bowen, J. W.||Gould, F.||Lawrence, Susan|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)||Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)|
|Broad, Francis Alfred||Granville, E.||Lawson, John James|
|Brockway, A. Fenner||Gray, Milner||Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)|
|Bromley, J.||Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Leach, W.|
|Brooke, W.||Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)||Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)|
|Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)||Groves, Thomas E.||Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)|
|Brown, Ernest (Leith)||Grundy, Thomas W.||Lees, J.|
|Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)||Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)||Lindley, Fred W.|
|Buchanan, G.||Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Lloyd, C. Ellis|
|Burgess, F. G.||Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)||Logan, David Gilbert|
|Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)||Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)||Longbottom, A. W.|
|Cameron, A. G.||Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)||Longden, F.|
|Cape, Thomas||Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)||Lovat-Fraser, J. A.|
|Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)||Hardie, George D.||Lunn. William|
|Charieton, H. C.||Harris, Percy A.||Macdonald, Gordon (ince)|
|Chater, Daniel||Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon||MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)|
|Clarke, J. S.||Hastings, Dr. Somerville||McElwee, A.|
|Cluse, W. S.||Haycock, A. W.||McEntee, V. L.|
|Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.||Hayday, Arthur||McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)|
|Cocks, Frederick Seymour||Hayes, John Henry||McKinlay, A|
|Compton, Joseph||Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)||MacLaren, Andrew|
|Cove, William G.||Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)||Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)|
|Cowan, D. M.||Herriotts, J.||Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.|
|Cripps, Sir Stafford||Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)||Mcshane, John James|
|Daggar, George||Hoffman, P. C.||Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)|
|Mander, Geoffrey le M.||Potts, John S.||Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)|
|Mansfield, W.||Pybus, Percy John||Stamford, Thomas W.|
|March, S.||Quibell, D. J. K.||Stephen, Campbell|
|Marcus, M.||Ramsay, T. B. Wilson||Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)|
|Markham, S. F.||Raynes, W. R.||Strauss, G. R.|
|Marley, J.||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)||Suilivan, J.|
|Mathers, George||Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)||Sutton, J. E.|
|Matters, L. W.||Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)||Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)|
|Maxton, James||Ritson, J.||Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)|
|Melville, Sir James||Romeril, H. G.||Thurtle, Ernest|
|Messer, Fred||Rosbotham, D. S. T.||Tillett, Ben|
|Middleton, G.||Rowson, Guy||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Milner, Major J.||Salter, Dr. Alfred||Toole, Joseph|
|Montague, Frederick||Samuel Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)||Tout, W. J.|
|Moriey, Ralph||Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)||Townend, A. E.|
|Morris, Rhys Hopkins||Sanders, W. S.||Treveiyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles|
|Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)||Sandham, E.||Viant, S. P.|
|Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)||Sawyer, G. F.||Walkden, A. G.|
|Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)||Scrymgeour, E.||Walker, J.|
|Mort, D. L.||Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.||Wallace, H. W.|
|Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)||Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)|
|Muff, G.||Sherwood, G. H.||Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)|
|Muggeridge, H. T.||Shield, George William||Wellock, Wilfred|
|Murnin, Hugh||Shiels, Dr. Drummond||Weish, James (Paisley)|
|Naylor, T. E.||Shillaker, J. F.||West, F. R.|
|Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)||Shinwell, E.||Westwood, Joseph|
|Oldfield, J. R.||Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)||White, H. G.|
|Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)||Simmons, C. J.||Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)|
|Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)||Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)||Williams, David (Swansea, East)|
|Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)||Sitch, Charles H.||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)|
|Palin, John Henry||Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Paimer, E. T.||Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)||Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)|
|Parkinson, John Alien (Wigan)||Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)||Wilson, J. (Oldham)|
|Perry, S. F.||Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)||Wilson R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Peters. Or. Sidney John||Smith, Rennle (Pentstone)||Winterton, G. E.(Leicester,Loughb'gh)|
|Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.||Smith, Tom (Pontefract)||Wise, E. F.|
|Phillips, Dr. Marion||Smith, W. R. (Norwich)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Picton-Turbervill, Edith||Snell, Harry||Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Paling.|
|Pole, Major D. G.||Sncwden, Rt. Hon. Philip|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.||Lane Fox, Col, Rt. Hon. George R.|
|Albery. Irving James||Crookshank, Capt. H. C.||Law. Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)|
|Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)||Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)||Leighton, Major B. E. P.|
|Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.||Dalkeith, Earl of||Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)|
|Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.||Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey||Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey|
|Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)||Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)||Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)|
|Astor, Viscountess||Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)||Lockwood, Captain J. H.|
|Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.||Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert||Long, Major Hon. Eric|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)||Duckworth, G. A. V.||Lymington. Viscount|
|Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.||Dugdale, Capt. T. L.||Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)|
|Beaumont, M. W.||Eden, Captain Anthony||Makins, Brigadier-General E.|
|Bellalrs, Commander Cariyon||Edmondson, Major A. J.||Margesson, Captain H. D.|
|Betterton, Sir Henry B.||Elliot, Major Walter E.||Marjoribanks, Edward|
|Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)||Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)||Mitchell. Sir W. Lane (Streatham)|
|Bird, Ernest Roy||Falle, Sir Bertram G.||Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.|
|Bourne, Captain Robert Croft.||Ferguson, Sir John||Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.|
|Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart||Fernoy, Lord||Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)|
|Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.||Ford, Sir P. J.||Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)|
|Boyce, Leslie||Forestier-Walker, Sir L.||Muirhead, A. J.|
|Braithwaite. Major A. N.||Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.||Nelson, Sir Frank|
|Brass. Captain Sir William||Ganzoni, Sir John||Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)|
|Briscoe, Richard George||Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)||Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G.(Ptrsf'ld)|
|Buchan, John||Gower, Sir Robert||Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert|
|Burton, Colonel H. W.||Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)||Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William|
|Butler, R. A.||Grattan-Doyle. Sir N.||Peake. Captain Osbert|
|Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward||Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John||Penny. Sir George|
|Campbell, E. T.||Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.||Peto. Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)|
|Carver, Major W. H.||Gunston, Captain D. W.||Ramsbotham, H.|
|Castle Stewart, Earl of||Hamilton, Sir George (llford)||Richardson. Sir p. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)|
|Cautley, Sir Henry S.||Hanbury, C.||Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)|
|Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)||Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell|
|Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth,S.)||Hartington, Marquess of||Ross. Major Ronald D.|
|Cazalet, Captain Victor A.||Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon. Totnes)||Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.|
|Chamberlain,Rt.Hn.Sir J.A.(Birm.,W.)||Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)|
|Chapman, Sir S.||Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.||Salmon, Major I.|
|Christie, J. A.||Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)|
|Clydesdale, Marquess of||Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.||Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart|
|Cobb, Sir Cyril||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)||Savery, S. S.|
|Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George||Hurd, Percy A.||Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome|
|Colman, N. C. D.||Hurst, Sir Geraid B.||Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfast)|
|Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.||Lamb, Sir J. O.||Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)|
|Cranborne, Viscount||Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)|
|Southby, Commander A. R. J.||Todd, Capt. A. J.||Withers, Sir John James|
|Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement||Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount|
|Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur||Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert||Womersley, W. J.|
|Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)||Warrender, Sir Victor||Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley|
|Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.||Wayland, Sir William A.||Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.|
|Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.||Wells, Sydney R.||Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton|
|Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)||Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Thomson, Sir F.||Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)||Captain Wallace and the Marquess of Titchfield.|
|Tinne, J. A.||Windsor-Cilve, Lieut.-Colonel George|
Before you replaced Mr. Speaker in the Chair, Mr. Deputy-speaker, on the last Amendment, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tam-worth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) brought up a proviso to the Subsection under discussion, limiting the powers of letting. It was not, of course, at that stage pos Bible to put this proviso in the form of an Amendment, because until it was settled whether letting was or was not to be permitted, it was not in order, but we understood that Mr. Speaker would be prepared to allow us a Division on that issue, and I would ask that we may be allowed to vote upon it on the understanding that as we have already discussed the principle, we shall not delay the House by any further speeches upon it.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Robert Young)
Under these conditions, the Amendment can be formally moved and divided upon.
§ Viscount WOLMER
I beg to move, in page 2, line 25, at the end, to insert the words:Provided that if any land so acquired by the corporation is let on lease such letting (except in the case of cottages let for human habitation) shall not continue for a longer period than four years from the date of acquisition, and the land so let shall thereafter be sold unless taken hack into direct occupation by the corporation.Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 148; Noes, 260.1865
|Division No. 105.]||AYES.||[5.21 p.m.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)||Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)|
|Albery, Irving James||Dalkeith, Earl of||Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey|
|Alien, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)||Dairymple-Whlte, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey||Locker-Lampion, Com. O.(Handswth)|
|Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.||Davies, Major. F.(Somerset. Yeovll)||Lockwood, Captain J. H.|
|Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.||Davison, Sir W. H. (kensington, S.)||Long, Major Hon. Eric|
|Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)||Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert||Lymington, Viscount|
|Astor, Viscountess||Duckworth, G. A. V.||Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)|
|Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.||Dugdale, Capt. T. L.||Makins, Brigadier-General E.|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)||Eden, Captain Anthony||Margesson, Captain H. D.|
|Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.||Edmondson. Major A. J.||Marjoribanks, Edward|
|Beaumont, M. W.||Elliot, Major Walter E.||Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)|
|Ballairs, Commander Carlyon||Erskine, Lord (Somerset,Weiton-s.-M.)||Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.|
|Betterton, Sir Henry B.||Falle, Sir Bertram G.||Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.|
|Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)||Ferguson, Sir John||Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)|
|Bird, Ernest Roy||Fermoy, Lord||Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Circncester)|
|Bourne, Captain Robert Croft||Ford, Sir P. J.||Mnirhead, A. J.|
|Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart||Forestier-Walker, Sir L.||Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)|
|Boyce, Leslie||Fremantie, Lieut.-Colonel Francls E.||Nicholson. Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrtf'ld)|
|Brass, Captain Sir William||Ganzoni, Sir John||Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert|
|Briscoe, Richard George||Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & otley)||Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William|
|Buchan, John||Gower, Sir Robert||Peake, Capt. Osbert|
|Burton, Colonel H. W.||Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)||Penny, Sir George|
|Butler, R. A.||Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.||Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)|
|Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward||Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John||Ramsbotham, H.|
|Campbell, E. T.||Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.||Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)|
|Carver, Major W. H.||Gunston, Captain D. W.||Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecciesall)|
|Castle Stewart, Earl of||Hamilton, Sir George (Illord)||Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir Jamet Renneil|
|Cautley, Sir Henry S.||Hanbury, C.||Ross, Major Ronald D.|
|Cayzer. Sir C (Chester, City)||Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Ruggies-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.|
|Cayzer, Maj.Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth.S.)||Hartington, Marquess of||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)|
|Cazalet, Captain Victor A.||Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)||Salmon, Major I.|
|Chamberlain Rt.Hn.Sir J.A.(Birm.,W.)||Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)|
|Chapman, Sir S.||Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.||Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart|
|Christie, J. A.||Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller||Savery, S. S.|
|Clydesdale, Marquess of||Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.||Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome|
|Cobb, Sir Cyril||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney,N.)||Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst)|
|Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George||Hurd, Percy A.||Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)|
|Colman, N. C. D||Hunt, Sir Gerald B.||Smith-Carington, Neville W.|
|Colville, Major D. J.||Lamb, Sir J. Q.||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)|
|Cranborne, Viscount||Lanr Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.||Southby. Commander A. R. J.|
|CrichtonStuart, Lord C.||Law, Sir Altred (Derby, High Peak)||Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)|
|Crookshank, Capt. H. C.||Leighton, Major B. E. P.||Steel-Maltland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur|
|Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)||Ward. Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert||Womersley, W. J.|
|Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.||Warrender, Sir Victor||Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley|
|Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.||Wayland, Sir William A.||Worthlngton-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.|
|Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)||Wells, Sydney R.||Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton|
|Thornson, Sir F.||Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Tinne, J. A.||Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)||Sir George Bowyer and Captain Wallace.|
|Titchfield, Major the Marquess of o||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Todd, Capt. A. J.||Withers, Sir John James|
|Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement||Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File, West)||Gould, F.||Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)||Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.|
|Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher||Granville, E.||McShane, John James|
|Altchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.||Gray, Milner||Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)|
|Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.(HiIisbro')||Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Mander, Geoffrey le M.|
|Alpass, J. H.||Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)||Mansfield, W.|
|Ammon, Charles George||Groves, Thomas E.||March, S.|
|Angell, Sir Norman||Grundy, Thomas W.||Marcus, M.|
|Arnott, John||Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)||Markham, S. F.|
|Aske, Sir Robert||Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Marley, J.|
|Attlee, Clement Richard||Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)||Mathers, George|
|Ayles, Walter||Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)||Matters, L. W.|
|Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bliston)||Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)||Maxton, James|
|Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)||Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)||Melville, Sir James|
|Barnes, Alfred John||Hardie, George D.||Messer, Fred|
|Barr, James||Harris, Percy A.||Middleton, G.|
|Bellamy, Albert||Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon||Milner, Major J.|
|Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood||Hastings, Dr. Somerville||Montague, Frederick|
|Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)||Haycock, A. W.||Morley, Ralph|
|Bennett, William (Batteraea, South)||Hayday, Arthur||Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)|
|Benson, G.||Hayes. John Henry||Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)|
|Blindell, James||Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)||Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)|
|Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret||Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)||Mort, D. L.|
|Bowen, J. W.||Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)||Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke on-Trent)|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Herriotts, J.||Muff, G.|
|Broad, Francis Alfred||Hirst, G. H. (York, W. R.,Wentworth)||Muggeridge, H. T.|
|Brockway, A. Fenner||Hoffman, P. C.||Murnin, Hugh|
|Bromley, J.||Hopkin. Daniel||Naylor, T. E.|
|Brooke, W.||Horrabin, J. F.||Noel Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)|
|Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)||Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)||Oldfield, J. R.|
|Brown, Ernest (Leith)||Hunter, Dr. Joseph||Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)|
|Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)||Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.||Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)|
|Buchanan, G.||Isaacs, George||Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)|
|Burgen, F. G.||Jenkins, Sir William||Palin, John Henry|
|Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Eliand)||John, William (Rhondda, West)||Palmer, E. T.|
|Cameron, A. G.||Johnston, Thomas||Parkinson. John Allen (Wigan)|
|Cape, Thomas||Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)||Perry, S. F.|
|Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Peters, Dr. Sidney John|
|Charleson, H. C.||Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.|
|Chater, Daniel||Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston)||Phillips. Dr. Marion|
|Clarke, J. S.||Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)||Picton-Turbervill. Edith|
|Cluse, W. S.||Kelly, W. T.||Pole, Major D. G.|
|Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.||Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Potts, John S.|
|Cocks, Frederick Seymour||Kinley, J.||Pybus, Percy John|
|Compton, Joseph||Knight, Holford||Quibell, D. J. K.|
|Cove, William G.||Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)||Ramsay, T. B. Wilson|
|Cowan, D. M.||Lang, Gordon||Raynes, W. R.|
|Cripps, Sir Stafford||Lathan, G.||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)|
|Daggar, George||Law, Albert (Bolton)||Rlley, Ben (Dewsbury)|
|Dallas, George||Law, A. (Rossendale)||Rlley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tses)|
|Dalton, Hugh||Lawrence, Susan||Ritson, J.|
|Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)||Romeril, H. G.|
|Day, Harry||Lanson, John James||Rosbotham, D. S. T.|
|Denman, Hon. R. D.||Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)||Rowson, Guy|
|Dukes, C.||Leach, W.||Salter. Dr. Alfred|
|Duncan, Charles||Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)||Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)|
|Ede, James Chuter||Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)||Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)|
|Edmunds, J. E.||Lees, J.||Sanders, W. S.|
|Edwards, E. (Morpeth)||Lindley, Fred W||Sawyer, G. F.|
|Elmley, Viscount||Lloyd, C. Ellis||Scrymgeour, E.|
|England. Colonel A.||Logan, David Gilbert||Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.|
|Forgan, Dr. Robert||Long bottom, A. W.||Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)|
|Freeman, Peter||Longden, F.||Sherwood, G. H.|
|Gardner, B. W. (West Han, Upton)||Lovat-Fraser, J. A.||Shield, George William|
|Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)||Lunn, William *||Shiels, Dr. Drummond|
|George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)||Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)||Shillaker, J. F.|
|George, Megan Lloyd (Angletea)||MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)||Shinwell, E.|
|Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)||MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)||Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)|
|Gill, T. H.||McElwee, A.||Simmons, C. J.|
|Gillett, George M.||McEntee, V. L.||Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)|
|Glassey, A. E.||McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)||Sitch, Charles H.|
|Gossling, A. G.||McKinlay, A.||Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)|
|Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhitht)||Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)||West, F. R.|
|Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)||Thurtle, Ernest||Westwood, Joseph|
|Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)||Tillett, Ben||White, H. G.|
|Smith, Rennie (Penistone)||Tinker, John Joseph||Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)|
|Smith, Tarn (Pontefract)||Tout, W. J.||Williams, David (Swansea, East)|
|Smith, W. R. (Norwich)||Townend, A. E.||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)|
|Soell, Harry||Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)|
|Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip||Viant, S. P.||Wilson, J. (Oldham)|
|Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)||Walkden, A. G.||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Stamford, Thomas W.||Walker, J.||Winterton, G. E.(Leicester,Loughb'gh)|
|Stephen, Campbell||Wallace, H. W.||Wise, E. F.|
|Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Strauss, G. R.||Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. O. (Rhondda)||Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Paling.|
|Sullivan, J.||Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah|
|Sutton, J. E.||Wellock, Willred|
|Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)||Welsh, James (Paisley)|
§ The following Amendments stood upon the Order Paper:
In page 2, line 40, at the end, to insert the words:
Provided that the total amount borrowed under this paragraph shall not at any time exceed fifty thousand pounds."—[Captain Bourne.]
In page 2, line 40, at the end, to insert the words:
Provided that any money so borrowed shall be deemed to be a portion of the aggregate sum issued out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom, or the growing produce thereof, under the provisions of paragraph (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section twenty-one of this Act."—[Mr. Guinness.]
§ Captain BOURNE
I beg to move, in page 2, line 40, at the end, to insert the words:Provided that the total amount borrowed under this paragraph shall not at any time exceed fifty thousand pounds.Among other things which may be provided for in the order made by the Minister and the Secretary of State for Scotland, in regard to the carrying out of large-scale farming by the corporation, is the power to borrow under such conditions as the Minister may, with the approval of the Treasury, lay down. Under Clause 21 of the Bill, this corporation will be provided with £1,000,000 from the Treasury for the purpose of large-scale farming. Out of that sum of money the corporation will have to purchase such land as is required, and to equip and to stock such land. Our contention on this side of the House is that any ordinary floating capital which the corporation may require to carry out its operations should be provided from this £1,000,000. A corporation of this kind, which is financed out of public funds, is in its essence a semi-public body, and 1866 there will be a moral, if not a legal, obligation on the taxpayer to make good any deficiencies that may occur. Should the corporation unfortunately find itself bankrupt, having lost large sums of money, it will be very difficult for the State to avoid compensating those to whom it owes money and making up the deficiencies and losses that may occur. For this reason, we are very anxious to limit the power of borrowing. As the Bill is drawn, we feel that there is nothing to prevent the corporation except possibly the refusal of the Treasury, spending £1,000,000 in buying land, and then borrowing, say, £600,000 on mortgage on the security of that land for the purpose of equipping and stocking it, and thus, in point of fact, acquiring a very much larger amount of capital money than is intended under the Bill. In any case, under Clause 22, the corporation is bound to repay, and we feel that a definite sum of £1,000,000 which is to be repaid in 60 years is ample for this corporation.
Far too many people who have failed in farming have attempted to carry on with borrowed money, and in this case, when this large sum of public money is being employed, the amount of borrowing should be reduced to a minimum. When this matter was raised in the Committee stage upstairs, it was pointed out, on behalf of the Government—and I am bound to say with some justice—that occasions might easily arise when it would be necessary for the corporation to have a temporary overdraft. We all realise that towards the end of the harvest season, when the outgoings are very large and before the crops can be realised, there is a time when it is difficult for anybody who is farming to avoid having a bank overdraft. It seems to us that if we gave the corporation a limit of bank overdraft of £50,000 at any time, it should 1867 be ample to cover this very temporary emergency between the harvesting and the selling of the crop.
§ Sir JOSEPH LAMB
I beg to second the Amendment.
This is a limiting Amendment. There should certainly be a limit to the operations of the corporation until the operations have proved to be in some degree successful. Some of us have grave doubts whether it is possible for large-scale farms to be run at a profit, and it is only reasonable that the operations should be limited to a certain extent by the money which they are allowed to borrow. As there are instances which have already demonstrated that large-scale farming in this country is not successful, it is doubtful whether the corporation will be able to make a success of it, and if we allow large-scale farming to go on an unlimited scale, we shall run the risk of wasting large sums of money. Under the last Amendment we have not only allowed the corporation to acquire this money for large-scale farming, but to let land. That is another reason why we should limit the amount, because we do not know for what purpose they will require to let. The corporation will be set up for large-scale farming or otherwise, and we have not been told what "otherwise" includes. It may be something for which we would consider they were not justified in going to the public and asking for money.
I understand that the corporation will go to the public for this money, and although it is not really a Government security, undoubtedly, as the corporation will be set up by the Government, there will be an implied, if not an actual guarantee given by the Government for the money. If that guarantee is implied, the public may subscribe the money to a much larger extent than they are justified in doing, and more than they would do if they knew the purpose for which the money is being raised. To a certain extent, it is necessary for this House to protect the public from the possibility of their providing money—[Interruption.] It is quite necessary. Probably the trade unions may feel that they would like to invest some of their money in the corporation, but I should be sorry to see them risking their money in such a scheme. It is important that the corporation should not be allowed to go to 1868 the country and ask for money when there is an implied guarantee by the Government, and the objects for which the money is being granted is so doubtful with regard to their results.
We have not been told satisfactorily what are to be the limits of the security. I take it that the security will perhaps be the land, but we have not been told whether it is the land or the stock which has been bought and placed upon the land. There are certain periods of the year in farming operations when the capital which is invested in stock is very much higher than at any other period; such a security is very varying, and the public will not have the opportunity of knowing this. That is another reason why we should attempt to limit the operations of the corporation until they have by their demonstration farms proved that large-scale farming is successful. This is not a wrecking Amendment, because £50,000 is sufficient to allow them to farm on the scale on which they wish to demonstrate. We have been told that this is not a nationalisation Bill. If, however, they make a success of one large-scale farm, is that to be a demonstration for private enterprise to copy, or will they acquire more land and so on, until we have nationalisation in a modified form? We have not been told that.
§ The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Johnston)
The hon. Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) very rightly said that this was a limiting Amendment, and he might have added that it was a cramping Amendment. The hon. Gentleman and his friends raised this, or a similar point, in Committee upstairs, and it was urged with considerable, eloquence and persistence. The answer to the criticism on this point is very simple. The corporation is to be endowed with powers of an ordinary trading and commercial corporation. If it is to succeed at all, the fewer handicaps and difficulties with which it is surrounded, the better, but it is recognised that there must be some protection and some limitation. These limitations and protections are set forth precisely in the Bill. First of all, before the corporation is permitted to borrow any money at all, it must do so under regulations and powers approved of by the Minister; secondly, Treasury 1869 consent must be obtained, and hon. Members in any part of the House who have ever had experience of getting Treasury consent to anything will realise that that is not an imaginary barrier.
§ Mr. JOHNSTON
Yes. There are many people in the part of the world from which I come who do not desire to borrow if they can avoid it, and I presume that if the corporation can avoid borrowing they will do so; but if between outgoing expenditure and incoming returns the necessity arises for having the corporation financed, then, surely, it would be the height of absurdity, if we are going in for this experiment at all, to say at the outset that under no circumstances, even with Treasury control, the Minister's approval and all the rest of it, shall that corporation he permitted to function as another corporation would be and borrow up to the limits of its security. Therefore, I say, this would be a cramping Amendment—more than a limiting Amendment, a cramping Amendment. The second point raised was answered upstairs, where it was shown that continuous pressure can be brought to bear upon this corporation. The Minister can be "shot at" regularly in this House. If he gives approval to regulations or to proceedings which are wild or impossible then he can be attacked regularly and persistently in this House.
§ Sir PHILIP CUNLIFFE - LISTER
Will the hon. Gentleman say on what occasions the Minister can be attacked by debate, except on the annual Vote of the Board of Agriculture?
Mr. JO HNSTON
Nobody knows better than the right hon. Gentleman that the Opposition would only have to table a Vote of Censure and ask for %day, and the Government would be compelled to give them time for any matter of such importance. The only further point I want to take is that the majority of the House is in favour of this corporation and this experiment. Royal Commissions have recommended that it should be tried, Royal Commissions upon which Conservative Ministers for Agriculture have sat, the Committee have discussed the thing in detail upstairs, and yet the House is now being asked at the outset of the experiment to cramp, cabin 1870 and confine it by an Amendment which says that in no possible set of circumstances shall the corporation be permitted to borrow more than £50,000.
§ Mr. JOHNSTON
Yes, there are limits, the limits, for example, that are set by the Minister, and the limits that are set by the Treasury, who, it may be, would sometimes be in opposition to the Minister's point of view.
§ Sir J. LAMB
You say there are limits and then you state the possible limits that there "may be." I am asking if there are limits.
§ Mr. JOHNSTON
And I am answering. I say, first of all, there is the limit set by the Minister, and, secondly, there is the limit set by the Treasury, and, thirdly, there is the limit set by the lenders.
§ Mr. JOHNSTON
Well, lenders usually lend upon security, and the amount of security observable and available fixes the amount the lenders will advance. But no matter what the security may be—the security might be millions of pounds—the hon. Gentleman and his friends say that under no circumstances shall the corporation be able to borrow more than £50,000. It is an impossible Amendment, it is an Amendment designed, frankly, to wreck this experiment, and the Government cannot possibly accept it.
I think the Government have been well advised to change the batting upon this Amendment. We discussed it upstairs, as the hon. Member has told us, but he has not told us that he has now given us an entirely different answer. What was the point upstairs? I have it here, and it will be found in column 133 of the report of the Committee's proceedings. If the Amendment which I moved then had been carried, the Amendment limiting the financial accommodation of this company to the total of £1,000,000, which was to be found by the Treasury, controlled by the Minister, the corporation, it was said, could not borrow money for the purposes of buying stock, and so forth. We have met that point, and 1871 now the hon. Member is forced to take other grounds and to say that we are not giving the ordinary facilities which would be enjoyed by any other corporation.
As a matter of fact, it was the Minister who replied to the discussion, and I cannot find that the hon. Member took any part in the Debate.
§ Mr. C. WILLIAMS
If the right hon. Gentleman will excuse me, he will find what the hon. Gentleman said in columns 124 and 125 of the Committee's report.
I think the hon. Member for the City of Oxford (Captain Bourne) has taken these arguments of the Government a little too seriously, because really, as we have been shown to-day, there is no possible interference with the necessary financial facilities of the corporation involved in the acceptance of the Amendment which stands in my name. That Amendment seeks to limit the total advances to this corporation, whether from the Exchequer or from the banks and private lenders, to a total of £1,000,000. Provided that the Exchequer had not already gone to the full limit of £1,000,000, there is nothing in the Bill, as we would propose to amend it, to prevent the corporation getting the balance as ordinary accommodation from a bank. I think it is a deplorable suggestion that this corporation is to be run on overdrafts and that an accommodation of £50,000 is not sufficient. We do not object to reasonable capital provision, but surely that should be advanced by the Treasury as working capital, and it is absolutely unsound that the corporation should be able to mortgage its assets, which are nominally limited to £1,000,000, and raise, perhaps, 75 per cent. on that £1,000,000 from the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation, or by means of agricultural charges. The Treasury million will be a revolving capital. It is true that if profits are made they are to be repaid as is convenient to the finances of the corporation, but that does not mean that the corporation need be kept in any way short of the necessary money, and it is very misleading to the public to see that 1872 their liabilities in connection with this corporation are £11,000,000 when really the corporation may secure pig on pork, going a great deal further, if they go to the banks or to the public to raise further sums, everybody will know that the Government could not possibly allow this corporation to break down, and, in effect, the security will be what amounts to a Treasury guarantee behind the bond.
The hon. Member has told us tat the sole control over this is really a Vote of Censure. This is not money which will appear year by year in our Votes. It is money which will be granted once and for all from the Exchequer. Accounts will, no doubt, be furnished by the corporation and published, but it is not a matter which will normally be raised on the Vote. I take it would be out of order on the Vote to discuss the affairs of this corporation, seeing that it will not figure every year under any heading in the Votes as being in receipt of voted money. For that reason, we are called upon to insert even stronger safeguards than we would be if its proceedings came automatically under review on the Estimates every year. I understand from what you have said, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, in calling these Amendments, that we may discuss both these alternatives together. It is quite understood that the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford City has put down this limiting Amendment in respect of £50,000 of borrowed money on the strength of what was said by the Government in Committee.
The Government now want to go further, but I think we all feel that this limit is not really the proper way to deal with it, and that the honest course to the taxpayer is to have an effective limit of £1,000,000 for the total finance, and that that £1,000,000 be raised either from the Treasury-or by borrowing on the capital which the Treasury has provided; but if they choose to borrow let it be an alternative method of finance and not additional to what is found by the taxpayer. I hope we shall have some further consideration of this matter from the Government, because it fills me with disquiet to see that they have refused this suggestion we now put forward, and have shown thereby that they really propose to go far beyond the £1,000,000, envisaging an addition under which the corporation will have a much greater 1873 capital that that obtained either through the Land Mortgage Corporation or through other channels.
§ 6.0 p.m.
§ Colonel LANE FOX
The speech which has just been made by the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland shows very clearly the financial reckless ness of this Measure. The Amendment we are discussing does not propose that there should be Lo power of borrowing, but that there should be a limit placed upon that power, and if the Government think that limit is too great, then it is for the Government to suggest sonic other limit. To argue that the corporation to be established under this Bill should have the same powers as an ordinary trading association is absurd, and can lead only to colossal extravagance. An ordinary trading corporation is not endowed at the start with £1,000,000 of public money, and the risks which this corporation has to undertake are not the same risks as those of the ordinary trading company. This corporation will have a Government guarantee, and will be in an entirely different position as compared with an ordinary trading corporation. The Under-Secretary of State has told the House that in case the Minister exceeds a reasonable limit of expenditure on large-scale farming, hon. Members can move a Vote of Censure, but a cumbrous proceeding of that kind is not a practical suggestion for resisting extravagant expenditure.
We all know the amount of pressure so frequently put on the Treasury which is very hard to resist, and we do not want to add to the numberless cases which the Treasury already have to fight. It is our duty to see that the task of the Treasury is not made any harder than it is at the present time. We have been told that the intention of large-scale farming is to make a profit, but surely it is not unreasonable to suggest that there should be a limit of £50,000 in regard to such expenditure. There must be some limit put upon any extravagance in which the Government might be tempted to indulge in this direction. I think that the Under-Secretary should inform us what sort of an overdraft he considers would be necessary for large-scale farming. Hon. Members opposite have not had the experience in farming and farm overdrafts which 1874 many hon. Members who sit on this side of the House have had.
§ Colonel LANE FOX
I believe that the hon. Member for Central Bristol (Mr. Alpass) is the only one who has had any practical experience in the running of a farm. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Our objection to the financial proposals of this Bill are based on practical experience, and I hope the House will not allow the Government to have unlimited credit in pursuing their policy.
§ Lieut.-Colonel RUGGLES-BRISE
In his reply, the Under-Secretary stated that, as this matter was discussed very fully during the Committee stage, it was quite unnecessary to have it raised again at any length on the Report stage. It Ts necessary to raise this question again on account of the completely unsatisfactory nature of the reply which was given by the Minister of Agriculture in Committee upstairs, and also to the fact that this proposal is an extremely important one and any time devoted to it is by no means wasted. Let the House visualise the position. We will assume that this Bill has become an Act, and that, on a certain day, when the corporation has been appointed, they are to be allowed to commence their farming operations. The first thing they will do will be to, purchase the land, but I presume that, before doing that, they will have made some calculation as to how much of the £1,000,000 is to be devoted, in the first place, to the purchase of land; in the second place, to the purchase of stock, and, thirdly, how much is to be allotted to ordinary working capital to be available for the payment of wages and the ordinary out-goings of farming operations. They will have £1,000,000 to start with, and surely that ought to be enough for anybody who is going to enter upon the great gamble of farming under present conditions.
The corporation are to be allowed to operate still further, and give security for the money they wish to borrow. What security are the corporation to be allowed to give in respect to any borrowings which they may make 4 The £1,000,000 which is to be lent to the corporation by the Treasury is the taxpayers' money, and the purchases made with that money, 1875 whether it is invested in freehold land, livestock or used for working expenses will belong to the taxpayer, and surely it is correct to say that all that property is vested in the taxpayers. It has been bought with the taxpayers' money, and therefore the taxpayers are entitled to say that the whole of the land purchased, or any of the loose cash for farming operations, belongs to the taxpayers and to nobody else. The Bill says that the corporation may borrow and give security, but what security have the corporation to offer to those who lend money? The corporation have no security at all, because the security belongs to the taxpayers.
The Mover of the Amendment pointed out very clearly that if the corporation should be involved in heavy financial losses—and that is a possibility—there would lie a moral obligation on the taxpayers to make good those losses. Surely the taxpayers, if they have to run that risk, are entitled to have such assets as rightly belong to them. We find that under the provisions of this Measure the corporation are allowed to pledge those assets elsewhere in respect of further borrowings. When the taxpayers find that this great State farming experiment has proved a failure, and a Vote of Censure on the Minister of Agriculture has been moved they will he able to say that all the sums realised by the sale of property after that failure will belong to them. Is that the intention of the Government? That is what must inevitably happen, because the corporation have to give some security, and they have no security to offer. The corporation become a borrower the moment they get the taxpayers' money, and that is the reason why my hon. Friends on this side have thought it absolutely essential that the corporation should be limited in their borrowing powers to the sum of £50,000.
In my view, the corporation require no further borrowing powers. When the corporation make their calculations in the first instance, the £1,000,000 could be put into the three main spending departments. If there was any question of the corporation being tapped for additional money, then it might be quite reasonable to allow further borrowing powers, but, at a time when the nation is going 1876 through financial stress and distress, this House should watch every penny that is being spent or is going to be borrowed, because in the end the taxpayers have to foot the bill. The sum of £1,000,000 is more than enough with which to entrust any corporation, however skilled they may be in farming, or however well equipped they may be. It is ample for any body which proposes to enter into the risky occupation of farming at the present time.
§ Sir ERNEST SHEPPERSON
We are now discussing one of the agricultural Measures put forward by the Government. I would like to inform the Government at once that if I thought the expenditure of this money was going to help the agricultural industry, I should be the last person to support an Amendment to limit the amount, and I should not stand up to support an Amendment to limit the borrowing powers of this corporation to the sum of £50,000. The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland has said that the corporation can borrow up to the limit of its security. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Maldon (Lieut.-Colonel Ruggles-Brise) has asked, and I would repeat the question, what that security is to be, and what will be the limit of the borrowing powers on that security. I would also ask who, if this great experiment in large-scale farming fails, will bear the loss. As far as I can see from the Bill, the loss must eventually fall on the taxpayers of this country.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) said that he had some doubts as to the success of this large-scale farming. I disagree; I have no doubt; I have the absolute certain knowledge that it, will involve a loss. Unfortunately, and to my cost, I speak with considerable knowledge in regard to the possible losses on both large-scale and small-scale farming. I have had a life experience of ordinary farming, and also, unfortunately, a long experience of large-scale farming. I was connected with a large-scale farming operation in Lincolnshire, and I understand that it is possible, when this Bill goes through, that the Government will start an experimental large-scale farm in that county. Therefore, I have some knowledge as to what will happen when they undertake that experiment.
1877 This experiment in large-scale farming is for the purpose of demonstrating mechanisation as applied to agriculture, and, as mechanisation is generally applied on the arable side, I think I have a right to assume that this will be an experiment in arable farming. My experience of large-scale farming in Lincolnshire is that the losses upon it will be far in excess of those on small farms, and the losses on small arable farming recently have been great. Therefore, I feel justified in assuming that the losses on large-scale farming will be still greater. The concern in which I was interested started with a figure somewhat similar to that laid down in this Bill, namely, £1,250,000. I put my money into its preference shares at £1 a share, and I became a director of that concern. [Interruption.] During all the years that I was connected with it, I did not receive one penny of interest on the money that I put into it, nor did I receive any director's fees or any of my expenses for attending meetings. Under this scheme of the Government, the directors are going to receive fees which will not come from the profits of the concern—
§ Sir E. SHEPPERSON
I offer my apologies. My only reason for raising this point is that I want to save the taxpayers of the country as much as I can, and from my own knowledge I can say that they will lose money. I support this Amendment in that it will at any rate limit the loss to a certain extent.
§ Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. LAMBERT WARD
The Under-Secretary described this Amendment as a cramping one. I presume he means that it will cramp the operations of the Agricultural Land Corporation. That is a tacit admission that the corporation intends to expend a sum vastly in excess of the £1,000,000 which the Treasury is granting for the purpose of this experiment on large-scale farming. £1,000,000 is a large sum with which to start farming in this country. I think I am right in saying that no private individual, company or corporation has ever started farming in this country with a capital of £1,000,000 behind it. [Interruption.] I was referring to small-scale farming. We all know that the ideas of the Labour party are very large indeed, 1878 but I should think that even they would describe farming with a capital of £1,000,000 as a tolerably large-scale operation.
§ Sir A. LAMBERT WARD
That was paid for value received; it was not, as it is going to be in this case, cast into the sea an a very doubtful experiment.
It is not, of course, necessary that the Agricultural Land Corporation should at once expend the entire £1,000,000 on the purchase of land. For half that sum they could get sufficient land for experimental farming on a very large scale. I imagine that it is not necessary at the present time for them to pay more than, say, £20 an acre for the land on which they are going to experiment. I imagine that it is not their intention to buy the very best farming land, such as is being made to pay at the present time, but to buy land of lesser value, to recondition and stock it, and to make their experiments upon it. Therefore, they would be able to start their farming operations with 25,000 acres of land, and would still have £500,000 left for stocking and for providing agricultural machinery. Surely that is enough to carry on with. They will still have a good deal left—probably £150,000—as working capital. Is it necessary that they should have carte blanche to borrow to any extent?
The Under-Secretary himself said that the Agricultural Land Corporation wanted to have power to borrow up to the limit of their security. If they have expended £500,000 on the purchase of land, they will certainly be able, on the security of that property, to borrow another £400,000. If they have expended £250,000 on plant and agricultural machinery, they will certaintly be able to borrow another £100,000 on that, and, in addition, they will probably be able to borrow another £100,000 on the security of their growing crops. That means that they are asking for powers to borrow up to some £600,000 in addition to the £1,000,000 which they will be authorised to spend.
The hon. Gentleman made some reference to Treasury control, but is the Treasury going to have any effective control over their borrowing? It seems 1879 to me that, once this land has been purchased, the directors of the corporation will, to all intents and purposes, have carte blanche to borrow on the security of the land that they are farming, without any reference to the Treasury at all. I am not sure; that their powers of borrowing end there, because we find later in the Bill that the Treasury is to issue to the Minister sums up to £5,000,000 for the purchase of land to be reconditioned and used as allotments. Are they to be entitled also to pledge the £5,000,000 expended for this purpose? If so, they are indeed obtaining borrowing powers to an amazing extent. Surely this £1,000,000 of capital, plus the power to borrow £50,000 more, which should be held in reserve for an emergency, is sufficient for them to carry on with. It would be more than sufficient for any private company or individual to carry on farming on that scale. I do not think it is fair to admit that the fact of its being carried on under Government supervision will mean that the losses may be so large that this gigantic amount of borrowing power is necessary. This Amendment, which I am supporting, is not a cramping Amendment. It is put down, in the interests of the taxpayer, simply to restrain the notorious profligacy of the Labour Government.
§ Captain CAZALET
I want to ask a simple question. I have been reading through the report of the proceedings in the Standing Committee, and it was not made clear there, nor has it been made clear here to-day, why £1,000,000 is not sufficient to meet all the needs of the Government under this Clause. As far as I can understand, the Treasury is to advance to the corporation £1,000,000, and the corporation will not have to pay any interest on this sum. They can invest that £1,000,000 in buying land, stock and implements. Then, under the Agricultural Credits Act, 1928, on that £1,000,000 which they have expended they can go to the Agricultural Mortgage Loan Company and get a further advance equal to two-thirds of the estimated value of their property, that is to say, another £500,000; and under Part II of the same Act, which deals with short-term credits, they can get an agricultural charge on all or any of the farming stock and other assets belonging to them. If 1880 necessary, they could get a charge of at least another £500,000. Therefore, if there is no limit to the borrowing powers of this corporation, they can borrow no less than £2,000,000, on the security, of course, of the taxpayers' money.
What obligation is there upon this company to repay the money? We know that they have to make provision for security of payment to the Treasury of all moneys received on behalf of the corporation which are not required for the purposes of the corporation, but who is to decide what the purposes of the corporation may be? They may desire to extend even further their farming activities, and, therefore, they are under no obligation to return to the Treasury, until they wish to do so, any interest on the money originally borrowed. It seems to me that this is an endless indulgence on the part of the Government. The corporation could go on buying land as far as they like, up to an almost unlimited figure. If in one year their operations do not pay, there is nothing to prevent them from continuing, in the hope that in the next year things will be better. We believe that, in dealing with the taxpayers' money, especially at the present time, some limit should be put upon what must be, in the words of the Minister himself, an experiment, and, we think, a very doubtful one even at that—
§ Mr. C. WILLIAMS
I was very interested to hear what the Under-Secretary said, and to notice that, generally speaking, he was rather more consistent than is usually the case with speeches from the Front Bench opposite. In this matter of guarantee there is absolutely no security for the taxpayer, and I do not think the House has realised how far the Government, through the Minister of Agriculture, have committed themselves-upstairs in Committee. Those who were members of the Committee, or who have taken the trouble to refer to the reports of its proceedings, will be aware that the Minister himself, referring to this matter said:Then we say, not only that the Treasury shall prescribe the conditions upon which it may borrow, but also provide for the security upon which this money may be borrowed.In other words, the Treasury is giving full security. He goes on to say:This is a double-barrelled guarantee of the safety of these transactions.1881 Then there was an interruption by the late Minister of Agriculture in which he said:And the Treasury would pay the interest in case of need?To that remark the Minister replied:I do not know what would happen then.I was not surprised at that. He went on:In the long run, if they failed, probably would.Then he became a little shakier in his knowledge of the matter. At the end he said:
If you can express it more clearly, I shall be glad to have it expressed. We have Treasury sanction as to the conditions on which it can borrow, and as to the conditions of the security. I should like to know what more we can have."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee B), 1st December, 1930; cols, 130–31.]He has been told to-day what more he can have and, if he wishes to carry out his definite pledge, he has in this Amendment a method whereby he can carry it out and, if the pledge and the condition that he made in his speech upstairs is really worth anything, if he wants to guarantee the position of the taxpayer, I suggest that he should accept it. He was obviously asking help from the Opposition, and this Amendment is the help that he requires. He has only to accept it, and his position will be perfectly simple and easy. Moreover, the House itself would be in a much more satisfactory position. The Under-Secretary pointed out that, in the first place you have the guarantee, as far as the taxpayer is concerned, of the Minister. We have a very indifferent Ministry at present, but it is quite conceivable that in the course of the next generation there may be another Socialist Ministry even worse than the present. Since I have been in the House, I have never seen any Department of a Ministry which is a real guarantee in favour of the taxpayers. Some Ministries are better and some worse than others, and that is about all. Then we are told that we have the guarantee of the Treasury, and that they will lay down some limit to the amount of money that can be borrowed. We only have to look round at the Departments to-day and see the colossal waste on every hand, and how the Chancellor of the Exchequer allows himself to be 1882 squeezed at every turn. Treasury control in its real sense is nothing like what it ought to be.
There is a further point which I put in Committee which the Minister and his various helpers have never been able to answer. I am not sorry to have been able to put a question that the Minister could not answer. It would be a pleasant relief if I could find one important question that he could answer. You cannot reduce these great financial questions to such simplicity that the ordinary Minister in this Government can answer them. You cannot deal with a matter involving millions of pounds in such a simple way that his mind could understand it, such as asking him how many halfpennies go to a penny. My hon. Friend has pointed out the extraordinary amount that you could borrow under this proposal. I would ask one question. Under these powers which the Minister has, can they use the £1,000,000 to pay interest on the money that they borrow We have no representative of the Treasury here, and we have not had, and we ought on an occasion like this to be told the extent to which the Treasury intend to use this money. It is all very well to say you have this theoretical control, but you have not found that you have it in practice.
It is all very well for the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland to pretend, after all the failures of the Ministry to carry this out on every occasion, that we can have a Vote of Censure on the Government. You cannot have Votes of Censure on matters like this, because you would take the whole time of the House in having one Vote of Censure after another. I hope we shall be permitted to divide on both these Amendments, because they raise very considerable questions. Our chances of dealing with finance are extremely limited and are getting more and more cut down, and it is only right that we should have, as on this occasion, the opportunity of expressing our opinion on the financial side of it. There is a further question on this matter of finance. The Minister, both here and upstairs, is in rather a tangle on the matter. I do not understand why it is that, in dealing with a matter which involves many millions of pounds, we never have any help from the Treasury itself. [Interruption.] I should like to 1883 protest against the perpetual discourtesy of members of the Treasury, the Chancellor of the Exchequer in particular. He never comes to the House of Commons and never does his work—
I have been very patient with the hon. Member in waiting for his question. The Amendments dealt with borrowing powers and their limits.
§ Mr. WILLIAMS
I was going to ask, if only I had the opportunity of asking someone who understands what are the limitations to borrowing under these conditions? As none of the existing occupants of the Treasury Bench seem to understand the Clause, and the borrowing part of it, I was putting in a protest that I should like to see it explained by one of the so-called financial authorities of the Government. It is utterly wrong that the House should not have the most skilled and competent expert advice, but should be asked to vote blindly.
§ Viscount WOLMER
I wish we could get from the Government their real objection to either of the Amendments which my hon. Friends have put down. The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland says they would cramp the work of the corporation, but surely that, from the point of view for which this corporation is set up, is the greatest nonsense in the world. The object of it is to give a demonstration to farmers in large-scale farming, and for that purpose they are provided with £1,000,000 in cash, and we want to limit them, roughly speaking, to that £1,000,000, but the Government insist on leaving the Bill in such a form that they can extend it by many hundreds of thousands of pounds. I want to ask the Minister what really is to be gained from the point of view of this demonstration in agriculture by having this vast capitalization? Let us suppose the almost inconceivable contingency that this large-scale farm, from a financial point of view, will be a great success. If that occurs, what good will it be to the ordinary farmers to know that a corporation with a capital of £2,000,000 has been able to make farming pay, and how many farmers have £2,000,000 with which to copy the example the right hon. Gentleman will have furnished? [An HON. MEMBER: "They could combine!"] That means that you are contemplating 1884 covering the country with limited liability companies, if anyone says that is going to improve the countryside, he does not know anything about the countryside.
Hon. Members opposite are always complaining about the action of limited liability companies in industry. They are for ever telling us that these great companies have destroyed all personal touch between master and man, and that the root evils of the industrial system spring from this system of capitalisation. Yet here are the Government instituting an experiment the only justification of which can be the establishment of capitalisation in agriculture. There is no one who knows anything about the countryside who would like to see that occur. You do not want this great aggregation of capital. There is no need for it. If you have your £1,000,000, you can have a farm twice as big as any other in the country and you can have all the machinery you want. You can copy all the methods of Canada or America. How many farms in Canada are capitalised to the extent of £1,000,000? The hon. Member could count them on the fingers of his hand. Agriculture, not only of the old world but of the new-world, is carried out on a much smaller figure even than that. The real reason, I suppose, is psychological. The Minister of Agriculture is incapable of considering any figure lower than £1,000,000. Any smaller sum, apparently, is too niggardly for his consideration. The Royal Veterinary College may ask for £100,000, and he simply cannot take any notice of it.
§ Viscount WOLMER
I am very glad to hear the Minister say that he is prepared to give the Royal Veterinary College what they want. That is the first intimation we have had on that subject, and I am sure the governors of that college will read his statement in the paper tomorrow with great appreciation. I submit to the Minister that if this corporation is merely intended to be what he says it is intended to be, that is to say, demonstrative, then there is nothing in either of these two Amendments which will interfere with the value of that demonstration in any degree whatever. On the contrary, it will be some small guarantee that the scale of farming will 1885 be kept within such a size as to be of some practical value to agriculture. It is no good having a Brobdingnagian scale—[Interruption.] It is no good having an experiment on that scale when people have to live and farm on a totally different scale.
The only justification for these gigantic figures is, what we have always suspected, and which the right hon. Gentleman has never been able to convince us is not the case, that the Minister has really designed in this Bill all the machinery which will enable him or his party at a later date to carry out the nationalisation of land. The whole framework of this Bill is built on a scale to enable the Labour party to carry out the nationalisation of land. They smile pleasantly and give us verbal assurances that whatever may be their ultimate intention, this Bill has nothing whatever to do with it. Whenever we propose an Amendment which is designed to limit the scope of the Bill and the scope of the pretensions of right hon. Gentlemen opposite, we find that those
§ Amendments are resisted. Therefore, we are bound to attach importance to the extraordinary spectacle of Ministers, without giving any adequate reason, insisting on retaining financial powers in this Bill altogether beyond those required for the purposes which they profess to have at heart. I very much hope that my hon. Friends will divide on both these Amendments, because it will show the country that when we make an attempt to limit this experiment to reasonable figures, and to tie it down to the purpose for which it can possibly be of any use, we have to do so in the face of the opposition and refusal of His Majesty's Government.
§ Dr. ADDISON rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Question put, "That the Question be now put."
The House divided: Ayes, 263; Noes, 161.1889
|Division No. 106.]||AYES.||[6.51 p.m.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File, West)||Compton, Joseph||Hayday, Arthur|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Cove, William O.||Hayes, John Harvey|
|Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher||Cowan, D. M.||Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)|
|Altchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.||Cripps, Sir Stafford||Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)|
|Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')||Daggar, George||Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)|
|Alpass, J. H.||Dallas, George||Herriotts, J.|
|Ammon, Charles George||Dalton, Hugh||Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)|
|Angell, Sir Norman||Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Hoffman, P. C.|
|Arnott, John||Denman, Hon. R. D.||Hollins, A.|
|Aske, Sir Robert||Devlin, Joseph||Horrabin, J. F.|
|Attlee, Clement Richard||Dukes, C.||Hudson, James H. (Hudderafield)|
|Ayles, Walter||Duncan, Charles||Hunter. Dr. Joseph|
|Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bliston)||Ede, James Chuter||Isaacs, George|
|Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)||Edmunds, J. E.||Jenkins, Sir William|
|Barnes. Alfred John||Edwards, E. (Morpeth)||John, William (Rhondda, West)|
|Barr, James||Elmley, Viscount||Johnston, Thomas|
|Bellamy, Albert||Forgan, Dr. Robert||Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)|
|Bann, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood||Freeman, Peter||Jones, Henry Hayon (Merioneth)|
|Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)||Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)||Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.|
|Bennett, William (Battersea, South)||Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)||Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston)|
|Benson, G.||George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)||Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)|
|Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)||George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)||Kelly, W. T.|
|Birkett, W. Norman||Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)||Kennedy, Rt Hon. Thomas|
|Blindell, James||Gill, T. H.||Ken worthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.|
|Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret||Gillett, George M.||Kinley, J.|
|Bowen, J. W.||Glassey, A. E.||Kirkwood, D.|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Gossling, A. G.||Knight, Holford|
|Broad, Francis Alfred||Gould, F.||Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)|
|Brockway, A. Fenner||Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||Lang, Gordon|
|Brooke, W.||Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)||Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George|
|Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)||Gray, Milner||Lathan, G.|
|Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)||Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Law, Albert (Bolton)|
|Buchanan, G.||Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)||Law, A. (Rossendale)|
|Bargees, F. G.||Groves, Thomas E.||Lawrence, Susan|
|Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Eiland)||Grundy, Thomas W.||Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)|
|Caine, Derwent Hall-||Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)||Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)|
|Cameron, A. G.||Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Leach, W.|
|Cape, Thomas||Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)||Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)|
|Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)||Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)||Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)|
|Charleton, H. C.||Hamilton. Mary Aqnes (Blackburn)||Lees, J.|
|Chater, Daniel||Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)||Lindley, Fred W.|
|Clarke, J. S.||Hardie, George D.||Lloyd, C. Eills|
|Cluse, W. S.||Harris, Percy A.||Lagan, David Gilbert|
|Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.||Hastings, Dr. Somervllle||Longbottom, A. W.|
|Cocks, Frederick Seymoar||Haycock, A. W.||Lovat-Fraser, J. A.|
|Lunn, William||Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)||Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)|
|Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)||Palin, John Henry||Smith, Rennie (Penistone)|
|MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)||Paling, Wilfrid||Smith, Tom (Pontefract)|
|McElwee, A.||Palmer, E. T.||Smith, W. R. (Norwich)|
|McEntee, V. L.||Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)||Snell, Harry|
|McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)||Perry, S. F.||Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip|
|McKinlay, A.||Peters. Dr. Sidney John||Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)|
|MacLaren, Andrew||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.||Stamford, Thomas W.|
|Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)||Phillips, Dr. Marion||Stephen, Campbell|
|Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)||Picton-Turbervill, Edith||Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)|
|McShane, John James||Pole, Major D. G.||Strauss, G. R.|
|Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)||Potts, John S.||Sullivan, J.|
|mander, Geoffrey le M.||Pybus, Percy John||Sutton, J. E.|
|Mansfield, W.||Quibell, D. J. K.||Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)|
|March, S||Ramsay, T. B. Wilson||Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)|
|Marcus, M.||Rathbone, Eleanor||Thurtle, Ernest|
|Markham, S. F.||Raynes, W. R.||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Marley, J.||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)||Tout, W. J.|
|Mathers, George||Rlley, Ben (Dewsbury)||Townend, A. E.|
|Matters, L. W.||Rlley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)||Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles|
|Maxton, James||Romeril, H. G.||Viant, S. P.|
|Melville, Sir James||Rosbotham, D. S. T.||Walkden, A. G.|
|Messer, Fred||Rowson, Guy||Walker, J.|
|Middleton, G.||Salter, Dr. Alfred||Wallace, H. W.|
|Millar, J. D.||Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)||Watkins, F. C.|
|Milner, Major J.||Sanders, W. S.||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)|
|Montague. Frederick||Sandham, E.||Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)|
|Morgan, Dr. H. B.||Sawyer, G. F.||Wellock, Willred|
|Morley, Ralph||Scott, James||Welsh, James (Paisley)|
|Morris, Rhys Hopkins||Scrymgcour, E.||West, F. R.|
|Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)||Scurr, John||Westwood, Joseph|
|Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)||Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.||White, H. G.|
|Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)||Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)||Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)|
|Mort, D. L.||Sherwood, G. H.||Williams, David (Swansea, East)|
|Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)||Shield, George William||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)|
|Muff, G.||Shiels, Dr. Drummond||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Muggeridge, H. T.||shillaker, J. F.||Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)|
|Murnin, Hugh||Shinwell, E.||Wilson, J. (Oldham)|
|Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)||Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Noel Baker, P. J.||Simmons, C. J.||Winterton, G. E.(Leicester,Loughb'gh)|
|Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)||Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Oldfield, J. R.||Sitch, Charles H.||Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Ben Smith.|
|Oliver, Gtorge Harold (Ilkeston)||Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)|
|Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)||Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Christie, J. A.||Harmon, Patrick Joseph Henry|
|Albery, Irving James||Cobb, Sir Cyril||Hartington, Marquess of|
|Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)||Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George||Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)|
|Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.||Colville, Major D. J.||Heneage, Lieut.-Col Arthur P.|
|Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wiltrid W.||Courtauld, Major J. S.||Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.|
|Astor, Viscountess||Courthope, Colonel sir G. L.||Hills, Major Rt. Hon John Waller|
|Atholl, Duchess of||Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.||Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)||Culvorwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)|
|Balfour. Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)||Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip||Hurd, Percy A.|
|Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.||Dalkeith, Earl of||Hurst, Sir Gerald B.|
|Beaumont, M. W.||Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)||Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.|
|Bellairs, Commander Carlyon||Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)||Iveagh, Countess of|
|Betterton, Sir Henry B.||Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert||Kindersley, Major G. M.|
|Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)||Duckworth, G. A. V.||Lamb, Sir J. O|
|Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman||Dugdale, Capt. T. L.||Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.|
|Bird. Ernest Roy||Eden, Captain Anthony||Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)|
|Boothby, R. J. G.||Edmondson, Major A. J.||Leighton. Major B. E. P.|
|Bourne, Captain Robert Croft.||Elliot, Major Walter E.||Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)|
|Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart||Ersklne, Lord (Somerset,Weston-s-M.)||Liewellin, Major J. J.|
|Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.||Falle, Sir Bertram G.||Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey|
|Boyce, Leslie||Ferguson, Sir John||Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)|
|Bracken, B.||Ford. Sir P. J.||Lockwood, Captain J. H.|
|Braithwaite, Major A. N.||Forestier-Walker, sir L.||Long, Major Hon. Erie|
|Brass, Captain Sir William||Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.||Lymington, Viscount|
|Briscoe, Richard George||Ganzoni, Sir John||McConnell, Sir Joseph|
|Brown, Gal. O. C. (N'th'Id'., Hexham)||Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & otley)||Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)|
|Butler, R. A.||Glyn, Major R. G. C.||Makins, Brigadier-General E.|
|Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward||Graham. Fergus (Cemberland, N.)||Margesson, Captain H. D.|
|Campbell, E. T.||Grattan-Doyle. Sir N.||Marjoribanks, Edward|
|Carver, Major W. H.||Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)||Mason, Colonel Glyn K.|
|Castle Stewart, Earl ol||Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John||Merriman, Sir F. Boyd|
|Cautley, Sir Henry S.||Gritten, W. G. Howard||Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)|
|Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)||Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.||Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.|
|Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth,S.)||Gunston, Captain D. W.||Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.|
|Chamberlain Rt.Hn.Sir J.A.(Birm.,W.)||Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)||Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)||Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)||Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)|
|Chapman, Sir S.||Hanbury, C.||Muirhead, A. J.|
|Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)||Salmon, Major I.||Turton, Robert Hugh|
|Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G.(Ptrsf'ld)||Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart||Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)|
|Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert||Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome||Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert|
|O'Connor, T. J.||Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)||Wayland, Sir William A.|
|O'Neill, Sir H.||Smith-Carington, Neville W.||Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)|
|Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William||Smithers, Waldron||Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)|
|Peake, Captain Osbert||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Penny, Sir George||Southby, Commander A. R. J.||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)||Spender-Clay, Colonel H.||Withers, Sir John James|
|Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)||Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur||Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount|
|Pownall, Sir Assheton||Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.||Womersley, W. J.|
|Ramsbotham, H.||Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.||Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley|
|Reid, David D. (County Down)||Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)||Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.|
|Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.||Tinne, J. A.||Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton|
|Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'te'y)||Titchfield, Major the Marquess of||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell||Todd, Capt. A. J.||Sir Frederick Thomson and Sir Victor Warrender.|
|Ruggles-Brise. Lieut.-Colonel E. A.||Train, J.|
|Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement|
§ Question put accordingly, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."1890
§ The House divided: Ayes, 166; Noes, 262.1893
|Division No. 107.]||AYES.||[7.2 p.m.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.Colonel||Erskine, Lord (Somerset,Weston-s.-M.)||Muirhead, A. J.|
|Albery. Irving James||Falle, Sir Bertram G.||Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)|
|Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)||Ferguson, Sir John||Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G.(Ptrsf'ld)|
|Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.||Ford, Sir P. J.||Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert|
|Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.||Forestier-Walker. Sir L.||O'Connor, T. J.|
|Astor, Viscountess||Fremantie, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.||O'Neill, Sir H.|
|Atholl, Duchess of||Ganzoni, Sir john||Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)||Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & otley)||Peake, Captain Osbert|
|Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)||Glyn, Major R. G. C.||Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)|
|Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.||Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)||Pownall, Sir Assheton|
|Beaumont, M. W.||Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.||Ramsbotham, H.|
|Bellairs, Commander Carlyon||Grenfell. Edward C. (City of London)||Reid, David D. (County Down)|
|Betterton, Sir Henry B.||Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John||Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.|
|Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)||Gritten, W. G. Howard||Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch't'sy)|
|Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman||Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.||Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell|
|Bird, Ernest Roy||Gunston, Captain D. W.||Ross, Major Ronald D.|
|Boothby, R. J. G.||Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)||Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.|
|Bourne, Captain Robert Croft.||Hamilton, Sir George (liford)||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)|
|Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart||Hanbury, C.||Salmon, Major I.|
|Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W||Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart|
|Boyce, Lesile||Hartington, Marquess of||Savery, S. S.|
|Bracken, B.||Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)||Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome|
|Braithwaite, Major A. N.||Heneage, Lieut.-Col Arthur P.||Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hailam)|
|Brass, Captain Sir William||Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.||Smith-Carington, Neville W.|
|Briscoe, Richard George||Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller||Smithers, Waldron|
|Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)||Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)|
|Butler, R. A.||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)||Southby, Commander A. R. J.|
|Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward||Hurd, Percy A.||Spender-Clay, Colonel H.|
|Campbell, E. T.||Hurst, Sir Gerald B.||Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur|
|Carver, Major W. H.||Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.||Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)|
|Castle Stewart, Earl of||Iveagh, Countess of||Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.|
|Cautley, Sir Henry S.||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.|
|Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, city)||Kindersley, Major G. M.||Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)|
|Cayzer, Maj.Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth,S.)||Lamb, Sir J. O.||Thomson, Sir F.|
|Chamberiain Rt.Hn.Sir J.A.(Birm.,W.)||Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)||Tinne, J. A.|
|Chamberialn, Rt. Hon. N.(Edgbaston)||Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.||Titchfield, Major the Marquees of|
|Chapman, Sir S.||Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)||Todd, Capt. A. J.|
|Christle, J. A.||Leighton, Major B. E. P||Train, J.|
|Cobb, Sir Cyril||Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George||Liewellin, Major J. J.||Turton, Robert Hugh|
|Colville, Major D. J.||Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey||Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)|
|Courtauld, Major J. S.||Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)||Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert|
|Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.||Lockwood, Captain J. H.||Wayland, Sir William A.|
|Crichton-Stuart. Lord C.||Long, Major Hon. Eric||Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)|
|Crookshank, Capt. H. C.||Lymington, Viscount||Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)|
|Croom-Johnson, R. P.||McConnell, Sir Joseph||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)||Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip||Makins, Brigadier-General E.||Withers, Sir John James|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Margesson, Captain H. D.||Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount|
|Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)||Marjoribanks, Edward||Womersley, W. J.|
|Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)||Mason, Colonel Glyn K.||Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley|
|Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert||Merriman, Sir F. Boyd||Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton|
|Duckworth, G. A. V.||Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Dugdale, Capt. T. L.||Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.||Sir George Penny and Sir Victor Warrender.|
|Eden, Captain Anthony||Moore, Lieut-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)|
|Edmondson, Major A. J.||Morris, Rhys Hopkins|
|Elliot, Major Walter E.||Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)||Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)||Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)||Mort, D. L.|
|Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher||Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)||Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)|
|Altchison, Rt. Hon. Cralgle M.||Hardie, George D.||Muff, G.|
|Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')||Harris, Percy A.||Muggeridge, H. T.|
|Alpass, J. H.||Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon||Murnin, Hugh|
|Ammon, Charles George||Hastings, Dr. Somerville||Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)|
|Angell, Sir Norman||Haycock, A. W.||Noel Baker, P. J.|
|Arnott, John||Hayday, Arthur||Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)|
|Aske, Sir Robert||Hayes. John Henry||Oldfield, J. R.|
|Attlee, Clement Richard||Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)||Oliver. George Harold (Ilkeston)|
|Ayles, Walter||Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)||Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)|
|Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)||Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)||Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)|
|Baldwin, Oilver-(Dudley)||Herriotts, J.||Palin, John Henry.|
|Barnes. Alfred John||Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Went worth)||Paling, Wilfrid|
|Barr, James||Hoffman, P. C.||Palmer, E. T.|
|Bellamy, Albert||Hollins, A.||Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)|
|Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood||Hopkin, Daniel||Perry, S. F.|
|Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)||Horrabin, J. F.||Peters, Dr. Sidney John|
|Bennett, William (Battersea, South)||Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.|
|Benson, G.||Hunter, Dr. Joseph||Phillips, Dr. Marlon|
|Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)||Isaacs, George||Picton-Turbervill, Edith|
|Birkett, W. Norman||Jenkins, Sir William||Pole, Major D. G.|
|Bilndell, James||John. William (Rhondda. West)||Potts, John S.|
|Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret||Johnston, Thomas||pybus, Percy John|
|Bowen, J. W.||Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)||Quibell, D. J. K.|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.||Ramsay, T. B. Wilson|
|Broad, Francis Alfred||Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston)||Rathbone, Eleanor|
|Brockway, A. Fenner||Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)||Raynes, W. R.|
|8rooke, W.||Kelly, W. T.||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)|
|Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)||Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Riley. Ben (Dewsbury)|
|Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)||Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.||Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)|
|Buchanan, G.||Kinley, J.||Romeril, H. G.|
|Burgess, F. G.||Kirkwood, D.||Rosbotham, D. S. T.|
|Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)||Knight, Holford||Rowson, Guy|
|Caine, Derwent Hall-||Lang, Gordon||Salter. Dr. Alfred|
|Cameron, A. G.||Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George||Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)|
|Cape, Thomas||Lathan, G.||Sanders, W. S.|
|Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)||Law, Albert (Bolton)||Sandham, E|
|Charleson, H. C.||Law, A. (Rossendale)||Sawyer, G. F.|
|Chater, Daniel||Lawrence, Susan||Scott, James|
|Clarke, J. S.||Lawrle, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)||Scrymgeour, E.|
|Cluse, W. S.||Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)||Scurr, John|
|Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.||Leach, W.||Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.|
|Cocks, Frederick Seymour||Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)||Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)|
|Compton, Joseph||Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)||Sherwood, G. H.|
|Cove, William G.||Lees, J.||Shield, George William|
|Cowan, D. M.||Lindley, Fred W.||Shiels, Dr. Drummond|
|Cripps, Sir Stafford||Lloyd, C. Ellis||Shillaker, J. F.|
|Daggar, George||Logan, David Gilbert||Shinwell, E.|
|Dallas, George||Longbottom, A. W.||Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)|
|Dalton, Hugh||Lovat-Fraser, J. A.||Simmons, C. J.|
|Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Lunn, William||Sinclair. Sir A. (Caithness)|
|Denman, Hon. R. D.||Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)||Sitch, Charles H.|
|Devlin, Joseph||MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)||Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)|
|Dukes, C.||McElwee, A.||Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)|
|Duncan, Charles||McEntee, V. L.||Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)|
|Ede, James Chuter||McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)||Smith, Rennie (Penistone)|
|Edmunds, J. E.||McKinlay, A.||Smith, Tom (Pontefract)|
|Edwards, E. (Morpeth)||MacLaren, Andrew||Smith, W. R. (Norwich)|
|Elmley, Viscount||Maclean. Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)||Snell, Harry|
|Forgan, Dr. Robert||Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)||Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip|
|Freeman, Peter||Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.||Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)|
|Gardner, B. W. (West Ham. Upton)||McShane, John James||Stamford, Thomas W.|
|Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)||Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)||Stephen, Campbell|
|George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)||Mander, Geoffrey le M.||Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)|
|George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)||Mansfield, W.||Strauss, G. R.|
|Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)||March, S.||Sullivan, J.|
|Gill, T. H.||Marcus, M.||Sutton, J. E.|
|Gillett, George M.||Markham, S. F.||Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)|
|Glatsey, A. E.||Marley, J.||Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)|
|Gossling, A. G.||Mathers, Georqe||Thurtle, Ernest|
|Gould, F.||Matters, L. W.||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||Maxton, James||Tout, W. J.|
|Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)||Melville, Sir James||Townend, A. E.|
|Gray, Milner||Messer, Fred||Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles|
|Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Middleton, G.||Viant, S. P.|
|Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)||Milner, Major J.||Walkden, A. G.|
|Groves, Thomas E.||Montague, Frederick||Walker, J.|
|Grundy, Thomas W.||Morgan, Dr. H. B.||Wallace, H. W.|
|Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)||Morley, Ralph||Watkins, F. C.|
|Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)|
|Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)||Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)||Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)|
|Wellock, Wilfred||Williams, David (Swansea. East)||Winterton, G. E.(Leicester,Loughb'gh)|
|Welsh. James (Paisley)||Williams, Or. J. H. (Llanelly)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|West, F. R.||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)||Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Ben Smith.|
|Westwood, Joseph||Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)|
|White, H. G.||Wilson, J. (Oldham)|
|Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)||Wilson R. J. (Jarrow)|
I beg to move, in page 2, line 40, at the end, to insert the words:Provided that any money so borrowed shall be deemed to be a portion of the aggregate sum issued out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom, or the grow-
ing produce thereof, under the provisions of paragraph (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section twenty-one of this Act."
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 168; Noes, 259.1895
|Division No. 108.]||AYES.||[7.12 p.m.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Eillot, Major Walter E.||Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)|
|Albery, Irving James||Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.M.)||Morris, Rhys Hopkins|
|Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow,Cent'l)||Falle, sir Bertram G.||Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)|
|Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)||Ferguson, sir John||Muirhead, A. J.|
|Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.||Ford, Sir P. J.||Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)|
|Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.||Forestier-Walker, Sir L.||Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G.(Ptrsf'ld)|
|Astor, Viscountess||Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.||Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert|
|Atholl, Duchess of||Ganzoni, Sir John||O'Connor, T. J.|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)||Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & otley)||O'Neill, Sir H.|
|Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)||Glyn, Major R. G. C.||Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William|
|Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.||Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)||Peake, Captain Osbert|
|Beaumont, M. W.||Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.||Penny, Sir George|
|Bellairs, Commander Carlyon||Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)||Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)|
|Betterton, Sir Henry B.||Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John||Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)|
|Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)||Gritten, W. G. Howard||Pownall, Sir Assheton|
|Birchall, Major sir John Dearman||Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.||Ramsbotham, H.|
|Bird, Ernest Roy||Gunston, Captain D. W.||Reid, David D. (County Down)|
|Boothby, R. J. G.||Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)||Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.|
|Bourne, Captain Robert Croft.||Hamilton, sir George (liford)||Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)|
|Bowater, Col. Sir T. vansittart||Hanbury, C.||Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell|
|Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.||Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Ross, Major Ronald D.|
|Boyce, Leslie||Hartington, Marquess of||Ruggles-Brise, Lieut-Colonel E. A.|
|Bracken, B.||Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)|
|Braithwaite, Major A. N.||Heneage, Lieut.-Col Arthur P.||Salmon, Major I.|
|Brass, Captain Sir William||Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.||Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart|
|Briscoe, Richard George||Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)||Savery, S. S.|
|Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)||Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Walter||Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome|
|Butler, R. A.||Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.||Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)|
|Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)||Smith-Carington, Neville W.|
|Campbell, E. T.||Hurd, Percy A.||Smithers, Waldron|
|Carver, Major W. H.||Hurst, Sir Gerald B.||Somerville, A. A. (Windser)|
|Castle Stewart, Earl of||Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.||Southby, Commander A. R. J.|
|Cautley, Sir Henry S.||Iveagh, Countess of||Spender-Clay, Colonel H.|
|Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur|
|Cayzer, Maj.Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth,S.)||Kindersley, Major G. M.||Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)|
|Chamberlain, Rt.Hn.Sir J.A.(Birm.,W.)||Lamb, Sir J. Q.||Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)||Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)||Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.|
|Chapman, Sir S.||Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.||Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)|
|Christle, J. A.||Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)||Thomson, Sir F.|
|Cobb, Sir Cyril||Leighton, Major B. E. P.||Tinne, J. A.|
|Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George||Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)||Titchfield. Major the Marquees of|
|Colvillee, Major D. J.||Liewellin, Major J. J.||Todd, Capt. A. J.|
|Courtauld, Major J. S.||Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)||Train, J.|
|Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.||Lockwood, Captain J. H.||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.||Long, Major Hon. Eric||Turton, Robert Hugh|
|Crookshank, Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)||Lymington, Viscount||Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert|
|Croom-Johnson, R. P.||McConnell, Sir Joseph||Wayland, Sir William A.|
|Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)||Macdonald, Capt. P. J. (I. of W.)||Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)|
|Cunilffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip||Makins, Brigadier-General E.||Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Margesson, Captain H. D.||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset.Yeovil)||Marjoribanks, Edward||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)||Mason, Colonel Glyn K.||Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount|
|Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert||Merriman, Sir F. Boyd||Womersley, W. J.|
|Duckworth, G. A. V.||Millar, J. D.||Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.|
|Dugdale, Capt. T. L.||Mitchell. Sir W. Lane (Streatham)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Eden, Captain Anthony'||Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.||Captain Wallace and Sir Victor Warrender.|
|Edmondson, Major A. J.||Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File, West)||Altchlson, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.||Arnott, John|
|Adamson, W. M. (Stall., Cannock)||Alexander. Rt Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')||Aske, Sir Robert|
|Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher||Ammon, Charles George||Attler, Clement Richard|
|Aytes, Walter||Hayday, Arthur||Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)|
|Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)||Hayes, John Henry||Palin, John Henry|
|Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)||Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)||Paling, Wilfrid|
|Barnes, Alfred John||Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)||Palmer, E. T.|
|Barr, James||Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)||Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)|
|Bellamy, Albert||Herriotts, J.||Perry, S. F.|
|Benn, Fit. Hon. Wedgwood||Hirst, G. H. (York W.R. Wentworth)||Peters, Or. Sidney John|
|Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)||Hoffman, P. C.||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.|
|Bennett, William (Battersea, South)||Hoillns, A.||Phillips, Dr. Marlon|
|Benson, G.||Horrabin, J. F.||Pole, Major D. G.|
|Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)||Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)||Potts, John S.|
|Birkett, W. Norman||Hunter, Dr. Joseph||Pybus, Percy John|
|Blindell, James||Isaacs, George||Quibell, D. J. K.|
|Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret||Jenkins, Sir William||Ramsay, T. B. Wilson|
|Bowen, J. W.||Jchn, William (Rhondda, West)||Rathbone, Eleanor|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Johnston, Thomas||Raynes, W. R.|
|Broad, Francis Alfred||Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)|
|Brockway, A. Fenner||Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.||Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)|
|Brooke, W.||Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston)||Rlley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)|
|Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)||Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)||Romeril, H. G.|
|Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)||Kelly, W. T.||Rosbotham, D. S. T.|
|Buchanan, G.||Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Rowson, Guy|
|Burgess, F. G.||Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.||Salter, Dr. Alfred|
|8uxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)||Kinley, J.||Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)|
|Caine, Derwent Hall-||Kirkwood, D.||Sander, W. S.|
|Cameron, A. G.||Knight, Holford||Sandham, E.|
|Cape, Thomas||Lang, Gordon||Sawyer, G. F.|
|Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)||Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George||Scott, James|
|Charleson, H. C.||Lathan, G.||Scrymgeour, E.|
|Chafer, Daniel||Law. Albert (Bolton)||Scurr, John|
|Clarke, J. S.||Law, A. (Rossendale)||Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.|
|Cluse, W. S.||Lawrence, Susan||Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)|
|Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.||Lawrle, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)||Sherwood, G. H.|
|Cocks, Frederick Seymour||Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)||Shield, George William|
|Compton, Joseph||Leach, W.||Shiels, Dr. Drummond|
|Cove, William G.||Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)||Shillaker, J. F.|
|Cowan, D. M.||Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)||Shinwell, E.|
|Cripps, Sir Stafford||Lees, J.||Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)|
|Daggar, George||Lindley. Fred W.||Simmons, C. J.|
|Dallas, George||Lloyd, C. Ellis||Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)|
|Dalton, Hugh||Logan, David Gilbert||Sitch, Charles H.|
|Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Lonqbottom, A. W.||Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)|
|Denman, Hon. R. O.||Lovat-Fraser, J. A.||Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)|
|Devlin, Joseph||Lunn, William||Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)|
|Dukes, C.||Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)||Smith, Rennie (Penistone)|
|Duncan, Charles||MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)||Smith, Tom (Pontefract)|
|Ede, James Chuter||McElwee, A.||Smith, W. R. (Norwich)|
|Edmunds, J. E.||McEntee, V. L.||Snell, Harry|
|Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)||McGovorr J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)||Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip|
|Edwards, E. (Morpeth)||McKinlay, A.||Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)|
|Elmley, Viscount||MacLaren, Andrew||Stamford, Thomas W.|
|Forgan, Dr. Robert||Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)||Stephen, Campbell|
|Freeman, Peter||Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)||Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)|
|Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)||McShane, John James||Strauss, G. R.|
|Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)||Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)||Sullivan, J.|
|George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)||Mander, Geoffrey le M.||Sutton, J. E.|
|George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)||Mansfield, W.||Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)|
|George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)||March, S.||Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)|
|Gibson, H. M. (Lancs. Mossley)||Marcus, M.||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Gill, T. H.||Markham, S. F.||Townend, A. E.|
|Gillett, George M.||Marley, J.||Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles|
|Glassey, A. E.||Mathers, George||Viant, S. P.|
|Gossling, A. G.||Matters, L. W.||Walkdon, A. G.|
|Gould, F.||Maxton, James||Walker, J.|
|Graham, D. M. (Lanark. Hamilton)||Melville, Sir James||Wallace, H. W.|
|Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)||Messer, Fred||Watkins, F. C.|
|Granville, E.||Middleton, G.||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)|
|Gray, Milner||Mliner. Major J.||Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)|
|Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Montague, Frederick||Wellock, Wilfreo|
|Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)||Morgan Dr. H. B.||Welsh, James (Paisley)|
|Groves, Thomas E.||Morley, Ralph||West, F. R.|
|Grundy, Thomas W.||Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)||Westwood, Joseph|
|Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)||Morrison. Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)||White, H. G.|
|Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Mort, D. L.||Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)|
|Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)||Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)||Williams, David (Swansea, East)|
|Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)||Muff, G.||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)|
|Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)||Muggeridge, H. T.||Williams, T.' (York, Don Valley)|
|Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)||Murnin, Hugh||Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)|
|Harbord, A.||Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)||Wilson, J. (Oldham)|
|Hardie, George D.||Noel Baker, P. J.||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Harris, Percy A.||Noel-Buxton. Baroness (Norfolk, N.)||Winterton, G. E.(Leicester,Loughb'gh)|
|Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon||Oldfield, J. R.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Hastings, Dr. Somervllle||Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)||Mr. Ben Smith and Mr. Thurtle.|
|Haycock, A. W.||Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blacklsy)|
Marquess of HARTINGTON
I beg to move, in page 3, line 4, after the word "corporation," to insert the words:such accounts to be on a detailed costing system and to include a valuation of the corporation's farms.This is the first of two Amendments which stand in my name. I understand that the two Amendments are to be discussed together. My second Amendment is, in page 3, line 4, after the word "corporation," to insert the words:such accounts to include a profit-and-loss account for each farm in the form required by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue for the purpose of assessment of farming profits under Schedule D, and to include a valuation made at the commencement and end of each financial year by an independent valuer practising in the county in which the farm is situate, such valuer to be nominated by the president of the Surveyors' Institution.The Minister of Agriculture very kindly intimated during the Committee stage that he would be prepared to accept this Amendment, in principle, subject to our being able to agree between then and the Report stage on a form of words. I was deeply grateful to him, but, unfortunately, we have not been able to come to an agreement on a form of words. I have therefore put down the Amendment in a form of words which I think are suitable. If this experiment, which we believe will be a very expensive experiment, is to be of any practical use to agriculture it is of first rate importance that the accounts should be kept with the most complete accuracy and in a form which will enable anyone who is interested to find out how every branch of the corporation's activities are going on, and also find out every detail in regard to outgoing and ingoing. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to accept the Amendment.
Anyone who has had experience of agriculture will know that farm accounts are worth less than nothing unless they include an annual valuation. Without an annual valuation it is quite impassible to say whether the result of any year's farming operation has been a loss or a profit. I therefore attach importance to the annual valuation. I have provided in my Amendment that the accounts shall be properly audited and shall be in the form required for Inland Revenue purposes. That is not an excessive requirement. Every business in the country is 1898 required to keep its accounts in a particular form, and it is not unreasonable to ask that this corporation, which is to operate on a vast scale with the taxpayers' money, should keep its accounts in proper form. The right hon. Gentleman and the Department have not been able to work out a complete agreement with me, not because they think my form of words is bad, but because the right hon. Gentleman is unwilling to insert it in the Bill. He is willing to say that he will put something of the kind in the Order, but he is unwilling to insert it in the Bill. I do not say that we do not trust the right hon. Gentleman, but he will not always be the Minister of Agriculture and it is very important that we should have a provision in black and white in the Bill which will make it impossible for anyone to wrap up or conceal anything in connection with the accounts.
The right hon. Gentleman has represented to me that there are various reasons why he cannot put this particular form of words in the Bill. He suggested that the expense of valuation by an approved valuer might be very large. He said the corporation would be operating on a vast scale and the fee of the valuer would be very considerable and that this would be unnecessary expense. The larger the scale on which you are operating the more essential it is that there should be strict accuracy in your accounts, and that your valuation should be absolutely reliable.
The right hon. Gentleman, in a letter which he sent to me, says:I feel that the words 'each farm' suggested in your proposed Amendment, might lead to difficulty. It may very well be that, in addition to one or more large-scale farms, the corporation, as a result of purchasing a whole estate, might have temporarily or permanently on their hands, various outlying small pieces of land, perhaps only amounting to a few acres, which might he let off as farms or as accommodation land or as smallholdings. In such a case it would obviously be impracticable to require the corporation to produce a separate account for each piece of land of such a small acreage.I think the words of my Amendment would meet the difficulty. This is a point of very great importance. It is absolutely essential that there should be no possibility that the corporation will be able to write off a large sum by way of 1899 sundries. It is very essential that we should know the results of its operations on each and every piece of land and that it should not be able to conceal a possible loss by dismissing it as loss on various small and more or less temporary transactions. I hope the House will insist upon the Amendment. Hon. Members opposite who are interested in the Bill hope that the results of the operations of the corporation will be such as to teach the farmers how to work and to give them a valuable lesson how to carry on their operations properly. We believe that the far more probable result will be the loss of a very large sum of the taxpayers' money and the throwing of a very considerable number of agricultural labourers out of work.
Whichever view we take, whether we believe the corporation will be a success or whether we believe that it will be a failure, we surely have all the same interest in that we desire that the accounts shall be absolutely accurate and that we shall make sure that the nation will from year to year get a true account of the results of the corporation's operations. For that reason I press the Amendment. We ask for the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and that is not an unreasonable request. If the right hon. Gentleman is not willing to meet us, we may be forced to the conclusion that he apprehends that he will have something to conceal.
§ Sir D. NEWTON
Many of us on this side of the House attach great importance to this Amendment. It is essential not only that detailed accounts should be kept of each branch of this great experiment but that a proper valuation should be made showing the position of the scheme from year to year. If the experiment is going to be of any substantial value to the industry of agriculture it is necessary that the figures submitted to us shall be unchallenged and unchallengable, and that result can only be attained by a precise and accurate system of accounting. We fully recognise the difficulty of prescribing any exact form in which these accounts should be kept, but at the same time we think some words should be incorporated in the Bill to make it perfectly clear 1900 to this new corporation that they must by statute submit accounts annually and in a proper form.
This experiment is one which will be watched with close interest by the whole farming community, and by the taxpayers with equal interest. These farms are to be established on model lines and new and expensive machinery on a scale hitherto unknown in this country will be used. I suggest that a valuation should be made at the commencement and close of each year and that the accounts should be made up to Ladyday of each year, thus ensuring that the greater portion of the produce of the preceding year will have been realised instead of being in the form of a valuation. If there is more than one experimental farm then the same basis of valuation should be adopted in regard to each farm so that we can compare accurately the results obtained on each farm. So far as there will be outlying offlands they should also be brought into the valuation and the result properly shown. The person to be responsible for the valuation is a very important point, and I feel that some surveyor of outstanding ability and of general acceptability for his knowledge and qualifications should be appointed, possibly under the nomination of the National Farmers Union from the members of the Surveyors Institute.
In drawing attention by this Amendment to this matter we are only following precedent. Under the Small Holdings (Colonies) Act, 1916 and 1918, a large number of experimental farms were established and some 11,900 acres were farmed in six separate settlements. A system of accountancy was devised by which it was found possible to compare the results of one settlement with the results of the other settlements. At first there was some difficulty in the matter, but a sub-committee was appointed to consider and report as to the best method of valuing assets for the purpose of separate farm trading accounts. That report gives us some valuable data. It pointed out the need of a standard basis of valuation, of standard values, so that you should not value your working stock, your horses, at one value one year and then appreciate or depreciate them to a large extent the next year, possibly following market values, and upsetting 1901 the results of one year as compared with another year. I commend this report to the attention of the Minister, and perhaps it will be all the more acceptable to him as the Chairman was Mr. Orwin, whose suggestions I understand he is now following in this Bill. I hope the Minister of Agriculture will accept the Amendment. If his experiment proves satisfactory he need not be afraid of giving us all the figures and if it does not prove satisfactory then it is fair that the taxpayers should know, so that we could wind up any scheme which is unworkable and unprofitable as soon as possible, cut our losses, and close down an unsatisfactory system of farming.
§ Mr. JOHNSTON
I take no exception to the way in which the Noble Lord the Member for Derbyshire Western (Marquess of Hartington) and the hon. Member for Cambridge (Sir D. Newton) have presented their case. Indeed, it is a case which the Government view with considerable sympathy. The Minister of Agriculture, in the course of the discussion upstairs, was so convinced that a case had been made out for something to be done in this matter that he promised to consult the Noble Lord before the Report stage to see whether some agreement could be reached. The difficulty of the Minister of Agriculture is to find a precise form of words to insert in the Bill—I will say in a moment what my right hon. Friend is prepared to pledge himself to do—beyond which he could not move. The hon. Member for Cambridge recommended that the accounts should be made up from Ladyday to Ladyday. That is not a term in use north of the border and it would be inadmissible so far as the operations of the corporation are concerned in Scotland.
§ Mr. JOHNSTON
I know, but I merely put it that there are some difficulties. Certain difficulties arise in the form of words used by the Noble Lord. They might suit the Noble Lord and his friends south of the border, but they would be entirely inadmissible in our system north of the border. With that preliminary explanation, I repeat that the Minister is desirous of meeting hon. Members in every possible way on this matter. He is exceedingly desirous of having the 1902 accounts presented annually in such a way as will give a true account of the operations of the corporation. It is to our interests to have this experiment so conducted that the results will be clear to the nation. If the results are going to be satisfactory then clearly they should be expressed in such a way as will leave no doubt whatever as to their financial success. While the Minister of Agriculture finds it difficult to get an exact form of words, he is prepared to prescribe in the Order, which he must make, that the accounts of the corporation shall include a profit and loss account similar to that required by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue for Income Tax purposes. He is prepared to meet the Noble Lord on that point. Then he is also prepared to meet him to this extent, that the accounts shall include a valuation at the commencement and end of each farming year, and to proceed on that basis every year. That is the normal procedure, and I think meets the Noble Lord's point. He is also prepared to insert in the Order a stipulation that in the case of any large-scale farming operations conducted by the corporation as a separate unit the accounts of these operations shall be kept separately and presented separately, and laid before Parliament in that form.
The one difficulty which appears to remain is this. The Noble Lord and his friends are desirous of having the accounts for every farm large or small kept separately. If the corporation acquire two or three very small farms they would be required by the Amendment to keep separate accounts for each of these small farms, even if they only held them for a short period of the year while the small farm was being incorporated in the larger farm. I am sure the Noble Lord and his friends do not desire to be unreasonable on this matter or to insert in the Bill a form of words which would unduly hamper the operations of the corporation and make the venture ridiculous. That is the pledge which the Minister of Agriculture has authorised me to give. We are prepared to put this stipulation in the Order. I trust it will meet the wishes of hon. Members in every part of the House. It will ensure that the accounts of the corporation will be presented annually to Parliament not only in an intelligible way but in a complete way.
§ Sir D. NEWTON
Are we to understand that the accounts will be given in as an informative a form as in the Report of the Smallholdings (Colonies) Act, 1918? There each block of land is set out and the valuations are given separately. They go into considerable detail and show all the receipts and expenditure.
§ Mr. JOHNSTON
On a matter of this kind I would rather not be pressed for a further pledge than the one I have given. Whether the accounts of the corporation could be, or ought to be, presented in precisely the form to which the hon. Member for Cambridge has referred I am not prepared to say. What I do say is that my right hon. Friend is prepared to meet the three essential planks in what I may call the Noble Lord's programme, and subject to the corporation not being compelled to keep separate accounts for every small farm it may acquire for a portion of a year and not being unduly hampered by restrictions, I hope the Noble Lord will agree that the Government is prepared to meet the proposition put forward in Committee upstairs. I hope he will be satisfied with that promise.
§ Major ELLIOT
The Minister puts us rather in a difficulty. He explained that he could not do what the Noble Lord had asked to be done, and then he went on to say that he could do it, and that he was quite prepared to get a form of words which would cover all the points raised.
§ Major ELLIOT
A form of words which will cover the main planks of the Noble Lord's proposal. Surely if the Minister is prepared to do all that by Order, he is prepared to go even further and do it in the Bill. Why not in the Bill? As a sign of grace he could accept the Amendment, which does not go into the details of which he complained. There is no mention of Lady-day in the Amendment, no mention of a form of accounts similar to that of the smallholdings accounts of 1916–1918. The Amendment merely asks that the accounts should be kept as they would be presented to the Inland Revenue, that there should be an independent valuation at the beginning 1904 and end of the year, and there were two other points which the Minister did not mention but to which he would no doubt agree.
§ Mr. JOHNSTON
Since I am asked a question, let me say that the proposals of the Amendment might land us in difficulties. There might be a county in the Highlands of Scotland where it would be difficult to find a valuer on the lines specifically set forth in the Amendment. It is precisely to guard the Government and the Minister and the corporation against the unfortunate consequences that might come from giving a precise guarantee on these points, that the Minister would prefer to operate through an Order. The previous Government, on a very difficult and complex matter similar to this, had to proceed by Order and indeed we had to get adaptations of such Orders from this House as lately as last night.
§ Major ELLIOT
On an Amendment which he accepted previously, the Minister indicated roughly the general lines on which he would operate in this matter. We do not make any objections to his operating by Order in the case of the Scottish sub-Committee, but here the Minister can surely appreciate the desirability of what has been urged. If the thing is to be defined, let it be defined now. This is the last occasion on which the House will have an opportunity of amending the Bill. The Minister has given a pledge, which we naturally accept, but that pledge is in the form of a speech, and we all know that speeches recorded in the OFFICIAL REPORT have no binding power on the Courts or on successive Ministers. The form of words which the Minister says cannot be found now will have to be found somehow or other. Let us have them in the Bill. The Minister says that all these things are so difficult that he is not able to find any form of words now, but that he has perfect confidence in his ability to find a form in a very short time. He is really asking us to doubt his ingenuity in a way that we are not prepared to do. The Minister is a skilled worker with Bills and words. If anyone can find a formula which will meet the case let him apply himself to it now. This is the best time to do it. Then the other place will have before it a fair statement on the face of the Bill 1905 of what it is that the Minister desires to do, and what are the general lines on which the Minister is to operate.
Lieut. - Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL
I cannot understand anyone saying that it is impassible to prepare accounts in such a way as will satisfy the Commissioners of Inland Revenue. I unfortunately, for my sins, have knowledge of practical farming and of the results of it. I have found that the first thing one has to do, if one wants to know the results of the working of a farm, is to have valuations made, to ascertain the expenses of each farm, to have a debit on the one side and a credit on the other. I should have thought that the least the Government could do would be to prepare accounts in the same way as accounts are prepared for the Commissioners of Inland Revenue. We have been told that it is impossible to incorporate this proposal in the Bill. With all the draftsmen that they have, and all the expert advice available, do the Government say that it is impossible to find any form of words which will carry out what is admitted by the Government to be something desirable? We are told that there is a difference between the North and the South. We know that there are slight differences, but because of them are we to be told that it is impossible to prepare a proper debit and credit account and to have valuations made, as would be done in an ordinary business?
There is no question of our doubting the integrity of the Minister of Agriculture. No one who knows him would question the reliability of what he says. But his words do not commit even his Government, let alone any successive Government. If words are put into the Bill they will be of value in any case that comes before the court. If any successive Government or Minister did not carry out what the Bill provided it would be possible to say to him, "There is the obligation and you have to carry it out." The Government admit the advisability of the suggestions of the Noble Lord, and yet they say that they are frightened to put those suggestions into the Bill because their hands may be tied. I am sorry to press the matter, but it seems to me that there must be some other reason for not putting this pro- 1906 posal into black and white. Are the Government frightened that these experiments will be anything but a boundless success for the taxpayer and the country and for the agricultural industry? We have been told that agriculture is to be put on its legs again, and to be taken out of the slough of despond in which it has been for many years, and that by the action of a Labour Government everything is to be lifted up in such a way that people will say, "Why has there not been success before in this large-scale farming?" My own opinion is that the Government are not quite satisfied that their experiment will be a success. They fear our having the figures and of our being able to put our finger on the spot and say, "That is the result." If the Government do not accept the Amendment, I hope that it will be pressed to a Division. We want to have the matter decided.
§ Sir E. SHEPPERSON
I would like to emphasise the request of my Noble Friend and of the last speaker for the publication of these accounts. I was pleased to hear that the Minister considered sympathetically the points raised by my Noble Friend. I recognise the necessity of the accounts in the public interest, but chiefly I see clearly how the accounts are essential in order to fulfil the purpose for which the Bill is brought forward. The Minister has assented to the request for a valuation at the beginning and at the end of the time. Only one valuation is necessary—a valuation at the end of the time. It is not a difficult thing to have accounts kept for each separate farming operation. I have had it done myself; accounts were kept on one farm separate from the accounts on another farm; profit and loss accounts were given for each farm separately. The Amendment states that the accounts should be on a detailed costings system. I want to emphasise that point. There is no doubt that the primary object of the Bill is to carry out these large-scale farming operations for an experimental purpose, because of the value that will be to the farming community.
The British farmer has very little to learn in the technique of his occupation; he knows his job. But I am prepared to admit that the British farmer is rather backward in the way in which he keeps 1907 his accounts. He has something to learn on that side of the industry. I do not think that we can emphasise too much the value to the farmer of a knowledge of the coatings of his crops. We have before us at present the question of the production of wheat. Accounts of the costings of the production of wheat differ in different places. As an illustration, may I say that I once asked a constituent of mine what it cost him to grow an acre of wheat. He told me that ploughing and labour cost so much, that farmyard manure cost so much, and that other items cost so much. Then on the other side he told me that his wheat made so much, and, when I asked him what about the straw, he said he did not value the straw because it had gone back into farmyard manure. I reminded him that in the costings he had already paid for the straw in the form of farmyard manure. That illustration shows that the agricultural community is not fully conversant with the manner in which these costings should be made.
There is also the question of costings in relation to the sugar-beet industry. The British farmer does not know the exact cost of growing an acre of sugar beet. If it had that knowledge he might be more amenable to accepting certain prices than he is at present. If any substantial good to the agricultural community is to come from this Bill it will come from the knowledge given to the farmers generally, of what it costs to grow various crops and the profits and losses involved in various agricultural operations. For that reason I appeal to the Minister to insert words which will ensure this valuable addition to the knowledge of the farming community.
§ Viscount WOLMER
I cannot understand what difficulty the Government find in regard to my Noble Friend's Amendment. I gathered from the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland that on all essential points he desires to meet us. But when the hon. Gentleman says that he can find a form of words for an Order but cannot find a form of words for the Bill, that excuse is a little too thin for us to accept. We wish for these words in the Bill because this large-scale farming experiment cannot be of any value to agriculture unless we get detailed busi- 1908 ness accounts of all the operations. I should like to make this complaint against the Government—that they will not make the Bill square with their speeches. They have told us that they are not going in for the letting of land, but they will not put it in the Bill. They have told us that they are not going to borrow vast sums, but they will not put it in the Bill. They have told us that they are going to keep accounts, but they will not put it in the Bill.
§ Dr. ADDISON indicated dissent.
§ Viscount WOLMER
Well, they will not do so in a form which will ensure the only type of account that can be of any use to the farmers. My Noble Friend is asking that there should be a separate valuation of each farm and separate accounts for each farm in the form required by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue for the purpose of assessing farm profits under Schedule D. Nothing could be fairer than that. Every farmer has to submit accounts which will satisfy the Commissioners of Inland Revenue on these points. Here we have this great farming corporation which is to be a model to the whole agricultural community, and we are merely asking them to publish their accounts in that form. In order that those accounts should be valid, they must be based on an annual valuation. I understood the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland to say that, if an experiment is being conducted in a remote part of the Highlands, the cost of an independent valuer would be excessive; but, if the corporation are going to conduct their experiments in such inaccessible spots as to entail a prohibitive cost for a valuer, then how many farmers are likely to go, themselves, to inspect that experimental farm? The more inaccessible the spot the more necessary that there should be detailed accounts in order that those who have not the time or money to see the experiment for themselves may be able to obtain as much information as possible about it.
We are embarking on an expenditure of anything up to £2,000,000 or more by this Clause, for the conduct of what is, according to the Minister, a perfectly new type of agricultural experiment, and surely it is the height of folly not to insist in the Bill itself that the fullest 1909 accounts should be annually published and that those accounts should be based on an independent valuation which the farmers of the country will accept as unbiased. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes this experiment to be of benefit, if he wishes the farmers to learn from it, if he wishes them to go on the advice that this corporation is able to give, then surely he must agree that the farmers ought to have confidence in the valuation on which the accounts are based. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to ask for an independent valuation. That is all we are asking in this Amendment, and the right hon. Gentleman has not been able to give any valid reason for not accepting these words.
Marquess of HARTINGTON
Before the Minister replies, may I put a question? The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland has been extremely conciliatory, and I am grateful to him for having gone so far to meet me, but he indicated that the real difficulty was that he could not undertake to have these accounts in respect of each and every small piece of land. If it is proposed only to leave out small pieces of land, it may well be that I can accept that proposal, but when I was corresponding with the Minister, the right hon. Gentleman's definition of a small piece of land was one in which the tenants capital did not exceed £10,000. If the right hon. Gentleman proposes to adhere to that limit and to say that strict accounts need not be kept for any piece of land in which the tenants capital does not exceed £10,000, then I could not possibly accept that proposal. Perhaps in his reply the right hon. Gentleman will explain whether he still adheres to that particular definition?
§ Dr. ADDISON
I shall be glad to refer to the particular figures mentioned in the letter to the Noble Lord, but I wish at the moment to say something with regard to the speech of the Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer). To listen to that speech, one would imagine that there was nothing in the Bill about accounts. But the Clause says that the order is to provide for the keeping of the accounts of the corporation for the annual audit of those accounts, and for the making of an annual report to the Minister and Secretary of State showing such audited accounts of the corporation as may be specified in the order.
§ Dr. ADDISON
No. I wish the Noble Lord would acquaint himself with the Bill. It contains fuller requirements as to accounts than I can find in any similar Bill.
§ Dr. ADDISON
There have been Bills connected with land which involved much greater expenditure. This particular Clause relates to the accounts of a corporation with £1,000,000 capital—it may borrow a bit more it is true—but the smallholdings operations of the county councils involve many more millions. Many millions have been invested in this country in respect of smallholdings. The Small Holding Colonies Act, 1916, is one to which I never heard any objection urged by the Noble Lord the member for Aldershot, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Guinness) never thought of altering it when he was in office, and, as he knows, it works perfectly well. Section 10 of that Act merely provides that the board appointed under it shall present to Parliament an annual report of their proceedings under the Act, which shall include a statement of the financial position of each of the Colonies. That is nothing like as detailed as the requirements in this Bill.
I am prepared to give the Noble Lord the Member for Western Derbyshire (Marquess of Hartington) this assurance, which I am sure he will accept—that we will put in the Order that the corporation's accounts shall include a profit and loss account, and that the accounts shall include valuations made at the commencement and at the end of each farming year, on the same basis each year. I am prepared to undertake that in so far as any large-scale farming operations of the corporation are conducted as separate units—I say nothing about the size—the accounts in respect of each unit will be kept separately and so laid before Parliament. I do not specify all these 1911 other details which have been mentioned, but the Bill itself contains more generous and detailed requirements for the presentation of accounts than any other Bill of this kind that I can find.
§ Dr. ADDISON
No, I do not. I say, of course, that we should have a trustworthy valuation, and I have never yet heard anybody call in question the valuers who would ordinarily be employed. But I am not prepared to accept the insertion of the word "independent" whatever it may mean. We certainly want a proper valuation, and, if anybody hereafter says that this is not a fair valuation, I shall be prepared to consider steps to secure a revised valuation.
But it is a very usual provision, I think, in connection with Income Tax that valuations should be made by some outside experts—in this case neither by an official of the Ministry nor by anyone connected with the corporation.
§ Dr. ADDISON
These are farming accounts. However, I will look into that subject. I am not going to commit myself at this time to the word "independent." That would not be reasonable, but I will, as I say, look into it, in an entirely friendly way before the Order is drafted, and I will consult the Noble Lord the Member for Western Derbyshire if he likes. It would be exceptional and unreasonable, however, to put all these details which have been mentioned into the governing Act. I hope that with that explanation and that undertaking the House will allow us to get on to the next Amendment.
§ Major G. DAVIES
The Minister has largely repeated the remarks made in his absence by the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, and I confess to having listened to those very conciliatory statements with a considerable degree of satisfaction. No one has suggested that the Minister should be tied down to some cast-iron form of accounts which may get out of date, but the principle that he is prepared to adopt in the Order is one which attaches to all forms of accounts, and the point at issue is whether an 1912 agreed form of words or any form of words shall be put in the Bill or left, at the discretion of the Minister, to be put in an Order. That is the point that was stressed upstairs and that we stress again now, and that is the point on which the Minister has found himself unable to meet us. That is a matter of great regret. The Minister quoted other Acts of Parliament, such as that dealing with local authorities and smallholdings, and said the money involved in those is greater than in his Bill, but the county councils and local authorities are spending the ratepayers' or the taxpayers' money in this matter for an entirely different purpose.
The whole point of this Measure is the conviction which it is going to bring to the community and the proof of its proposal to go into this experiment. There are three kinds of people who need to be satisfied as to the way in which this experiment is to be conducted. First, there are the Members of this House, who are responsible for having put the Measure on the Statute Book and the charge on the Exchequer, and, secondly—and these have not been touched on yet—there are those who are actually to be engaged in the work, because there is really only one form of accounts that is needed, and that is that those engaged in the operation may know exactly where they are. The Minister has refused to agree that a farm which involves a capital of less than £10,000, I understand—
§ Major DAVIES
What I want to say is that even on a small farm the keeping of accurate accounts is absolutely vital. I have had the questionable privilege of having had an accountant's training, and in later years I have applied it definitely to the form of my own personal farming, and I know how difficult the application of one's ordinary ideas of accounting is to farming operations. How are you to regard calves? Are they coupons on debenture bonds, or are they unearned increment, or are they profit-taking on a bull market? All those are difficulties that do not come up in other lines of accounting. We are quite satisfied that the Minister is going to see in his Order that satisfactory accounts are to be provided, but our point is that he has given 1913 us no reason, other than saying he could not meet us on words, why this provision should not be put as one of the statutory provisions in the Bill.
We stress that because, as has been pointed out already—jocularly, but I do so quite seriously—never before has a Bill like this been presented to Parliament, and never before has any Minister of Agriculture had such wide ideas of leaving behind precedents and going out into the unknown—[Interruption]—I do not decry it for that purpose—but going out into the unknown with a good deal of the taxpayers' money. Those who have had experience of farming know how often their best hopes go astray, and, however optimistic we may be, we want to be able to know just where the mistakes are. The mistakes primarily are financial, because one of the reasons this kind of farming operation has not been adopted hitherto has been that farmers have not seen their way to make a "go" of it.
The Minister is going to show how it can be done, and it is important that there should be complete satisfaction, not only to the Members of this House, and not only to those employés and others who are going to put the experiment into operation, but to those also in whose interests it is primarily being started, namely, the farming community in general, and not only the men occupied in farming, but the theoretical agriculturists connected with our research stations and so forth. If you are going to carry conviction to those people, your Measure has to be bullet-proof, criticism-proof. We are trying to make it so, in this Amendment, and to include definitely in the provisions of the Bill those measures which the Minister himself has indicated that he regards as common-sense measures and will include in his Order.
I maintain that the Minister, while he has gone a long way to satisfy us as to what he, in his individual capacity, proposes to do by Order, has not at all proved to us that our request to have that incorporated in the Bill is in-treasonable. He has shown himself on this particular proposal so much more reasonable than on many other proposals that I have tried to bring to his attention that I hope that, even at this eleventh hour, having now, I suppose, refreshed himself—
§ Major DAVIES
Then before he does so, I hope he will see his way to think over this matter again before the Measure goes to another place.
§ Lieut.-Colonel RUGGLES-BRISE
I understand the right hon. Gentleman has undertaken to do two things with regard to the accounts of these large-scale farms. He has agreed to have an annual valuation, and he has agreed to have kept and presented an ordinary trading profit-and loss account. Those two things are absolutely essential in any event, but the Amendment of the Noble Lord is directed to something quite different from that, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to give us some reply in relation to the terms of the Noble Lord's Amendment. The Noble Lord asks for such accounts to be on a detailed costing system. A costing system is something utterly different from the ordinary trading profit-and-loss account for a valuation, as the right hon. Gentleman certainly knows, but this large-scale farming in which he is going to indulge is a complete experiment, as he himself will undoubtedly admit. For that reason, we want to be able as farmers to learn as much from that experiment as we possibly can.
We want, in the first instance, to be able to learn whether a great corporation backed by the taxpayers' money can farm more successfully than can an individual. That is one of the results to which we shall look with a good deal of interest. But there are many other things beside that. There is much that we ought to be able to learn as regards details from this large-scale farming experiment, and one of those things, above all, will be coatings. We should like to know, for instance, whether under this large-scale farming it is possible to grow wheat on a 100-acre field at so much per quarter. That is what we want to know, and I think it is right to say that if the taxpayers are asked to put up the money for this huge experiment on the scale demanded by this Bill, the taxpayers are also entitled to say, "Do let us learn the results of the operations which have been carried out with this money." The right hon. Gentleman and the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland have both completely ignored the real point of the Noble Lord's Amendment.
Mr. DEPUTY - SPEAKER (Mr. Dunnico)
It is understood that the one discussion should cover both Amendments, the first of which has been moved.
§ Lieut.-Colonel RUGGLES-BRISE
I was referring to the first Amendment, and was alluding particularly to the words "detailed costing system." The point I was making was that the right hon. Gentleman and the Under-Secretary of State completely ignored them. I am not going to express an opinion as to whether it is probable that large-scale farming will be a success, but I am certain that a great deal could be learned from it if costing accounts are kept; in fact, it would probably be the most valuable part of the whole scheme. I do not say that the knowledge may not be bought too highly from the taxpayers' point of view, but, be that as it may, let us really have some costing account kept in which the ordinary farmers may be able to profit. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give some reply on this point, for this scheme is to be a demonstration to the rest of the world as to how things might and ought to be done. He cannot desire to withhold these details from those for whom he is desirous of making the demonstration. May I ask him, therefore, to address himself to this point, and to go one stage further, and in the order which he prescribes, lay it down that, in addition to a valuation being taken, and a profit and loss account kept, he will ordain that in the ease of the large-scale units there shall be kept accounts on a proper costing system.
§ Sir A. LAMBERT WARD
The Minister of Agriculture, in the reply which he has made, seems to have completely misread the intention of this Amendment. This is to be an experiment, and we hope that it is to be an instructional experiment, in large-scale farming. If the experiment is to be of any value as instruction, it is essential that all the costings should be kept in the most minute detail. It should be open to anybody to learn from the experiment the exact cost of every agricultural process on the particular types of land which 1916 the Corporation will operate. I agree that it will cost more, but it will be worth it. The system of costing is undoubtedly costly, but it has proved in many industrial undertakings to be of very great value. Up to the present, there has not been an opportunity of conducting experiments on anything like this scale, and it will be a great pity if the opportunity of reducing every agricultural process down to pounds, shillings and pence is lost.
Of course, accounts will naturally be kept; it will be impossible for an undertaking of this kind to carry on without keeping accounts, and having them properly audited and so on; but that is not enough if we are to reap the full value of this experiment from its instructional point of view. We must go into it in more detail. For example, farming accounts such as are habitually submitted to the Inland Revenue are not sufficient. We want something much more minute and detailed. Of course, the valuation will be undertaken; that will be necessary for the corporation to know what is the position of the concern financially. I should like to suggest, for example, that the valuation of the corporation's farm should be based on something like this: Cost price, plus expenditure on re-construction, equipment and plant, less depreciation, and, finally, a check on the valuation by the valuer of similar land in the neighbourhood. I am sure that these accounts will be kept, but that is not the point of the Amendment. We want something which will give instruction to the farmers of the country, and will let them know the result of the experiment which this corporation is conducting. It is only by keeping the most minute and detailed costing accounts that we can reap the benefit of this great experiment.
§ Sir J. LAMB
Two sections of people are interested in this matter. The first are the agriculturists. If these farms are to be of any value, they must be farms from which the farmer will have the opportunity of learning something. It may be a demonstration to prove what is a success, and it may be equally valuable to prove what is not a success, and so save him from wasting money on something which has been proved to be a failure. If this large-scale farming is to be of any value to the farmer, he must 1917 whatever he is being told about it is sound practical advice which is going to help him. Agriculture is very different from other industries. We use the word "agriculture" as meaning an industry, but it is really a combination of industries, each of which is a separate entity, and unless we have this costing system, we do not know which section of the operations of a large-scale farm is paying and which is failing. Without costing we shall not know whether it is the dairying or the arable or some other section which is making a profit. Unless we have costing which will enable the farmer to analyse the accounts and see what sections are paying and which are losing, the experiment will he of no value whatever.
There is another point of view. May I remind the House what I said on previous occasions, because it is a serious matter when a Government Department are to be allowed to go into operations of this description? I said:The Ministry has held land, and the land has been under the control of the Ministry, on 10 different estates, five of which are still in hand and five of which have been disposed of.I take it that the five were disposed of because they were not profitable, and in order to eliminate a certain amount of loss.They still have in hand 13,603 acres, and they have disposed of 8,073 acres. The capital doss on the 10 estates has been £80,097, and there has been a profit of £18,983, leaving a net loss on those 10 estates of £61,114. The only profit that they made on these estates"—I should like the House to notice this particular point—was a profit which they made out of the re-sale of land.It was not from farming operations, but from the re-sale of land which was bought for farming purposes and disposed of for building purposes or some other reasons.I do not think the present Government will consider that it is the best form of agriculture to buy land and resell it at a profit. The revenue account of these 10 estates showed that the losses on the farms were £257,643 and on the estates of £292,038, being a net loss of £549,681.
§ Dr. ADDISON
I am sorry to intervene in the reminiscences the hon. Gentleman is giving us as to the exploits of previous Governments, but I suggest that 1918 they have nothing to do with this Amendment.
I was following the argument of the hon. Member to see if I could link it on to detailed costings.
§ Sir J. LAMB
I can link it up by showing how necessary it is to have these detailed costings in order to reveal where losses are made. The public have some, interest in this matter as well as agriculturists. If the public allow large sums of money to be used, it is in their interests that costing accounts should be kept to see where the losses are incurred. I have little to add. [Interruption.] It may be unpalatable to some hon. Members opposite to hear these truths. [An HON. MEMBER: "Cut it short!"] It is not necessary to cut it short. The figures I have given were supplied by the Minister in answer to inquiries in this House, and they are official figures which can be verified. I am making no statement which is not correct. The concluding sentence is this:To reduce it to a much smaller figure, the loss per acre worked out at £28 3s. 6d."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th November, 1930; col. 1951, Vol. 244.]Where did that loss occur? No doubt we shall have accounts which will show the loss per acre, but they will not show where the loss occurred, and unless we can have costing accounts to show that and to indicate what activities should be eliminated in the hope of making profit the accounts will be practically worthless, from two points of view. In the first place, they will not have the confidence of the farmer, because he will want to be quite sure that the experiments are sound financially before he will copy the example; and, in the second place, it is in the public interest that we should have this safeguard.
§ Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE
I am surprised that the Minister refuses to put these words into the Bill, because he has shown us quite clearly that he really does realise how important it is to have proper accounts, both for the sake of the experiments and for the sake of the public. While he does not wish to have these words in the Bill he asks us to rely on Orders which will be made by the Department. Personally I very much dislike having to rely on bureaucrats, especially when we are dealing with large 1919 sums of money, and I particularly dislike giving these powers to the Minister of Agriculture, because he is a great bureaucrat. The Ministry of Agriculture is rapidly becoming the most bureaucratic Ministry in the country, nearly as bad as the Ministry of Health. We do not wish to have any greater development of bureaucracy than is absolutely necessary, and for that reason I object to giving powers to the Minister, either to the present Minister or to any other Minister to make these Orders.
This corporation is to be given £1,000,000 from the Treasury, and, in addition, it is to be allowed to borrow practically as much more as it wants, or at least as much as it can get—the Minister having refused to agree to any limit—and it may have £2,000,000 to account for. Therefore, it is our bounden duty to see that every precaution is taken under the terms of the Bill itself that proper accounts shall be rendered. The Minister does not seem to be prepared to accept any Amendment to-day. The first Amendment we put forward was one designed to prevent this experiment in large-scale farming developing into a scheme for nationalisation of the land; the second Amendment was to limit the expenditure—not to cramp the work of the corporation, but simply to limit it; and this third Amendment is designed simply to make sure that we know how the money is spent. Unless the Minister is afraid to let the country know how the money is spent he ought to accept the Amendment, and I trust that even now he will reconsider his decision.
I recognise that the Minister has made us a conciliatory reply and appears anxious to meet our difficulties, but it is not satisfactory to us that this matter should be left to be regulated by a Departmental Order, because the whole justification for this large-scale farming is that it is to teach a lesson to British agriculturists, and the whole essence of that lesson must depend on the accounts. Although I am quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman is anxious to give us this information, and although I do not wish in any way to minimise the importance of his personal assurance as to what he will put in the Order, we must recognise that there is a very heavy mor- 1920 tality amongst Ministers of Agriculture. I will not venture to say how many there have been since the Board of Agriculture was set up, but generally they do not last very long, and it is much more satisfactory, and, indeed, essential, to have this provision in the Statute itself instead of leaving it to be the subject of a Departmental Order.
Even if we were content to take the risk the right hon. Gentleman, for all he wishes to meet us, has not satisfied us on two points. First, we attach great importance to profit-and-loss accounts. That is the meaning of my Noble Friend's second Amendment, for the assessment of farming profits under Schedule D. If these accounts are to have any practical value for farmers there should be not only costings, but a profit-and-loss account, and I cannot understand what difficulty the Minister feels over an obligation to publish, or at any rate receive, profit-and-loss accounts from the Agricultural Land Corporation. The other point is that we need separate accounts. We understand that the Minister has very ambitious expectations, that he proposes to range over all agricultural undertakings from large-scale cereal farming to a huge experiment in sheep farming on the mountains of Wales and Scotland. If all the accounts are to be lumped together they will be absolutely meaningless, and it is essential that they should be separated, and that the various undertakings should be easily distinguished.
The Amendments we are moving now are only preliminary to the important issue which we shall try to raise, with Mr. Speaker's consent, on Sub-section (6). That Sub-section imposes upon the Minister the obligation to make an annual report, including a summary of the accounts. That does not satisfy us, we want furl accounts, but, of course, we cannot get full accounts from the Ministry unless the Minister has had full accounts from the corporation. I want to say at this stage that this is only one part of our anxiety, and we must press the Amendment of my Noble Friend because it is only if the Minister is provided with the accounts in the necessary detail that it will be possible for him to render the adequate summary which will satisfy the conditions of the Statute.
1921 Full accounts are necessary if large-scale farming is to render any useful account of its operations for the guidance of British agriculture.
§ Sir SAMUEL CHAPMAN
This Debate seems to have been entirely confined to the representatives of agricultural constituencies, but I think the voice of the urban districts should be raised. This is not only a question which affects agriculturists, but it affects every one of us. I happen to represent a great and important city, and I desire, on behalf of the electors of the city of Edinburgh, to impress upon the Minister of Agriculture the necessity of letting us have full and perfect accounts in order that we may see if farming pays. I have studied with great interest the election address of the Prime Minister, who announced that the Government were going to bring in a Bill to make farming pay, and I suppose that this is the Bill which has been promised. If that be so, let us have full accounts in order to see if farming does pay.
I live on the land, and I mix with agriculturists. I know the hilts of Scotland very well, almost as well as the Minister himself, and he knows that at the present moment farming does not pay. The greatest lesson which the right hon. Gentleman can set for Scotland is to show how farming can pay. If we are not supplied with detailed accounts, and if we cannot examine them minutely, they will not be of any service. I am aware that there will have to be a start, and the Government will have to keep a counting-house staff. You cannot have an odd set of books here and there, because minute details will have to be gone into. The farmers of West Fife will want to know how the Secretary of State for Scotland is making a 2,000-acre farm pay. Probably the right hon. Gentleman will say, "Come into my Rolls Royce, and I will take you and show you the books, and then you will see how it does pay." We want every item recorded in order that we may see whether farming pays.
§ Sir S. CHAPMAN
We want this question placed on the same lines as businesses in the City of London or anywhere else. The Minister of Agriculture says, 1922 "Let us get a move on." I say, "Let us get a move on with regard to agricultural accounts, and let us have them in the form in which accounts are kept in the City of London." We want all the details. We want to know the cost of the seed from the time it is sown to the time it is marketed. We want every item which will show where mistakes have been made, and in such a form that any business man can follow the great examples which the Minister of Agriculture is going to set up. If farming does not pay, the Secretary of State for Scotland will not get any glory, but, if it does pay, he will be looked upon as one of the great leaders of agriculture and classed with Mr. Robert Bakewell, alongside whom my great grandfather worked in the breeding of Leicestershire sheep. Minute farming accounts are as important as city accounts, and, if they are carefully kept, the right hon. Gentleman will be able to show whether farming pays or not.
§ Colonel ASHLEY
Sub-section (6) of this Clause is very important in discussing the question of accounts. I suppose that it will not be denied that in theory, at any rate, the Minister of Agriculture is responsible to this House, and that he can be blamed for anything that goes wrong. In Sub-section (6) it is provided that:The Minister and Secretary of State AO make to Parliament not later than the first day of May an annual report as to the operations of the corporation, including a summary of the accounts of the corporation for the last preceding year.We are only to be allowed a summary of such accounts as the Minister prescribes should be given by the corporation. Surely if we are only to have a summary, it should be a summary on a sound basis. Let us see what the Minister will give us in the way of accounts. The Amendment of my Noble Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Marquess of Hartington) reads:such accounts to be on a detailed costing system and to include a valuation of the corporation's farms.I do not think that can be said to err on the side of going into too great detail. Can it be supposed that a great county council would allow the chairman of its agricultural committee to decide on what lines the report of that committee should be made? The county council would lay 1923 down the lines of the report of the farming committee, state when it was to be handed in, and it would decide what the sub-committee was to do. Parliament ought to be as careful about getting proper accounts as a county council. Therefore, it seems to me that, although the Minister has given us soft words and says everything will be done properly, he is not going to make his returns as outlined in the Amendment, or else he would accept our Amendment and let us get on with the Bill. I understand that two Amendments have been discussed on the first Amendment, but I prefer the first.
§ Colonel ASHLEY
I do not think that in the present condition of things I should be prepared to put my money on either. [Interruption]. In all seriousness, I think the right hon. Gentleman might indicate that in another place he would move a more detailed Amendment, so that we might really know on what basis the summary which he is going to present to us will be drawn up.
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND
I understand that the Minister at this moment is, perhaps, considering what action should be taken with regard to this Clause and I have been talking with my Noble Friend in whose name the Amendment stands. There is not a great deal. I think, between the two sides. I am not certain whether the Minister would be of the same opinion, but may I put this to him as a solution on which we might agree? He has made an advance towards meeting the views on this side. I understand he is prepared to say that he would prescribe in the Order that the corporation's accounts shall include a profit and loss account generally similar to that required by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, and also that the accounts shall include a valuation made at the commencement and end of each farming year.
What we set store by is that there should be a profit and loss account, and I would ask my Noble Friend, if he would, to withdraw the actual requirement of his Amendment as to the precise form, leaving it that there should be a profit and loss account for each farm with a capital of £10,000 or over. I understand that that is not very different from 1924 what the Minister would be prepared to agree to. As it is intended that this should be large-scale farming, probably the units are intended to be of this order, and this would save niggling about smaller matters. Similarly, as regards the valuation, I myself have experience of what can be the very considerable cost of an independent valuation, and, therefore, having regard to the question of economy, I would appeal to my Noble Friend if he would to withdraw that requirement, if the Minister, on the other hand, would be willing to agree to a valuation, trusting that it should be done with what I would call that proper honesty and probity with which a farmer who is a skilled man would do it himself.
§ 9.0 p.m
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND
Yes. What we think is of great importance, and it ought not to be difficult to express it within the compass of a certain number of words, is that this provision should be in the Bill. In the ease of a previous Amendment, the Minister was not really at great variance with what many of us wished in regard to letting, but even then he could not see his way to put it into the Bill. Of course, however, Ministers do come and Ministers do go. [interruption.] They may be going very soon. [Interruption.] I quite agree that I went. If the present Minister lasts for another three years, he will last a great deal longer than anyone on the benches opposite in the least expects. [Interruption.] I am glad to think that there is such an optimistic Member on those benches, but I would like to hear some of his conversations in private, as well as his conversations for public consumption. I have no doubt that, if we were allowed to be present at some of those private conversations, we should realise the complete unanimity that prevails in the Socialist party. [Interruption.] It is the hon. Member himself who has led me into taking up the time of the House, and I cannot he blamed for that, if there is a running obbligato of that kind. Seriously, there should not be any great difficulty in adding just these words to the Bill, providing that there shall be a proper profit and loss account and a valuation, and, further, that these accounts, like 1925 some other accounts, should be presented to Parliament, so that they can be a matter of public information. I have seen one set of large-scale farming accounts, and it was the actual seeing of these accounts that was of interest to me, and not merely some general statement with regard to them combined with those of other operations. If the Minister could see his way to agree to this suggestion, I would ask my Noble Friend if, on that understanding, he would consent to withdraw his Amendment. To put my proposal quite clearly, it is that there should be inserted in the Bill a requirement that each year the accounts should include a proper profit, and loss account for each undertaking separately which has a capital of £10,000 or over, and, at the same time, a proper valuation at the beginning and the end of each financial year; and, lastly, anticipating Subsection (6), that these accounts should be presented to Parliament, so that they may be available, not only for Parliament, but for those members of the farming community to whom, it is hoped, this large-scale farming may be an example.
Marquess of HARTINGTON
The Minister has been very conciliatory, and, as he has gone so far, I am unwilling to press this matter to a Division. I agree with what has been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland), and I do not desire to insist on the precise form of the Amendment. I should be willing to withdraw the words:for each farm in the form required by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue for the purpose of assessment of farming profits under Schedule D,and also the words:by an independent valuer practising in the county in which the farm is situate, such valuer to be nominated by the President of the Surveyors' Institution.It will be seen, therefore, that I am willing to withdraw very nearly the whole of my Amendment. It would then simply read:Such accounts to include a profit and loss account and a valuation made at the commencement and end of each financial year.This is practically common ground, and I fail to see, if the Amendment is watered down to that extent, why it should not go into the Bill itself. More 1926 than five-sixths of the Amendment would be withdrawn, and I really think that the Minister might accept the little bit that is left.
Marquess of HARTINGTON
What I am prepared to do is to leave out the words from "account" ["such accounts to include a profit and loss account"] to "Schedule D," and also the last two lines of the Amendment, so that it would read as follows:Such accounts to include a profit and loss account and a valuation made at the commencement and end of each farming year.
Marquess of HARTINGTON
No; I shall be quite satisfied if the Minister will put into the Bill the words that I have just read.
§ Dr. ADDISON
I want to be quite sure what it is. There is nothing here that would not be in the accounts in any case, but I want to know what I am asked to agree to. We have agreed to insert in another part of the Bill the year which the accounts cover ending, I think, on 1st May, so I must be at liberty to alter the word "financial" if it needs to be altered. I am willing to accept the Amendment on that understanding. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) knows what difficulties may crop up if you are tied by the words of a Statute in any particular form. There is no desire whatever to avoid full accounts; in fact, it is the whole basis of the scheme that everyone who is interested should know what is the result of the expenditure.
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND
I gather the right hon. Gentleman agrees that we should have accounts separately for the main farms if they are of sufficient size, say with a capital of £10,000
§ Dr. ADDISON
The right hon. Gentleman is in possession of a piece of paper on which my undertaking is written. I do not want to alter my form of words. The undertaking I gave was that the farming operations should be taken as 1927 separate units, and the accounts of each unit will be kept separately and laid before Parliament. That will be provided for in the Order. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept my acceptance of the Amendment.
§ Sir J. LAMB
The right hon. Gentleman says every separate unit. Will that be every separate unit in the farm, or will it be the unit of the farm? [Interruption.] Will they be costing accounts?
§ Dr. ADDISON
I cannot imagine any accounts which are not costing accounts if they are worthy of the name. Of course, they will be costing accounts.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment made: In page 3, line 4, after the word "corporation," to insert the words:such accounts to include a profit and loss account and to include a valuation made at the commencement and end of each financial year."—[Dr. Addison.]
§ Captain BOURNE
I beg to move in page 3, line 23, at the end, to insert the words:Provided that a petition for winding up the board may he presented by the Minister as well as by any person authorised under the other provisions of the Companies Act, 1929, to present a petition for winding up a company.Part IX of the Companies Act of 1929 deals with the winding-up of registered companies. It would seem to me that the really important section, and the one under which my Amendment would apply, is Section 338. Under paragraph (c) no unregistered company shall be wound up voluntarily. I do not know whether it is one of the modifications put into the Bill that this corporation shall not have power to be wound up. Voluntarily winding up might be necessary. Paragraph (e) says that if a creditor by assignment or otherwise to whom the company is indebted in a sum exceeding £50 then due has served on the company by leaving at its principal place of business, or by delivering to the secretary a demand, he shall be entitled to a winding up order. There is certainly one person who is a creditor more than anyone else, and that is the Minister, or, in the case of Scotland, the Secretary of State for Scotland. But I am not at all clear whether the Minister, seeing that the money is advanced out of 1928 the Treasury, is a creditor within the meaning of Part X of the Act. The words I am proposing to insert are taken out of the Government's Agricultural Marketing Bill where, presumably, they have found it necessary to make the Minister the person who may apply for an Order in the case of a corporation set up and financed by Government money. It seems to me that the Minister of Agriculture, who, after all, is the person most able to judge whether or not the company is, in fact, getting into such financial difficulties that it ought not to impose any further strain on the taxpayer, is one of the people who ought to be entitled to present an Order to the court saying that in his opinion the company should be wound up, its assets distributed, and, after its just debts have been paid, the balance, if any, should be returned to the Exchequer.
We set up under this Bill a corporation which is, to some extent, independent, although its finances are publicly provided. The one check which we have upon it is the Minister, and, reading Part X of the Companies Act, 1929, I am extremely doubtful whether, in the case of this corporation failing to achieve the high hopes placed upon it by the Minister and the Government, and to carry out the agricultural occupation any more successfully than people have been able to do in recent years, the Minister himself, as representing this House and the taxpayer, would have a right to make an application for winding it up. I believe that, as the law at present stands, and as this Measure which incorporates Part X of the Companies Act provides, the Minister could not do that, though possibly the Treasury might. I think that he ought to have those powers, and it is for that reason I move the Amendment.
§ Colonel LANE FOX
I beg to second the Amendment.
I do not think that many words are required, because I cannot imagine, unless there is some technical reason against it, that the Government would wish to refuse the Amendment. There might, of course, be some reason—and we should be told—why the Amendment is not thought necessary. Obviously the person who, above all others, should have the first opportunity of causing the winding up of the corporation should be 1929 the Minister himself. I hope that the Government will see their way to incorporate this Amendment in the Bill unless its provision is already amply provided for. If it is, it will be unnecessary, but if it is not amply provided for it is, clearly, most necessary that the Minister should have the first opportunity of winding up what, I think, is likely to be a corporation which will badly and speedily require to be wound up. At any rate, as soon as disaster is apparent to him, he should do his best to mitigate the effects of his bad work.
§ Mr. ATTLEE
There is no difference between us at all as to the desirability of the Minister having the power to wind up this corporation. If hon. Members will look at the Bill as drafted, they will see that it is laid down that the Order shall make provision as to the circumstances in which the corporation shall be wound up, and shall provide for the application of Part X of the Companies Act, 1929, subject to such modifications as may be specified in the Order. When one comes to consider that the sole shareholder in this corporation is the Minister, it will be seen that the application of Part X cannot have reference to anybody but the Minister in respect of winding up. As I understand it, the Order will contain provisions enabling the Minister to require the corporation to be wound up, and that is the reason for this part of the Clause. It is unnecessary to put in the Amendment which the hon. and gallant Member has drafted, because its provision is already adequately covered.
§ Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE
I should like to have this matter made clear. If I understand the hon. Gentleman aright, he says that the Minister has the right of being the first person to wind up the corporation because he is the only shareholder. Would he mind letting us know whether that is actually the wording of the Companies Act There are a good many people—I am only speaking from memory—who, under the Companies Act, have the power to apply for a winding-up. There are certain officials who have the power to apply for the winding-up of a concern, and it is not necessarily shareholders or directors who have the first right. The Minister ought to have this matter made quite clear.
§ Mr. ATTLEE
I am advised that the Minister is entirely secure in the position the hon. and gallant Member desires under the Measure as drafted.
§ Viscount CRANBORNE
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster spoke of the Minister being the only shareholder. I understood during the Committee stage that the corporation were to have power to borrow from the general public £1,000,000 a year in addition to the £1,000,000 they received from the Government. I imagined that people who lent this money would also be shareholders of the corporation.
§ Mr. ATTLEE
I think that the hon. Member is mistaken. The borrowing is not to be from the general public; that is not contemplated. There are many other ways of borrowing besides applying to shareholders.
§ Captain BOURNE
I do not wish to press the Amendment, but I should be grateful for information as to why this particular form of words is not used in this Measure, whereas in the Agricultural Marketing Bill it is substantially included. It is this fact which causes a doubt in my mind. Why is it put in one Bill in one form and in this Bill in a totally different form? It is that fact which causes the doubt. I know that the Minister wants a moment before he replies, so perhaps the House will excuse me if I detain it while he gets the answer. It would not appear to me that the Minister is a shareholder, but is merely the person who loans the money. I should have thought that he was not a shareholder within the meaning of the Shareholders' Act, but a person—or rather the Treasury—who advances money to the corporation. The corporation would carry on with borrowed money which it was bound to pay back to the Government in a period of 40 years, and that is not quite the same position as the one in which a person subscribes shares.
§ Mr. ATTLEE
The short answer is that the constitution of those two Bills is entirely different—the one sets up a board and the other a corporation. I am willing to give the hon. and gallant Member an assurance that I will consult my right hon. Friend on the matter, 1931 and, if necessary, it will be put in at a later stage, but I am assured by legal advisers that it is quite unnecessary.
§ Sir J. LAMB
Cannot the hon. Gentleman elucidate a little further the matter as to the Minister being the only shareholder? I think that this borrowing would not be from the Treasury only, but from somebody else besides. What rights will they have, either as shareholders, bondholders or in any capacity? Will they have any right whatever in this matter?
§ Mr. ATTLEE
I am afraid that the hon. Member is asking me now to embark upon a long disquisition as to the law with regard to varying types of creditors. I think that what he has in his mind is an idea that the subsequent borrowing is going to be by issuing shares, and that is not contemplated.
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND
Really, it is not a matter of question and answer in the House of Commons. I do not want to press the Minister unduly, but if we ask for the meaning of a Bill, which we are really entitled to do, it is unusual to require notice of the question. No doubt there may be legal points which I would not wish to press unduly any more than I would wish to be pressed if I were in charge of the Bill. At the same time, I think that we ought to have the guidance of one of the Law Officers. We have two Law Officers now, and one of them is ready to give an opinion which sometimes is rather startling. It would be as well perhaps to have both Law Officers here in order to see whether they gave the same account. When I am told that I must give notice of a question of this kind, my answer is, "Well, where is the competent authority?" because there ought to he some competent authority on the Benches opposite to give us an account of the legal points involved in a Clause like this.
§ Mr. ATTLEE
I did not suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should give me notice, but he put a specific question which I could not answer, because I 1932 should have to give a comparison between this Bill, with which I am familiar, and an Act, which I cannot be expected to carry in my head.
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND
I will not ask the right hon. Gentleman to give us any information about the other Measure, the details of which he cannot carry in his head, at the moment, but I will simply ask him to say more precisely what will be involved by leaving out the words from "1929" to the end of the Sub-section.
§ Mr. C. WILLIAMS
Here is a Minister of the Crown saying that he does not know! It has amazed me more than anything else in this Debate. Think of the honesty of a Minister in admitting it! I congratulate him most sincerely. We do not know what is the precise legal meaning of this proposal. I am not a lawyer and we have had no legal expression on this matter. It is not a paltry thing involving a thousand pounds or so. It may run into millions of the taxpayers' money. Considering the large sums which the taxpayers have to pay to the two legal members of the Government, surely we are entitled to have legal authorities here to give us their advice? They have not been here the whole day. I only wish that the Front Bench would do what is necessary in the circumstances. We might have the two Law Officers here. They might give two diametrically opposite opinions, and the House should have the privilege of deciding between them.
As we are, apparently, to be denied the solace of having the Law Officers' advice, might I appeal to the Government. At any rate, there is one Cabinet Minister here, the Secretary of State for Scotland. Everyone knows that at one time he was the leader of the Socialist party in this House. His knowledge is immense, and everyone respects and likes him. Might I appeal to him to give us some little help in this matter 7 He has very great experience and knowledge. [Interruption.] If hon. Members opposite want to make speeches, I am sure they will join with me in asking the advice of the Law Officers. [Interruption.] It is mast difficult to deal with the subject when hon. Members opposite continually cheer. I take what encourage- 1933 ment I can from that, and I make this appeal. In the circumstances, as we are denied our rights, we might have, at any rate, some pronouncement from the Secretary of State for Scotland. He knows we value his opinion very deeply and if only he will tell us what the position is, it will help us.
To come to the actual Amendment, while the Secretary of State for Scotland is getting his information on this point, there are two things I want to know. First of all, if in the winding up of this corporation there is a very considerable loss, who will have to face it? I conclude it will be the taxpayer. When starting a new corporation of this kind, it is absolutely impossible for the House of Commons to overlook an Amendment such as this without having a real decision on the matter. I regret that I heard only part of the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne) in moving his Amendment, but, as I understand it, the Amendment is one of importance and very technical. I have not yet been able to make up my mind fully how, under this Bill, the 1929 Act comes in, and that is another point which might be elucidated. I feel sure that every Member of the House would wish to have a clear and concise definition of the real position, and of what we are really doing. It is not a. matter which should be passed over without some protest from the ordinary back bench Members. It is a matter involving the whole finance of the corporation and a very great deal of the finance of the country as well. That being the case, it ought not to be treated in the frivolous way in which the Under-Secretary who is in charge of the Measure has dealt with it. I acknowledge again his candour, but I do say that this is a matter on which we ought to have the very best legal opinion.
§ Sir HENRY BETTERTON
This is not a matter which should be dismissed in the casual way which the Minister suggests, for it is a point of very real legal substance. The Minister tells us that he cannot answer without notice.
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND
I said I would dismiss the point about the other 1934 Act, and ask the Minister to give an answer about this particular Amendment which provides for a petition for winding-up, etc.
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND
The Amendment to which I alluded was that beginning with the words:Provided that a petition for winding-up the board may be presented by the Minister, etc.If just without thinking I referred to another Amendment I did not mean it.
§ Sir H. BETTERTON
This is a point of great substance and it is also a very technical one. The Act of 1929 was passed only two years ago, and we are entitled to know the effect of this Bill on the-existing legislation. Who is to have the right to present a winding-up petition? Has the Minister the right, or are there other people who will have the right? If these questions are not decided here, the Bill will give rise to endless litigation hereafter, and we ought to have the decision of the Law Officers of the Crown.
§ Major GLYN
I understood the Chancellor of the Duchy to say that he had taken advice from his legal advisers and that as a result of that advice he thought it was not necessary to introduce this Amendment. We would like to know what was that legal advice, because beyond the word of the Chancellor of the Duchy, which we are all prepared to take, we do not know whether it is as forceful as it would be if one of the Law Officers of the Crown were present. This is an example of where it is so essential that we should have the advice of one of the Law Officers. Where public money is at stake it is all the more important that we should know exactly where we are as to the responsibility of Ministers and as to their powers of protecting the public purse. For that reason, while the Chancellor of the Duchy is fully competent to answer from the Ministerial point of view, it is not exactly the same thing as having legal opinion. He said that he had consulted his advisers, but we are entitled to know whether his advisers have been reinforced by the opinion of the Law Officers of the 1935 Crown. It is the responsibility of the Government to assure us that the statement that has been made is based on the opinion of one of the Law Officers.
I think that we ought to have some answer from the Government. These Amendments have been on the Order Paper for some days. This particular Amendment raises technical but important details. Of course, we appreciate that the Law Officers have very heavy pressure on their time, but, if they are absent, they at least owe it to the House that they should brief Ministers in order that they may be in a position to answer the legal arguments which have been urged by the various learned hon. Members who have taken part in the Debate. I do not want to take up the time of the House by suggesting that we should have an adjournment of the Debate in order to draw attention to the absence of the Law Officers, but, while restraining myself from that temptation, I do feel that a protest is necessary. It is not treating the House with courtesy for Ministers to sit silent after the long Bombardment on legal points, to which they are quite incapable of making an answer, and in regard to which they make no effort to get any legal advice from the Law Officers, whose duty it is to give the benefit of their advice to the House of Commons.
§ Mr. ATTLEE
I was about to rise when the right hon. Gentleman rose. This Sub-section provides for the application of the Companies' Act, subject to such modification as may be expressed by Order, to the proposed corporation. That Order will come before the House, with any suggested necessary modifications of the Companies' Act to this particular form of corporation. I was advised by our legal advisers that that was the way to proceed, and it amply provides for the point which has been put forward by hon. Members opposite. I have stated that, if the Mover of the Amendment desires it, I will take further advice, and should it prove to be necessary, we will insert in another place the words which he desires. I am quite prepared to see that that is dune, but I am assured that the words are unnecessary.
§ Captain BOURNE
In view of the assurance which has been given by the Chancellor of the Duchy that he will further consider the point, and, if necessary, insert words in another place, I do not desire to press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I beg to move, in page 3, line 26, to leave out the words "if either," and to insert instead thereof the words "unless each."
This Amendment is to secure that for the making of an Order laying down the conditions under which the proposed corporation shall work, it shall be necessary that both Houses of Parliament shall give their positive consent instead of merely the negative acquiescence suggested in the Bill. The House is aware that there has been much public complaint recently about the conditions under which Departmental Orders are now made, and inquiry has been set afoot as to any necessary changes which should be recommended. This Bill adopts what may be looked upon as the accustomed procedure in making Ordersin-Council and Departmental Orders. In most cases no discussion arises. By this Amendment we seek to begin a better system in connection with Departmental Orders. We do not in any way wish to impede the normal opportunities of the Government to get their Orders accepted. As the Bill stands, the House of Lords have already an equal right with this House to reject an Order if they pass a Resolution in that sense. Therefore, there is no hidden motive of holding up the passing of Orders in changing over the method of making them.
We all know that it is very difficult to get a House after 11 o'clock. Under the negative procedure now generally in force, the only way that an Order can be negatived is by means of a Prayer, when private Members find it extremely difficult to get a reasonable hearing. This proposal is to authorise Orders of very great public importance, and we believe that matters will there be dealt with upon which the Government should not have a blank cheque, but that they should justify the details of these Orders to the House of Commons, and that it should be an obligation on them to find Government time and an opportunity for the House of Commons to be apprised 1937 of what is proposed. This Amendment is not in any way a wrecking Amendment in regard to reasonable Orders, but is a very useful innovation with the object of regaining Parliamentary control of these Departmental Orders, which are becoming such an anxiety and such a nuisance to the general public.
§ Colonel ASHLEY
This Amendment embodies what I think is a very necessary change in our Parliamentary procedure. I had the honour for some years to be a Minister and to pass a good many Orders under the machinery that is laid down in the Bill. I, naturally, had no idea that any injustice was being done, because i always satisfied myself that the Order that I was presenting to both Houses of Parliament was a good Order and for the benefit of the public. But one cannot always be sure that there will be such an excellent and far-sighted Minister in charge, and one must admit that the procedure in existence to-day breaks down unless the Government propose an Order which is so outrageously absurd as to excite the antipathy and indignation of the Opposition as a whole.
What is the procedure at the moment? Unless one of the two Houses passes a Resolution saying that the Order shall not be effective it becomes operative. As far as this House is concerned, the time allowance is entirely at the disposal of the Government of the day, and, unless an Order is so outrageous as to excite the opposition of the whole body of the Opposition and the leaders of the party demand time for discussion, it goes through. That procedure seems to me to be wrong, as it entirely, or practically entirely, does away with the control of Parliament over these Orders. All Ministers get up and say "Do not pass this Amendment, do not insist on it being put in black and white; trust us to see that we make draft Orders which will be so reasonable as to be received with enthusiasm." As a matter of fact, the back benchers have no power to reject such Orders. The Amendment must, of course, be objected to by right hon. Gentlemen who have charge of the time of the business of the House, whatever Government may be in office. Obviously, the Chief Whips, who have charge of the business, would not welcome the fact that they should have to allocate a certain amount of time every month for 1938 these various Orders. After all, we have not to consider how much legislation we can pass but whether the legislation which we do pass is appropriate and necessary, and also that these draft Orders are fair to the general public.
When we are hearing so much about the machinery of the House of Commons being inadequate and how absurd it is for eighteenth century procedure to be dealing with twentieth century legislation, this Amendment offers an opportunity for hon. Members opposite to make a beginning to speed up and modernise our procedure, to rationalise the machinery, and do something to enable the House of Commons to have some control over these matters. If the reports in the newspapers are correct, there is a good deal of dissatisfaction on the back benches opposite with the policy of their Government. Now is an opportunity for them to become vocal in Parliament. This is a good chance for them to make their mark and really do something to bring the House of Commons procedure up to date. If this Amendment is carried, it will not only be a precedent for future legislation, but it will help us in future when we ask that this particular form of procedure shall be carried out. Why should we not give an affirmative vote in favour of these Orders? We do not say that a Second Reading shall be given to a Bill unless either House registers a vote against it; we always ask for an affirmative vote, and the same thing occurs in the case of Amendments in Committee and on the Third Reading of a Bill. Why should we continue the topsy-turvy machinery outlined in this Bill. I can only suggest that it is to facilitate the business of the Government. I strongly support the Amendment. It shows that, as always, the Conservative party are in the van of progress. We want to speed up the business of this House.
§ Mr. ATTLEE
This is a very familiar Motion, and the attitude taken up by hon. Members generally depends on which side of the House they are sitting for the time being. The right hon. and gallant Member for the New Forest (Colonel Ashley) reminds me rather of the celebrated politician, Francis Place, who after having 17 children became an enthusiast of Malthus. The right hon. 1939 and gallant Member has been responsible for many Orders being passed after Eleven o'Clock at night. He seems to be somewhat like a repentant sinner.
§ Mr. ATTLEE
I agree and the anti-Socialist Union must be rejoicing in the fact that the right hon. and gallant Member is refusing to set up a corporation with £1,000,000 capital after having been responsible for one with £37,000,000 capital. Broadly speaking, this is a hardy annual, and it is purely obstructive—[Interruption.]
§ Viscount WOLMER
Is the hon. Member in order in describing as purely obstructive an Amendment which you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, have selected?
Mr. DEPUTY - SPEAKER (Mr. Dunnico)
I believe that observation "obstructive" has been made frequently in the House, and it is not an observation for which I am called upon to rebuke the hon. Member who, I am sure, intended no reflection upon the Chair.
§ Mr. ATTLEE
I was not referring to the Amendment as obstructive, but to the procedure proposed by the Amendment. Everyone knows that the time of the House is very much occupied and the sole purpose of having an affirmative resolution of this House is to make it even more fully occupied. The Government cannot accept the Amendment.
§ Captain BOURNE
The House will have listened with some astonishment to the speech of the Chancellor of the Duchy. He said that the right hon. and gallant Member for the New Forest (Colonel Ashley) was responsible as the head of a Department for a large number of Orders passed under the procedure outlined in this Bill. That is true, but under our procedure there are some Orders which require a Resolution of the House and other Orders which are passed unless objection is taken. Those Orders which are passed unless objection is taken are what I may call minor Orders. It is true that a Committee is now sitting to consider whether the procedure in relation to these minor Orders is satisfactory, but on the whole the great bulk of them are small administrative details, with which, 1940 unless objection is raised by someone, it is unnecessary to occupy the time of the House. When you come to an Order of this kind the situation is somewhat different. Under this Clause, the Government propose to set up a corporation to which they propose to give very wide powers in respect of large-scale farming operations, and I would remind the House that the Government have never really defined the object of the corporation, the powers of the corporation, or how the corporation will carry them out. All these things are to be specified in the Order which is to be made by the Minister. An order of that kind is of very much more importance and strong objection has been taken to the procedure.
This seems eminently an occasion on which the Government should be forced to defend the policy on which they base their Order, and should defend it both in this House and in another place. I agree that the object of this procedure is to save time. But this Order is what may be described as a big Order. It relates to the expenditure of £1,000,000 of public money. That is a strong reason why the House should debate the Order and be in a position to express an opinion whether or not the expenditure should be sanctioned. Moreover the House should have an opportunity of criticising at a reasonable hour of the day. The only procedure possible is for some industrious Member to move a Prayer requesting that the Order be not confirmed. The Government are under no obligation to keep a House for the discussion of that Prayer, and in any case the discussion would take place at an hour when it is unlikely to be reported in the Press and when public attention is not focused on it.
With regard to gas Orders, I agree that the procedure is adequate. Only occasionally have I known serious objection to be taken to Orders of that kind, and when the objection has been really serious the House has always been willing I o set up a Select Committee to deal with the complaint. But under this Order the Government will be setting up a corporation which will he financed by public money and will exercise great and ill-defined powers. Once that Order is through, there is no necessity for the Minister to come to Parliament for another Order.
§ Sir BASIL PETO
In the few minutes that I shall speak I shall show how utterly inadequate and inappropriate the answer of the Chancellor of the Duchy was to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for the New Forest (Colonel Ashley). The answer consisted simply of the pot calling the kettle black, or, in more classic language, it amounted to saying to my right hon. Friend, Et to Brute. This is an altogether novel form of procedure for a Government to adopt. The Government will be able, under this Clause, to go into a gigantic business with public money, to purchase land and manage it, and to show the farmers of the country how to conduct their business on a grand scale. Incidentally, in another Sub-section, the Government propose to make such modifications as they think right in Part 10 of that tremendous Act, the Companies Act of 1929, which I think was the magnum opus of the late Lord Birkenhead. Surely the House is entitled to have some opportunity other than that proposed by the Bill for consideration of the modifications in Part 10 of the Companies Act referring to the winding up of unregistered companies. I can understand that the Government want to be a law unto themselves, but if they want to alter the Companies Act in order to suit their own particular case, surely the House is entitled to a better opportunity for discussion of the matter than that provided by the laying of an Order on the Table of the House.
The Amendment cannot be met by merely saying that this is an ordinary procedure, that Members in Opposition always object to this laying of Orders on the Table, but that as soon as they cross the Floor of the House the same game is carried on by those who were formerly the Government. That is not so. This is a new departure altogether. We have hitherto had no legislation of this kind, which provides for the Government being great undertakers and going into business with public money on a large scale. On top of that the Government propose, almost with effrontery, to make such Amendments as they choose in the Companies Act, in case their own corporation should fail and it should be necessary to wind it up, and they do not give the House an opportunity of considering 1942 what Amendment shall be made in that great Act. In those circumstances this Clause stands in a category by itself. It is no use for the Chancellor of the Duchy to tell my right bon. Friend the Member for the New Forest that when he was in office he issued more Orders than most Ministers and laid them on the Table of the House. That was normal procedure in connection with normal legislation. But here we have a Government going into business on a great scale, and it proposes to make the law for itself, or such modifications of the law as it chooses, and not to give the House an opportunity of considering the matter. We are on far stronger ground in criticising this proposal of the Government than any Opposition could ever have been before, for no legislation of this kind has ever been proposed before.
§ Sir DENNIS HERBERT
It is a curious commentary on the Government's loss of touch with Parliamentary affairs that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster should have treated this Amendment as he did. He should be aware that for nearly 12 months a committee has been inquiring into the whole system of delegating legislative powers, and that committee was set up as the result of an outcry which has, I think, reached the ears of everybody interested in politics except Members on the Treasury Bench. In the first place, it is right to call attention to the fact that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, when he upbraided my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the New Forest (Colonel Ashley), lost sight of the fact that most of the Orders which my right hon. Friend made when he was in office required the exact procedure for which this Amendment asks, namely an affirmative resolution. We hear much from all quarters and not least from hon. Members opposite, as to the unsatisfactory working of the Parliamentary machine. I agree that a great deal of what may be called minor legislation has to be delegated to a Minister or a Government Department but, legislation which takes the form of setting up an important corporation and giving it wide and extensive powers, financial and otherwise, is legislation over which Parliament ought to retain control. Everyone with any experience of this House 1943 knows that, unsatisfactory as the procedure of an affirmative resolution may be, it is at least not so unsatisfactory as the procedure of merely allowing an order to lie on the Table of the House for a specified number of days.
The House will forgive me if I recall an instance which occurred only a few months ago when a question was raised in this House in regard to an order under the Census Act, showing the way in which these things are apt to slip through without Parliament knowing anything about them. I invite hon. Members opposite who are really interested in trying to make our Parliamentary procedure work satisfactorily to consider the extent of the Order which the Minister is authorised to make under Clause 1 of the Bill. I have been in this House for a considerable number of years and I do not suppose that in that period it has ever been proposed to give more extensive and important powers to any Minister than those proposed here. Over and over again, in delegating powers much less important than these, the House of Commons has insisted that an affirmative resolution should be required. I make a serious appeal to the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill to accept this Amendment in the interest of the fair and efficient working of the Parliamentary machine. I go further and appeal to him to do so for the sake of his party, because I cannot think that that party will improve their reputation as Parliamentarians by refusing to accept an Amendment which does not give any real opportunity for obstruction but does give a certain amount of control over a very important delegation of legislation powers.
Anyone who sits in this House after 11 o'clock at night knows that affirmative resolutions are frequently passed to the number of five or six or even more, in that part of the silting, and if the Order made is unobjectionable, the Minister knows that he will obtain his affirmative resolution. I am sure he will believe me when I say that I am not attempting to deal with this matter from a party point of view. I say quite definitely and decidedly that if the party to which I belong were sitting on the other side of the House I should support an Amendment of this kind. I have done so in the past 1944 and I intend and hope to do so in the future. In the interests of Parliamentary government I appeal to right hon. Gentlemen opposite to consider whether they cannot accept the Amendment.
§ Captain CROOKSHANK
I cannot speak with the authority of the hon. Member for Watford (Sir D. Herbert) who has, in the past, occupied the Chair, but it is quite clear that anyone who is interested in legislative procedure and in the constitutional position in regard to these matters must look at this problem not from any partisan or party aspect at all. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I am glad to have the assent of hon. Gentlemen opposite and I hope to find them with me in the Division Lobby on this question. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster brushed the Amendment aside. He first said that it was an obstructive Amendment—for which he had to apologise to the Chair—then he said that it was the kind of Amendment which Oppositions always brought forward and asked why the Opposition should do so now—a very peculiar, and, if I may say so, an idiotic argument. It is a sort of hopeless attitude on the part of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. Why should one ever do anything? If we carry that argument to its logical conclusion then why in the name of goodness should we be discussing this Bill at all? As a matter of fact, this system of treating draft Orders in the negative instead of the positive aspect is all wrong. It is obviously difficult late at night to deal with these matters and it is obviously not the interest of the Government to see that a sufficiently large number of Members remain here in order to resolve against the Government's own order.
When the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster talks about the other House I put this point to him. He made the curious remark on a previous Amendment that he would see to it, that, if necessary, some Amendment would be made in another place. That is an extraordinary statement from a Labour Government—guaranteeing that some Amendment will be made in another place. Now he is to dragoon the other place in regard to these Orders in the way in which he is trying to force this Bill through this House at this late hour. If you left in the words "either House," and the other place did throw out an 1945 Order, I suppose the Government would say, "It is very doubtful whether the other place can do this, because there are vast financial commitments involved; it is a question of money, and the privileges of this House come in." Then where should we be? The hon. Member has not thought it out. He has got the system of contracting-out so much on the brain, as the result of another Measure that is before this House, that he thinks it necessary to introduce it in regard to these Orders. It is perfectly monstrous.
He gets up and says to my right hon. Friend on the Front Bench, "When you were in office, you produced more of these draft Orders than we are likely to do." That is true. My right hon. Friend was in office a great deal longer than this Government is ever likely to be, and therefore he probably did produce a great many more draft Orders than the Chancellor of the Duchy or anybody else on that side will ever do. But when my right hon. Friend patted himself metaphorically on the back and said that all the draft Orders that he produced were good, I cannot accept that. The Ministry of Transport is one of the most bureaucratic institutions in this country, and its draft Orders, whether produced under a Conservative Minister or a Socialist—
§ Captain CROOKSHANK
—or by agreement between the Socialist and the Liberal parties, require far more attention than any draft Orders under this Bill are likely to receive after 11 o'clock at night.
§ Major HARVEY
I resent very much the accusation made across the Floor of the House by the Chancellor of the Duchy when he said that we were treating this matter in an obstructive manner. As a matter of fact, I do not believe that anyone on this side is endeavouring to obstruct. I for one, rise simply to make a few remarks on the score of economy. We know very well that we require very strict care over all Government expenditure, in whatever direction it may be made, and in this particular Clause, under which so much power is being given to the corporation to spend such an enormous amount of money, it is most 1946 desirable that the Parliamentary procedure for the time being should be altered.
As a good sound Conservative, I am more anxious than are most to preserve the Parliamentary procedure which has acted so well for so long and will continue to act, I hope, for many years to come, but in this particular place I think it is not sufficient to have just a copy of the Order left in the Library, and to allow hon. Members on this side only to go into the Library, pick it out, and put a Prayer before the House of Commons that it should not he adopted. I think it is desirable in a case like this, where £1,000,000 is at stake, and perhaps a great deal more, that each House of Parliament should definitely confirm the expenditure of that money. The hon. and gallant Member for Gains-borough (Captain Crookshank) referred to the question of contracting-out, and may I call attention to this fact also, that even in the matter of co-operative associations, of which I believe the Minister knows a good deal, they get a chance of saying whether or not they want to uphold an Order! Although I do not wish to stand between the House and a Division, I must just say that I shall support this Amendment earnestly and whole-heartedly on the grounds of economy and the strict supervision of Parliament over all expenditure.
§ Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE
It is very necessary to curb the bureaucracy so as to prevent the passing of these Orders through a back door. We must consider the tremendous importance and the great diversity of subjects with which this Order will have to deal. Ten different things are laid down in this Clause. It has, for instance, to make provision for winding-up this corporation if it goes bankrupt, as no doubt it will; it has to provide for the remuneration of the directors, to empower the corporation to purchase land, and to provide for the establishment of a fund to be administered by the directors. These are one or two of the things that have to be done by the Order, and it is going to involve not only the expenditure of a vast sum of public money, but the management of a very large area of land in this country. I hope that the Minister will see that this Order will be properly considered before it becomes the law of the land.
§ Major MUIRHEAD
I intervene for a particular object. This Amendment has been debated so far entirely by Members who have sat in previous Parliaments, and I wish to put the point of view of a Member who is in his first Parliament. One hears a great deal nowadays about the danger of bureaucracy, and one has heard about it during the discussion of this Amendment. There has been a great deal of the "You're another" sort of argument. Somebody makes a protest, and then the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster gets up and says, "You are just as bad, if not worse." An hon. Friend of mine talks about pots and kettles being black. I daresay they are. I see before me on the amalgamated Front Benches a collection of pots and kettles mixed up together, and they are of the blackest hue as regards Orders which have been put through without Members being given adequate opportunity for considering them. That does not concern me.
I come to this House, neither as a pot nor as a kettle; and, speaking not merely for myself, not merely for Members on this side of the House, but possibly for all Members who are fresh, and at all events not black, we honestly and sincerely wish to see some reasonable way by which the increasing power, and what some people may call the increasing abuse of the bureaucracy is checked as far as is reasonably possible. The House will admit that I have not intervened prematurely on this matter; I have heard a lot of learned Members of one sort and another, and I have definitely intervened now to give the point of view of a Member who is sitting in his first Parliament. I believe that many of those good people who belong to organisations which go into classes and places of a very low moral character, and try to reclaim them to a higher moral standard, often have as one of the principles on which they act, "It is not much good worrying about the older people; you cannot do much for them. Save the children!" I am a child who wants to be saved, and that is why I hope this Amendment will be accepted.
§ Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE
I am not in the position of the last speaker, for I am in my second—[HON. MEMBERS: "Childhood!"]—Parliament. I thought 1948 hon. Members would be quick to seize their chance. I wish the Ministers on the Treasury Bench were as quick to seize their chance by accepting this Amendment. Supporters of the Government, whenever they get the chance, throw the Hatry case at private enterprise. What was behind the Hatry case? The proceedings which gave rise to the Hatry case were so long undiscovered through lack of supervision over the finances of the companies. Paragraph (b) of Sub-section (2) says that the Order will provide for the keeping of the accounts of the corporation. We are dealing here with the financial transactions of a new national body; according to some hon. Members it is to be the beginning of land nationalisation. If this experiment in land nationalisation is to be saved from developing into a Hatry case, it is obvious that we must have an efficient examination into the accounts. I beg to suggest that the Minister is acting in a very suspicious way. An Order will be made, but unless attention is called to it by some body or association which wishes to oppose it, it escapes notice. Is that quite the way in which the Government wish to carry through their financial transactions?
The financial transactions of the Government are, in the main, examined in the Budget discussions on the Floor of the House; but this is a back-door method of finance such as I should have thought the Minister of Agriculture would have been ashamed of. He is going to set up an enormous financial undertaking for land nationalisation. He has not yet told us, however, whether this experiment is to be conducted only through large farms or whether small farms are included, whether the term "large" refers to the acreage, or whether it is a big business proposition he means to set up. He has told its candidly that he will keep his mind open. There is, however, no limit to the money involved, and it will come into the accounts by a backdoor method under which we cannot readily examine the expenditure. Later on, perhaps, another Socialist Administration will find that owing to the lax way in which the first Order has been made peculation may have taken place; and, therefore, it should be the duty of this 1949 House to try to check that sort of thing. The Minister, however, is making it quite impossible for the House, which is the only guardian of the purse of the nation, to keep a firm hold on the finances of the country. If it is the idea of the Socialist Government that control of taxation and finance are to be taken out of the hands
§ of the representatives of the people, I hope the country will take note of the fact that it is a Socialist idea.
§ Question put, "That the words 'if either' stand part of the Bill."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 254; Noes, 145.1951
|Division No. 109.]||AYES.||[10.31 p.m.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File, West)||Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)||Mansfield, W.|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Granville, E.||Marcus, M.|
|Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher||Gray, Milner||Markham, S. F.|
|Altchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.||Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Marley, J.|
|Alpass, J. H.||Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)||Mathers, George|
|Ammon, Charles George||Groves, Thomas E.||Matters, L. W.|
|Angell, Sir Norman||Grundy, Thomas W.||Maxton, James|
|Aske, Sir Robert||Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)||Melville. Sir James|
|Attlee, Clement Richard||Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)||Messer, Fred|
|Ayles, Walter||Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)||Middleton, G.|
|Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)||Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)||Millar, J. D.|
|Barnes. Alfred John||Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)||Mills, J. E.|
|Barr, James||Harbord, A.||Milner, Major J.|
|Batey, Joseph||Hardie, George D.||Montague, Frederick|
|Bellamy, Albert||Harris, Percy A.||Morgan, Dr. H. B.|
|Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood||Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon||Morloy, Ralph|
|Bennett, William (Battersea, South)||Hastings, Dr. Somerville||Morris, Rhys Hopkins|
|Benson, G.||Haycock, A. W.||Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)|
|Birkett, W. Norman||Hayday, Arthur||Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)|
|Blindell, James||Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)||Mort, D. L.|
|Bowen, J. W.||Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)||Muff, G.|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Herriotts, J.||Muggeridge, H. T.|
|Broad, Francis Alfred||Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)||Murnin, Hugh|
|Brockway, A. Fenner||Hoffman, P. C.||Newman, sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)|
|Brooke, W.||Horrabin, J. F.||Noel Baker, P. J.|
|Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)||Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)||Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)|
|Brown, Ernest (Leith)||Hunter, Dr. Joseph||Oldfield, J. R.|
|Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshirs)||Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.||Oliver, George Harold (likeston)|
|Buchanan, G.||Isaacs, George||Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)|
|Burgess, F. G.||Jenkins, Sir William||Palin, John Henry|
|Burgin, Dr. E. L.||John, William (Rhondda, West)||Paling, Wilfrid|
|Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)||Johnston, Thomas||Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)|
|Caine, Derwent Hall-||Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)||Perry, S. F.|
|Cameron, A. G.||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Peters, Dr. Sidney John|
|Cape, Thomas||Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.|
|Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)||Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston)||Phillips, Dr. Marion|
|Charleton, H. C.||Kelly, W. T.||Picton-Turbervill, Edith|
|Chater, Daniel||Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Pole, Major D. G.|
|Clarke, J. S.||Kinley, J.||Potts, John S.|
|Cluse, W. S.||Kirkwood, D.||Pybus, Percy John|
|Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.||Lang, Gordon||Ouibell, D. F. K.|
|Cock", Frederick Seymour||Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George||Ramsay, T. B. Wilson|
|Compton, Joseph||Lathan, G.||Rathbone, Eleanor|
|Cove, William G.||Law, Albert (Bolton)||Raynes, W. R.|
|Ccwan, D. M.||Law, A. (Rossendale)||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)|
|Cripps, Sir Stafford||Lawrence, Susan||Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)|
|Daggar, George||Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Slalybridqe)||Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)|
|Dallas, George||Lawson, John James||Ritson, J.|
|Dalton, Hugh||Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)||Romeril, H. G.|
|Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Leach, W.||Rosbotham, D. S. T.|
|Denman, Hon. R. D.||Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)||Rowson, Guy|
|Dukes, C.||Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)||Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)|
|Duncan, Charles||Lees, J.||Salter, Dr. Alfred|
|Ede, James Chuter||Lloyd, C. Ellis||Sanders, W. S.|
|Edmunds, J. E.||Logan, David Gilbert||Sandham, E.|
|Edwards, E. (Morpeth)||Longbottom, A. W.||Sawyer, G. F.|
|Elmley, Viscount||Longden, F.||Scott, James|
|England, Colonel A.||Lovat-Fraser, J. A.||Scurr. John|
|Foraan, Dr. Robert||Lunn, William||Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.|
|Freeman, Peter||Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)||Shaw, Rt. Hon, Thomas (Preston)|
|Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)||McElwee, A.||Shepherd, Arthur Lewis|
|Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)||McEntee, V. L.||Sherwood, G. H.|
|George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)||McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)||Shield, George William|
|Gibson, H. M. (Lanes, Mossley)||McKinlay, A.||Shiels, Dr. Drummond|
|Gill, T. H.||Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)||Shillaker, J. F.|
|Gillett, George M.||Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)||Shinwell, E.|
|Glassey, A. E.||MacNeill-Weir, L.||Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)|
|Gossling, A. G.||McShane, John James||Simmons, C. J.|
|Gould, F.||Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)||Sinclair. Sir A. (Caithness)|
|Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||Mander. Geoffrey le M.||Sitch, Charles H.|
|Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)||Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)||West, F. R.|
|Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)||Thurtle, Ernest||Westwood, Joseph|
|Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)||Tillett, Ben||White, H. G.|
|Smith, Rennie (Penistone)||Tinker, John Joseph||Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)|
|Smith, Tom (Pontefract)||Tout, W. J.||Williams, David (Swansea, East)|
|Smith, W. R. (Norwich)||Townend, A. E.||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)|
|Snell, Harry||Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip||Viant, S. P.||Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)|
|Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)||Walkdon, A. G.||Wilson, J. (Oldham)|
|Stamford, Thomas W.||Walker, J.||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Stephen, Campbell||Wallace, H. W.||Winterton, G. E.(Leicester,Loughb'gh)|
|Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)||Watkins, F. C.||Young, R. S. (Islington, North)|
|Strauss, G. R.||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Sullivan, J.||Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)||Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Hayes.|
|Sutton, J. E.||Wellock, Wilfred|
|Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)||Welsh, James (Paisley)|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Elliot, Major Walter E.||Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert|
|Albery, Irving James||Erskine, Lord (Somerset,Weston-s.-M.)||O'Connor, T. J.|
|Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)||Falle, Sir Bertram G.||O'Neill, Sir H.|
|Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.)||Ferguson, Sir John||Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William|
|Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.||Fermoy, Lord||Penny, Sir George|
|Astor, Viscountess||Fison, F. G. Clavering||Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)|
|Atholl, Duchess of||Ford, Sir p. J.||Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)||Forestier-Walker, Sir L.||Pownall, Sir Assheton|
|Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)||Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.||Ramsbotnam, H.|
|Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.||Ganzoni, Sir John||Reid, David D. (County Down)|
|Beaumont, M. W.||Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton||Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.|
|Betterton, Sir Henry B.||Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & ofley)||Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesail)|
|Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)||Glyn, Major R. G. C.||Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell|
|Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman||Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)||Ross, Major Ronald D.|
|Bird, Ernest Roy||Greene, W. P. Crawford||Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.|
|Bourne, Captain Robert Croft||Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)|
|Boyce, Leslie||Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John||Salmon, Major I.|
|Bracken, B.||Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.||Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart|
|Brass, Captain Sir William||Gunston, Captain D. W.||Savery, S. S.|
|Briscoe, Richard George||Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)||Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome|
|Butler, R. A||Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)|
|Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward||Hartington, Marquess of||Smith-Carington, Neville W.|
|Campbell, E. T.||Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)||Smithers, Waldron|
|Carver, Major W. H.||Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)|
|Castle Stewart, Earl of||Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.||Southby, Commander A. R. J.|
|Cautley, Sir Henry S.||Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller||Spender-Clay, Colonel H.|
|Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)||Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.||Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)|
|Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth,S.)||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)||Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)|
|Cazalet, Captain Victor A.||Iveagh, Countess of||Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.|
|Chamberlain, Rt.Hn.Sir J.A.(Birm.,W.)||Kindersley, Major G. M.||Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)|
|Chapman, Sir S.||Lamb, Sir J. O.||Thomson, Sir f.|
|Christie, J. A.||Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.||Tinne, J. A.|
|Clydesdale, Marquess of||Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)||Todd, Capt. A. J.|
|Cobb, Sir Cyril||Leighton, Major B. E. P.||Train, J.|
|Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George||Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|Colville, Major D. J.||Liewellin, Major J. J.||Turton, Robert Hugh|
|Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.||Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey||Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Horntey)|
|Cranborne, Viscount||Lockwood. Captain J. H.||Ward. Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert|
|Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.||Long, Major Hon. Eric||Warrender, Sir Victor|
|Crookshank, Capt. H. C.||McConnell, Sir Joseph||Wayland, Sir William A.|
|Croom-Johnson, R. P.||Makins, Brigadier-General E.||Wells. Sydney R.|
|Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)||Margesson. Captain H. D.||Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)|
|Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip||Marjoribanks, Edward||Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)|
|Dalkoith, Earl of||Mason, Colonel Glyn K.||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset,Yeovil)||Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon Sir W.||Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount|
|Dixey, A. C.||Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert||Moore. Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)||Sir G. Bowyer and the Marquess of Titchfield.|
|Duckworth, G. A. V.||Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)|
|Dugdale, Capt. T. L.||Muirhead, A. J.|
|Edmondson, Major A. J.||Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)|
I beg to move, in page 3, line 39, to leave out Subsection (5).
This Sub-section gives power to the Minister to acquire land by compulsion and to vest it in the corporation. It has caused great anxiety. When we discussed it in Committee, the Minister said he only wanted this power to hold in reserve. He had known cases where the 1952 public had been held to ransom, and it was in order to prevent the public being held to ransom that the power was required. He did not believe for a moment that it would ever be necessary to exercise it. If those are the opinions of the Minister, he will be well advised to drop this power, because there is no shortage of suitable agricultural land for large-scale experiments. If those experi- 1953 meats are to be of any practical application by the general run of farmers, they must be carried out on average land, the same kind of land that farmers are cultivating themselves, and it will be entirely misleading to agriculturists if the Minister is going to select specially favourable areas and only carry out the experiments on very good land. The community must be armed with powers to resist outrageous demands by private persons when there is a particular monopoly value for one indispensable plot of land. If you are constructing a reservoir in a great catchment area or building a railway, it may be that 100th part of the land that you require is held up by some person who is lacking in public spirit. In those cases, we all recognise that compulsory powers are necessary and justifiable. But that does not apply to this kind of case where it is proposed to carry out large-scale experiments on average land.
Great alarm has been caused by what the Minister has himself said. He told us upstairs that he was expecting to charge the Agricultural Corporation with experiments on all kinds of different agricultural subjects. He told us that it was not merely a matter of small cultivation but that it was fair to say that in Wales alone there were at least from 500,000 to 1,000,000 acres of good hillside grazings which might, if he had anyone big enough to undertake the job, be brought into much greater use.One cannot undertake the experiment as long as the thing is in the hands of a multitude of people who have only little patches of their own.Do these compulsory powers mean that this multitude of people who have only little patches of their own are going to be dispossessed in order that the Minister shall empower the corporation to carry out experiments to show them how to run hillside grazing? The Minister has told us on the cereal problem that he is going to bring back large tracts of land into cultivation. He said on this point:Why is it we have to propose this kind of thing? Within the last few years 1,000,000 acres have gone out of cultivation. The countryside is being desolated and devastated by the existing system. That is why we are proposing the alteration."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, (Standing Committee B), 27th November, 1930; col. 56.]1954 The Minister suggests that he is going to bring back barren acres to cultivation. Surely, if he is going to provide this startling object lesson, it must not be on the special land which he would need compulsory powers to acquire; it must be on these 1,000,000 acres which, he says, have gone out of cultivation. Anybody can farm good land. The farmer is tackling his difficulties with extraordinary resource at the present time, and, if there is anything in the contention of the right hon. Gentleman, he has to make good on the difficult land. There is any quantity of that land which can be got for £3, £4 and £5 an acre with the buildings thrown in, and it is without any justification that he should take these compulsory powers.
I had an Amendment down which I was pressed to move by the National Farmers' Union to limit the right hon. Gentleman in these experiments to land which was uncultivated at the time of the passing of this Bill. Mr. Speaker did not call that Amendment, and no doubt he felt that the discussion had better be taken on the whole question of how we were to acquire the land, which, of course, involves what kind of land you are going to get. We know that most of the agricultural land in the country to-day can be acquired at a cost far below what has been spent on the buildings alone, with the land thrown in for nothing, and at present day values there is no justification whatever for imposing upon the possible sellers of land the fear and injustice of dispossession by compulsory powers.
§ Dr. ADDISON
I am impressed by the fact that the right lion. Gentleman reads into this very much more than there is. I am glad to say that I have not yet heard of that large number of people all over the country who have been greatly alarmed by the accounts of what took place in the Committee. I think that the right hon. Gentleman has been somewhat misled.
I do not want to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but I can give him correspondence from the National Farmers' Union who represent over 100,000 farmers.
§ Dr. ADDISON
I think that, what the right hon. Gentleman says shows how little there was in it. The impression 1955 which he gave to me, and which must have been received by many other hon. Members, was that what I had said in Committee had greatly alarmed a number of private individuals. Now we find what it really boils down to. It is another of the numerous representations the right hon. Gentleman has received, and which emanate from Bedford Square. That is another matter, and rather alters the appearance of the alarm. I am quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman, if he had been introducing this Bill, would have insisted upon these powers. He knows as well as I do, and nearly every hon. Member on those benches knows it, that when a public authority acquires land, it has to be equipped with these powers of compulsory purchase in reserve. Cases have been recorded, and are so numerous, that I need not repeat them.
I have no doubt that what the right hon. Gentleman says will prove to be correct, and that for the most part the corporation will be able to acquire land without difficulty. This is inserted only as a very proper safeguard to secure that in special cases the corporation is not charged, or sought to be charged, an unfairly high price, because we have found, as every Government has, by abundant experience, that the insertion of these powers and all that they involve as regards an independent and fair valuation under the law, means that people are willing to come to a fair arrangement, which is all that we want. It is very necessary that the position should be safeguarded by this power in the interest of economy. It is acknowledged to be the case in every other Bill the House has passed for the acquisition of land. I am quite sure that if the right hon. Gentleman had been in my place, he would have been a sturdy defender of this proposal, and would have based his defence upon public experience.
§ Viscount WOLMER
I hope that the National Farmers' Union will take further note of the way in which the Minister has once more expressed his opinion of the representative organisation which speaks on behalf of the farmers of England. When my right hon. Friend quoted their views, the right hon. Gentleman—
§ Dr. ADDISON
No; what the right hon. Gentleman did was to state that great alarm had been occasioned, that a number of individuals felt alarm, and then he showed that it resolved itself into a letter he had received from the National Farmers' Union, which is a different matter.
§ Viscount WOLMER
When a union representing 100,000 farmers makes representations, the right hon. Gentleman says it shows how little there is in it. In a recent Debate, hon. Members opposite stressed the importance of representative unions in organised labour, but when the agriculturists of this country form themselves into a union to speak on their behalf, and which does so, the right hon. Gentleman treats that union with studied contempt. This is not the first time that he has done it. I suppose it is hopeless to expect the Minister to bring the Bill into conformity with his expressed intention. He has tried to assure us on this occasion as on previous occasions that what is in the Bill does not mean anything important, that he is not going to act upon it, and that we need not he alarmed about it. He bases his reason why this Clause is necessary on the ground that every Government when they are purchasing land find a Clause of this kind to be essential. Is this a Government purchasing land? We have been told by the right hon. Gentleman that this experiment in large-scale farming is not going to be a case of farming from Whitehall, that the Agricultural Corporation is going to be a body of business men, not controlled by Ministers or Government officials, but who will be put in exactly the same position as any other private corporation. When we wanted to limit the amount which this corporation can borrow, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland said that we were putting them in an unfair position such as no private corporation would he subjected to.
In this case, we are merely asking that the farm of the corporation should be in exactly the same position as any other farm in the country. The whole value of this experiment in large-scale farming depends upon the conditions under which the corporation farm being in every respect similar to those under which the ordinary farmers have to farm If the 1957 right hon. Gentleman or I wish to start a private farm, we cannot go and take what land we want by acquiring it compulsorily. We have to find portions of land for farms where we can, and pay the market price. When we buy good land we generally have to buy a bit of land with it which is not so good. We have to take the disadvantages of the farm as well as the advantages. But the right hon. Gentleman is taking powers that will enable the corporation to aequire all the good land in a district without taking any of the poor land associated with it. That is starting from the outset on the basis that this corporation is to be a privileged body and not subjected to the same difficulties which beset ordinary farmers, and that must govern the whole of their farming operations from the moment they have acquired their farm. If this principle is to be acted upon it will vitiate the whole experiment.
The right hon. Gentleman would be consulting his own advantage better if he did not press this Clause. As we understand the Government proposition, it is not a question of the Government buying land. This is to be an independent corporation, a business board. They are going to be given their money and to be allowed to select their own areas, and we submit that they should do it exactly on the same basis as any other farmer has to select his area when he wants to start a farm. If the right hon. Gentleman will be content to start his operations on that basis, I can assure him that the result of the work which the corporation will be able to achieve will carry much more weight with the ordinary farmers than if they feel that the Corporation has acquired their land under privileged conditions. What is the problem which faces the Minister? It is the problem of how to make farming pay tinder the present difficult circumstances. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that one of the methods by which he desires to tackle this problem is to introduce a system of large-scale farming into this country, but that system, obviously, can only he usefully introduced in those parts of the country where the present methods of agriculture are not producing satisfactory results, and, therefore, there is no conceivable necessity for this corporation to be armed with powers of this sort. My right hon. 1958 Friend has pointed out that if you go to the distressed parts of England you can buy 5,000 or 10,000 acres without the slightest difficulty at a price which a few years ago would be regarded as very cheap indeed.
We submit that in insisting upon these powers the right hon. Gentleman will prejudice the whole work of the corporation from the start. He has told us that it is a commercial organisation and must be treated as such. We ask him to apply the same test and the same canons when they are choosing the site of their operations. If he insists upon this Sub-section he will launch this corporation under the suspicion of favouritism, which will go a long way towards prejudicing in the eyes of the ordinary farmers of this country any results they may achieve. The Minister of Agriculture can achieve nothing unless the experiments of this corporation carry conviction to the rank and file of the farmers. He agrees with that, and that he has to get the goodwill and confidence of the farming community. If he starts his experiment under circumstances which ordinary farmers do not regard as fair he will not get their confidence in the results that are achieved.
§ Mr. DIXEY
I think I am entitled on a Bill of this importance to ask t he Minister of Agriculture a question, and I know that hon. Members opposite, whose knowledge of agriculture is so profound—[Interruption]—may also gain some information from the answers to the questions I propose to put. I was very disturbed, and I am sure a large number of other hon. Members on this side of the House were also disturbed, at the insult which was flung by the Minister of Agriculture—quite unlike what we have been led to expect from his general behaviour—at the Farmers' Union, a most respectable and reputable body of men—[Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite laugh at the mere mention of the Farmers' Union. What would they say if when the Miners' Federation was mentioned we all laughed on this side of the House. A farmer is as much entitled to the respect of this House as a miner, and the Farmers' Union, however much they may interfere in the politics of hon. Members opposite, are en titled to express an 1959 opinion on their own industry and to a certain amount of respect from hon. Members in this House. The right hon. Gentleman made a remark, quite uncalled for, about these 100,000 fanners.
§ Dr. ADDISON
I did not. This statement is calculated to make mischief between me and the National Farmers' Union. I said only, and said quite truly, that the statement that a very large number of people had been alarmed by what had taken place upstairs, led me to believe that that was a widespread impression amongst a large number of private persons. It turned out that the statement was based upon a letter which I understood the right hon. Gentleman had received from the National Farmers' Union in Bedford Square. I said that that was another matter altogether.
I do not want the right hon. Gentleman to be under any misapprehension. I told him that the House was alarmed because of what he had said upstairs. I did not say it was only in the case of the National Farmers' Union, but he more or less challenged me for the authority for my statement. I did not say it was only the National Fanners' Union. I have a letter in this box drawing my attention to the unsatisfactory proposals from the point of view of the National Farmers' Union, the members of which, among others, have been alarmed by this proposal for the compulsory purchase of land, which will give us no true comparison.
§ Mr. DIXEY
Knowing the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture, I should have thought that when he had made a mistake he would have had the courtesy to make a proper apology to a very reputable body of men. I think that hon. Members of the Liberal party, with their traditional regard for the agricultural community, will agree with me in saying that we are entitled to ask the Minister to admit that any representation made by the National Farmer's Union ought to have his most careful consideration. But I rose mainly to ask one or two questions. Does the right hon. Gentleman intend that the land which he takes under this Section shall be land of the ordinary kind for which farmers who desire to take farms can compete in the open market? It would 1960 be grossly unfair if picked land were made available to the corporation. Other farmers are entitled to the same facilities for farming as any corporation. If the Minister is to carry on large-scale farming at all, he ought to take some of the thousands of acres which are available to any corporation throughout the country. It is a positive scandal that a Government which is supposed to have advisers to advise it, and is supposed to be endeavouring to do good for employment in this country, should come forward with a Measure like this, which is neither more nor less than a Measure for the confiscation of the best farming land of the country.
Hon. Members on this side of the House who have had experience of Socialist corporations know that this corporation is likely to get hold of the land which is most useful for farming—[Interruption.] It is perfectly ridiculous that the Government should give no protection to farmers in this matter. I also ask the right hon. Gentleman what rates and taxes is this corporation going to pay? [HON. MEMBERS: "There are no rates!"] There is no reference of any sort to that subject and we do not know what taxation is going to fall on the corporation which will take over farm lands under the powers conferred by this Bill and will be in competition with the farmers in many areas. Is this corporation to have the same unfair advantages in this respect as the co-operative societies have in trading? Is this going to be another Socialist monopoly? As far as I am concerned, I shall vote very strongly for the deletion of this Sub-section and I shall be surprised to find hon. Members of the Liberal party voting with the Government on this issue, however strong the contact may be between them and the party opposite. As far as I know, the Liberal party remains an individualist party, and certainly one right hon. Gentleman who is still on the Front Bench of that party remains an individualist and desires to have decent, fair, individualistic competition. To my mind the Liberal party cannot support a proposal like this which is deliberately aimed at private enterprise and which seeks to eliminate the farmer, or to make his task more difficult. I would advise the right hon. Gentleman, whose position in the Cabinet, I am told, is by no means too 1961 secure—[Laughter.] I cannot understand the Secretary of State for War laughing so vigorously at that remark, because, after his speech of last night, he, too, may feel some uncertainty. I would ask the Minister, as a last resort, to yield to the arguments which have been so ably put forward from this side and to withdraw this proposal.
§ Sir D. HERBERT
The House ought to take notice of the powers given to the Minister under this Sub-section. If hon. Members will turn to the top of page 10 of the Bill, Clause 5, they will see it stated:In this Part of this Act … the expression 'land,' except where the context otherwise requires, includes any interest in, or right or casement in or over, land.I do not think you could have anything wider. It means that the Minister's powers under this Sub-section extend to any sort or kind of real estate, or any right or interest in any real estate of any kind. Beside what the Minister may acquire, which is unlimited with regard to real property, he is unlimited as to the methods of doing it. He is unlimited apparently in expense, because he is to acquire it at the expense of somebody else, namely, the corporation. He can acquire any real property, pass it over to the corporation, and make them pay for it, without being asked by the corporation, and indeed, according to the wording of this Clause, even in spite of any objections by the corporation. It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to say what he proposes to do and for him to imagine or to dream what a future Minister of Agriculture may intend or wish to do, but I suggest once more that if the House is to do its duty, if it wants to give powers to a Minister to do a certain limited and specified thing for certain limited and specified purposes under limited and specified circumstances, it should say so.
The effect of this Sub-section is that the Minister, at the expense of the corporation, could acquire any dwelling-house in this country, from an agricultural labourer's cottage or a miner's cottage to a squire's house or a peer's palace. He could acquire any of them under these powers, at the expense of the corporation, without being asked to do so and without their wishing it. I see smiles on the faces of Ministers on 1962 the Government Bench. They cannot deny that they are giving the Minister unjustified and unnecessary powers, and they only sit there with a vacant smile. I can only say that it is a kind of smile which I am afraid I cannot describe in language which would not be considered to be rude and perhaps unparliamentary.
§ Sir D. HERBERT
I shall be happy to do so later on. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that his predecessor in office would have put in a similar power if he had been passing a similar Bill. In the first place, I am certain he would never have brought in such a Bill, and I have an idea in my mind that if he had found it necessary to insert in a Bill a power to acquire compulsorily land for the purposes of that Bill, he would have put some limitation on to the powers given to the Minister. I am certain of this, that if he had not done so, that if he had brought before the House a Clause of this kind, with no limit whatever, he would have had Amendments moved from his own benches and heavily supported and that he would have accepted them. The Minister has been trying very hard to deal with and to explain away previous utterances with regard to the protests and representations of the National Farmers' Union. I should like to try to help him in explaining what he meant, and I hope I am not explaining it wrongly if I put it in this way. He would have paid attention to representations from a large number of individuals, and when he hears what he believes to be the representations of a large number of individuals he asks for particulars. When he is told that it is the National Farmers' Union, he says, "Oh, that is a very different thing," and he, apparently, by his own word attaches no importance to them. He would attach importance presumably to 100,000 individuals who perhaps knew nothing about agriculture, but he attaches no importance whatever to the representations of a body which includes 100,000 professional agriculturists, and speaks for them.
§ Mr. MARJORIBANKS
Somebody besides a mere farmer. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman has an obvious contempt for farmers, and I am adopting 1963 his phraseology. Somebody besides a mere farmer is entitled to criticise this Sub-section. In can be criticised from a constitutional point of view and from a legal point of view, and we can see in it a very grave tendency, which is a characteristic of modern legislation, of giving an advantage to public authorities over private individuals. The defence which the Minister gave to this was very specious. For the moment it sounded fairly plausible. He said it was a mere safeguard to prevent a powerful corporation being held up to ransom. It is rather a pathetic beginning to this gigantic organisation which the right hon. Gentleman is going to impose on the farming community. He is beginning in a spirit of timidity when he asks for safeguards for this powerful organisation, but we must remember that when a great corporation or even the State has sought to exercise sovereign powers over the Constitution, they have always called it "safeguards." I suppose that when the Star Chamber was imposed on this country the judges who sat upon it would have said that it was a great, safeguard to the Constitution. When the right hon. Gentleman says that this is a safeguard for this gigantic corporation, it is purely a safeguard and nothing else. The great point about a safeguard is that it should be expressed in moderate language, and that there should be a limitation to such a safeguard. Even in our policy of Safeguarding there are limitations. But there is absolutely no limitation to the right hon. Gentleman's safeguards. He requires a general power to seize any land; I will not quote a Latin phrase, because the right hon. Gentleman would not understand it, but he is trying to acquire any right from hell up to heaven.
This so-called safeguard may be an instrument of tyranny and oppression not only to every farmer but to every other peaceable owner of land. I think the right hon. Gentleman said this power had frequently been exercised before, and it is absolutely necessary under the numerous Acts under which the public authorities are authorised to acquire land; but here the State is coming out as a competitor with private farmers and is going to acquire their land. Surely that is a very different matter from acquiring land for a railway or same 1964 other public purpose. Here the State comes into direct competition with farmers. The right hon. Gentleman is well known for his extravagance, and I have no confidence in his powers of securing agreement. He would either have to acquire bad land or good land. If it is bad land, what is the use of the right hon. Gentleman's compulsory powers 7 He will merely be following the precedent set when he was in the service of another right hon. Gentleman some years ago. But if it be good land, it will mean the dispossession of, perhaps, some members of the National Farmers' Union which he affects to despise so much, and whose representations he regards as so much less important than the communications of private individuals. The right hon. Gentleman ought to put into this Sub-section certain safeguards and modifications to this great compulsory power which he is acquiring. The right hon. Gentleman is very modest in his claims, but it may be that he will be succeeded by one who is not so moderate, one who will regard this Clause as a general power to buy land, irrespective of agreement, throughout the length and breadth of the country, from Land's End to John o' Groat's.
§ Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAiN
I do not rise to continue the controversy which arose between the right hon. Gentleman opposite and my right hon. Friends on this bench as to the exact degree of esteem which he accords to the National Farmers' Union, but I must be permitted to say that I find it a little difficult to ascertain what kind of representation the right hon. Gentleman does consider worthy of his consideration. If it is individuals who are affected, and who appeal, he says, broadly and loftily, after all, individual interests must give way to the general welfare; and if it is a union representative of a large body of common interests—a very large body of common interests—in this very scattered enterprise of farming, he says, "Oh, it is only Bedford Square." Individual representatives do not appear to be worth attending to and combined representations are debarred from a hearing. [Interruption.]
I have risen to put a point to the right hon. Gentleman. It is a point which was put by my noble Friend the Member for Aldershot (Viscount 1965 Wolmer), but it has not yet been answered. There is a large number of farms which had bad land which can only be worked successfully by attaching it to the good land. Take the county of Wiltshire, which I have visited. I remember seeing the rich watered meadow land and downland that had been ploughed up by some ancestor in the early years of last century to the regret of his successors. The downland was apart from the fat land in the valley, but it was so divided that every farm had some of the fat land in the valley and had to take some of the lean land as well. If the right hon. Gentleman insists upon compulsion, is it not, a fair plea to make that, if you take part of a farm, it shall be at the option of the owner that you shall take the whole of it. I find a repetition of the same principle in the First Schedule, Part I, paragraph (b), which provides:(b) In lieu of section ninety-two of the Land Clauses (Consolidation) Act, 1845, the following provisions shall have effect—
The right hon. Gentleman recognises that it would be unfair to make the kind of division of which I have spoken, but he has excluded the tenant farmer. If the right hon. Gentleman passes this part of the Bill in the form he is asking us to adopt, he certainly should give to the owner of a farm the same protection which he gives to the owner of a park or mansion.
- No person shall be required to sell any land which forms part of any park, garden, or pleasure ground attached to and usually occupied with a dwelling-house or forms part of the home farm usually occupied with a mansion house, if he is willing and able to sell the whole of the park, garden, pleasure ground or home farm with the dwelling-house or mansion house;
§ Sir E. SHEPPERSON
I am concerned with this Sub-section, not as a lawyer, but directly as a farmer. It gives to the Minister power to acquire compulsorily land for the purpose of these large-scale farms. They are to be experimental farms, and, therefore, the land required must necessarily be fairly good land. All the fairly good land—indeed, all the land that it is possible to occupy to-day—is occupied by farmers at the present time, and, therefore, this Sub-section gives the Minister power to evict a sitting occupier from such land. For many years the 1966 greatest hardship suffered by the occupier of agricultural land was lack of security of tenure. In the past he might became an occupier of land and spend time and money in improving its productivity, and then find that some wicked landlord turned him out and let the land to some other farmer at a higher rent. Various Acts of Parliament have been passed by this House to remedy that evil, and to-day the sitting tenant is in a more fortunate position, because he has some definite security against eviction by his landlord. To-night, by this Sub-section, we are removing that security of tenure which has been obtained for the present occupiers of land after so many years of effort. The wicked landlord is still unable to evict the present occupier of land, but a still more wicked Government, under this Bill, is to be given power to evict him. Surely some consideration should be given to the man who is at present occupying in extremely difficult circumstance's and farming the land of this country.
This Bill, apparently, ignores the ordinary farmer. The man who is farming at the present time is going through very difficult circumstances. For the last two or three years he has been losing money, but he is holding on to his land, hoping against hope for those better times when the present Government will have fulfilled their pledge to make farming really pay. I appeal to the House for some consideration for that unfortunate individual. Under this Bill no one seems to consider the present occupier of land, and, therefore, he is to be squashed out of existence. Apparently the purpose of this Bill is to squash the ordinary small farmer out of existence. Under this Subsection he is to be dispossessed in favour of the large farmer; under a later Clause he is to be dispossessed for the sake of the smallholder. From both sides, therefore, he is to be squashed out of existence.
I am sure that, on this matter I shall receive the sympathy of hon. Members on the benches below the Gangway on this side, because, as representing the ordinary small farmer, I am somewhat in their position. I am likely to be squashed out of existence by the representatives of the larger men, and they are likely to be squashed out of existence by the parties represented by Mem- 1967 bers above the Gangway on this side and on the benches opposite. Therefore, in pleading for an opportunity of continued existence for the small farmer, I am sure I shall have the whole hearty support of hon. Members below the Gangway. I appeal to the Minister to give consideration to the ordinary small farmer who has in the past been carrying on his agricultural operations under very difficult circumstances.
§ Major-General Sir ROBERT HUTCHISON
I have every sympathy with the protests which have been voiced from Members who represent English constituencies against the application of these very wide powers, which will undoubtedly affect many farmers who are now cultivating good land in England. But I think the powers extended to the Secretary of State for Scotland through the Department of Agriculture are even more resented in the North, because undoubtedly the total amount of arable land that is cultivated in Scotland is very much greater in proportion than that land cultivated in England, and by these powers you are going to create a situation of anxiety for a great many farmers who are now farming some of our fine land in the East of Scotland. Undoubtedly, if the Secretary of State and the Board of Agriculture get these powers, they will look round for fine land in the Lothians or elsewhere in which to make a success of these experiments, and I feel that we ought to have from the Under-Secretary, if he feels able to give it, some assurance that the farmer who is now cultivating his farm will have protection against the acquisition of these powers. It is no laughing matter, because in Scotland, where we are struggling with very depressed conditions, the only people who are able to show success in the face of very adverse conditions are the men who are now farming the fine land, and, therefore, it only stands to reason that any man who is in a position to make these experiments and to make the Bill a success is bound to look for really fine land. If you carry out these experiments on really fine land you are not giving real representation of what they call fair average farming.
We want some safeguard that these tenant farmers are not going to be dis- 1968 possessed of their holding because, if the powers are given, there is always the danger that they will be used. We are here to protect those who sent us here against giving unnecessary powers to Departments, there is a great deal to be said for the protests which have been made on behalf of English farmers, but much more so is it the case for Scottish farmers, because it has been demonstrated more than once during the earlier part of the Clause that these experiments are quite unsuited to our Scottish land, where we have the very finest type of farmer and farm servants, and it is only by their great efforts that we can get the returns that we do get.
A great many of our farmers who are now farming good land will view these powers with very great suspicion, and I hope the Government will give us some assurance that the tenant farmers on these fine lands will have some protection against the action of the Department. It is well known that many of us hold the view that these tests, at least as regards Scotland, are a sheer waste of money, but, if they are going to be authorised by a majority in this House, at least those men who are now farming the land ought to be protected against action which can be applied by the Department of Agriculture under the powers of this Bill. I hope that some assurance will be given or that sonic statement will be made from the Front bench that they do not propose to exercise force in turning out men who are now fighting their way to success in farming the land. I cannot for the life of me imagine why the Government cannot be satisfied with the ordinary powers of purchase. One knows that there is any amount of land to be bought at moderate prices. The omission of this Sub-section ought to be agreed to by this House, and I certainly shall support the Amendment.
§ Dr. ADDISON
I rise to intervene by permission of the House in response to the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. In the case where it is proposed to purchase a place and to leave out, say, the house, or garden, or whatever it is, or the amenities of the place, it is provided, as I said in my interjection, that the owner can require them to buy the lot. There is nothing new in that. That is common form in other matters, but it does not explicitly cover the point which he put to me. I am ad- 1969 vised, as the existing law stands, that in the case where the Corporation wishes to buy a portion of the main farm, such a situation is extremely unlikely to arise. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I think that it is very unlikely indeed to arise [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]. Because, as a matter of fact, the Corporation will quite easily be able to buy whole farms, and it is almost unthinkable that they will want to pick out the best bits. [Interruption]. They would not be so hard-hearted as many a private landowner. I want to meet the point, which is quite a fair point. As the law stands, of course, if they did that, they would have to pay a man as much by way if compensation, as experience shows us would be equivalent to buying the lot. It is pretty clear that a man's clam for severance in a case of that kind would be very high indeed, and it would be awarded to him by any arbitrator, as has been done when portions of land have been taken for roads and other purposes. In that way, the case is really covered, hut in so far as it is not otherwise covered, I will look into the matter. I think my reference to the existing law covers the case, hut, I will leave it to see if there is anything further that is required to be done to meet the case.
§ Lord EUSTACE PERCY
I am not quite sure from his conciliatory remarks that the Minister really has grasped the point. Here, after all, you have specifically provided in your Bill that the man with a mansion and a farm may not he compelled to sever and he will be able to require the Corporation to buy the whole. In the case of the working farmer there is no such provision. The right hon. Gentleman says the working farmer can apply for compensation in respect of severance and can get it; but he has lost his farm and his job, too. [Interruption.] If hon. Members opposite would remember they are a Government party, they would perhaps behave themselves differently.
§ Lord E. PERCY
If I may return to my argument, the man with a mansion house—I will not interrupt the efforts of the Under-Secretary for Scotland to instruct the Minister of Agriculture for one moment.
§ Mr. JOHNSTON
That is a most offensive and uncalled for remark. I was paying considerable attention to what the right hon. Gentleman was saying.
§ Lord E. PERCY
The hon. Gentleman was no doubt paying attention to what I was saying, but he is preventing the Minister in charge from paying any attention at all. The point I was putting was that the man with the mansion and park has precisely the same right of compensation for severance as the man with the farm. Why is compensation for severance thought to be sufficient in the case of the working farmer, while the man who has a mansion and park is entitled not only to compensation for severance, but to additional consideration for losing half his property and to have the whole of it bought? It is not sufficient for the Minister to say that the farmer has compensation for severance. That applies to both cases. What is so extraordinary about the Bill and the attitude of the Government is that, while special consideration is given to the owner of the mansion and park, when it comes to the case of the working farmer he must take his chance under the existing law and under legislation by reference. This point is worth driving home because of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks which have already been quoted. Let me remind the House again of what he said in Committee:Take the case of hillside grazings. I have a case, fully authenticated, in Wales where, by the application of modern methods, the capacity of extensive hillside grazings to hold and feed stock, has been more than doubled. I think it is fair to say that even in Wales alone there are at Least 500,000 to 1,000,000 acres of good hillside grazings which might, if we had anybody big enough to undertake the job and show how it could be done, be brought to much greater use. That will not he depopulating the countryside. But one cannot undertake the experiment as long as the thing is in the hands of a multitude of people who have only little patches of their own."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee B) 27th November 1930; col. 57.]
That is what the right hon. Gentleman has said. That is the policy he has laid down. That is the policy he has laid down for crofters in Scotland, for graziers in Wales, for hill farmers in Northumberland. They have only got little patches of their own. The State had better take them over, and that will 1971 not be de-populating the countryside. Perhaps not, but it will mean depriving the countryside of men who own their own land, and cultivate it themselves. I know that the right hon. Gentleman and the Government do not intend to come before this House as the successors of the Scottish evictors. I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland does not intend to do that. The curious thing is that he cannot understand how exactly like those evictors he is. He cannot understand because he will not read history. There is one sufficient proof that he does not read it; if he did, he would not use precisely the same language that those evictors used. Word for word, line by line, paragraph by paragraph, he uses the same language.
§ Lord E. PERCY
The notable thing about the whole of the Government is that they do not intend to do anything that they are doing. They are simply drifing along, precisely in the same direction. Now, the right hon. Gentleman comes along and says the words that I have quoted about a multitude of people who have only little patches of their own. While using those words, he brings forward a Clause by means of which he says: "The big man with a mansion and a park shall have special rights under this Clause, but the small man, the multitude of people with only little patches of their own, shall not be provided for."
§ Lord E. PERCY
Then why not leave the man with the park to get his full compensation? Why provide for him specially and not for the small man?
§ Dr. ADDISON
I put that concession in at the behest of your friends. If you want me to take it out I will gladly do so.
§ Lord E. PERCY
Now we know. At what stage did the right hon. Gentleman put it in at the behest of our friends on this side? At what stage and in what circumstances. Will the right hon. Gentleman answer that question?
§ Dr. ADDISON
The matter was held to be ambiguous under the existing law. It was in the Bill in a modified form from another Act, and I think it was the right hon. and gallant Member for the New Forest (Colonel Ashley) who explicitly brought forward the case. It was made particularly clear. I forget now the circumstances in which the alteration was made, but it was at the special request of the right hon. and gallant Member for the New Forest, and I repeat my promise that if the right hon. Gentleman wants me to take it out I will gladly do so.
§ Lord E. PERCY
The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture says that he cannot answer the question without notice but he is very ready to make allegations. I was not on the Committee but hold in my hands a copy of the original Bill as it was introduced and perhaps I may read the Schedule from that original copy.
§ Lord E. PERCY
This is the Schedule in the original Bill:No person shall ho required to sell any land which forms part of any park, garden, or pleasure ground attached to and usually occupied with a dwelling-house or forms part of the home farm usually occupied with a mansion house, if he is willing and able to sell the whole of the park, garden, pleasure ground or home farm with the dwelling-house or mansion house;And those are the words which the right hon. Gentleman says were put in during the Committee stage at the request of the right hon. and gallant Member for the New Forest.
§ Lord E. PERCY
At the present moment I am confining myself to the question as to whether the Minister of Agriculture is not misleading the House. He has made a statement which on the face of his Bill cannot be substantiated. Let me return to his previous statement. He says that he put this provision in at the request of hon. Members on this side of the House. At whose request? Under what circumstances? In the course of what negotiations?
§ Dr. ADDISON
I am well aware of the provisions of the original Bill but we had a long debate on this point and I made a number of alterations—I have not got them here—and they were made at the request of the right hon. and gallant Member for the New Forest in order to make this particular provision clear.
§ Lord E. PERCY
I have read the same words as those which were read by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain). The accusation of the Minister of Agriculture is that these words are in the Bill because of the special request made by hon. Members of this side of the House. The case is that it did immediately occur to the Minister of Agriculture that the mansion house needed protection but it did not occur to him that the working farmer needed protection—
§ Mr. SPEAKER
The hon. Member must not continually interrupt. That is not the way in which debates should be conducted.
You were not in the House, Mr. Speaker, when the Minister gave a promise that if the noble Lord wanted the Clause withdrawn he was perfectly prepared to withdraw it. I am suggesting that if the noble Lord wants it withdrawn he should ask that it be withdrawn.
§ Mr. SPEAKER
The only question that arose on the point of Order was that the hon. Member should cease interrupting.
§ Lord E. PERCY
All I need say in conclusion is this: I have just had handed to me the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Standing Committee debate on this subject. It is quite true that the right hon. Member for the New Forest (Colonel Ashley) did move a certain Amendment. Am I wrong in stating that that Amendment was resisted by the Government, that the Committee divided, and that the Ayes were 20 and the Noes 31? We have heard the information that the Minister has now given to the House. Let us turn our minds back to all that the Minister has said in this debate—all about people with small patches of land who cannot be expected to cultivate them properly, all about the distinction between the rich man in the mansion and the working farmer, all that he has said about the National Farmers' Union, and how he has told the House "You have no right to say that there are many private individuals who are alarmed by my remarks, because I have not heard anything about it yet." Where should he hear about it except in this House? Has this House lost its right to bring before the Government of the day what private individuals are thinking? Is the Minister to pay no attention to anything that is not whispered in his ear by his permanent officials at the Ministry? Does he pay no attention whatever to what he hears in this House?
In this short Debate we have had sufficient experience of what the Minister's remarks and information mean, and I can only conclude this: There is a passage in a certain book about the man who goes about—I quote from memory—scattering fire and death and saying that it is only sport. About the National Farmers' Union, the smallholders and so on, the right hon. Gentleman goes about scattering fire and death, and saying it is only sport, and he does not really mean it. But in that book, that man is characterised as "the fool."
§ Mr. OSWALD LEWIS
It seems to me that the real point at issue between those who desire that this Sub-section should be omitted, and those who desire that the Government should retain these compulsory powers, is whether the Executive should, to the extent described in the Bill, interfere with the liberty of the private individual. Except for confining a man's personal movements, it is hardly 1975 possible to imagine a greater infringement of individual liberty than the compulsory acquisition of his property. Of course, on this question of what the individual should be allowed to do and what powers the Executive should have over him there is a great divergence of opinion between the supporters of the Government and Members on this side of the House. Supporters of the Government take the view that the more the Government does for the individual, and the more it controls him, the better it is for the individual, whereas we take the view that the greater the amount of individual liberty and enterprise, the better it is for the individual and for the country. But we have been reminded that there are some Members of this House who belong neither to the party which supports the Government nor to the Conservative party. They all use the name of the old Liberal party, a party which had, in its clay, a great tradition of standing up for liberty of the individual. One right hon. Gentleman has addressed us from those benches tonight, and he condemned the Government proposals most emphatically. It would be interesting to know whether his colleagues, or, should I say his ex-colleagues, agree with him in this matter. It may be urged that the Executive constantly restricts individual liberty and that the Minister is justified in asking for restriction in this case. I submit that the onus of proof is on him. He should show
§ the House that there is real necessity for these compulsory powers. The case of railways has been mentioned, but I submit that there is no parallel at all between the necessity of acquiring property in making a railway line from one town to another, and the necessity which the Minister foresees under this Bill. Clearly, if you wish to make a railway from one point to another, you cannot bend the line about, in order to avoid particular bits of property which are too dear for you to buy. But, if the Corporation which the Government propose to set up desires to buy a farm, say, in Essex, and if they cannot come to an agreement about the price, there is nothing to prevent them going to some other county and buying a farm there. I have yet to learn that the eighteen months' efforts of right hon. Gentlemen opposite to make farming pay have been so successful that there is a rush for agricultural land at the present time. Surely, even the Minister knows that farms are easy and not difficult to acquire at the present time. I submit that, as the Minister is unable to show to the House any serious necessity for these powers, the House should not grant them.
§ Dr. ADDISON rose in his place, a ad claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Question put, "That the Question be now put."
The House divided: Ayes, 192; Noes, 117.1977
|Division No. 110.]||AYES.||[12.16 a.m.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)||Cape, Thomas||Gould, F.|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)||Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)|
|Addlson, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher||Charleson, H. C.||Gray, Milner|
|Aitchlson, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.||Chater, Daniel||Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)|
|Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')||Clarke, J. S.||Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)|
|Alpaes, J. H.||Cocks, Frederick Seymour||Groves, Thomas E.|
|Ammon Charles George||Compton, Joseph||Grundy, Thomas W.|
|Arnott. John||Cripps, Sir Stafford||Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)|
|Aske, Sir Robert||Daqgar, George||Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)|
|Attlee, Clement Richard||Dallas, George||Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)|
|Ayles, Walter||Dalton, Hugh||Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)|
|Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)||Denman, Hon. R. D.||Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)|
|Barnes, Alfred John||Dukes, C.||Harbord, A.|
|Barr, James||Duncan, Charles||Hardie, George D.|
|Batey, Joseph||Ede, James Chuter||Haycock, A. W.|
|Bellamy, Albert||Edmunds, J. E.||Hayday, Arthur|
|Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood||Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)||Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)|
|Bennett, William (Battersea, South)||Edwards, E. (Morpeth)||Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)|
|Benson, G.||Elmley, Viscount||Herriotts, J.|
|Bowen, J. W.||Foot, Isaac||Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)|
|Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)||Forgan, Dr. Robert||Hoffman, P. C.|
|Brown, Ernest (Leith)||Freeman, Peter||Hollins, A.|
|Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)||Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)||Hopkin, Daniel|
|Burgess, F. G.||Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)||Horrabin, J. F.|
|Burain, Dr. E. L.||GilI, T. H.||Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)|
|Caine, Derwent Hall-||Glassey, A. E.||Jenkins, Sir William|
|Cameron, A. G.||Gossling, A. G.||John, William (Rhondda, West)|
|Johnston, Thomas||Middleton, G.||Shinwell, E.|
|Kelly, W. T.||Mills, J. E.||Simmons, C. J.|
|Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Mliner, Major J.||Sitch, Charles H.|
|Kinley, J.||Montague, Frederick||Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)|
|Lang, Gordon||Morgan, Dr. H. B.||Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)|
|Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George||Morley, Ralph||Smith, Rennie (Penistone)|
|Lathan, G.||Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)||Smith, Tom (Pontefract)|
|Law, A. (Rossendale)||Mort, D. L.||Smith, W. R. (Norwich)|
|Lawrence, Susan||Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)||Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip|
|Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)||Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)||Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)|
|Lawson, John James||Muff, G.||Stamford, Thomas W.|
|Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)||Oldfield, J. R.||Strauss, G. R.|
|Leach, W.||Oliver, George Harold (Iikeston)||Sullivan, J.|
|Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)||Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)||Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)|
|Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)||Palin, John Henry||Thurtle, Ernest|
|Lloyd, C. Ellis||Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Logan, David Gilbert||Perry, S. F.||Tout, W. J.|
|Longbottom, A. W.||Peters, Dr. Sidney John||Townend, A. E.|
|Longden, F.||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.||Wallace, H. W.|
|Lovat-Fraser, J. A.||Potts, John S.||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)|
|Lunn, William||Pybus, Percy John||Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)|
|Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)||Quibell, D. J. K.||Wellock, Wilfred|
|MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)||Ramsay, T. B. Wilson||Welsh, James (Paisley)|
|MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)||Raynes, W. R.||Westwood, Joseph|
|McElwee, A.||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)||White, H. G.|
|McEntee, V. L.||Ritson, J.||Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)|
|McKinlay, A.||Romeril, H. G.||Williams, David (Swansea, East)|
|MacLaren, Andrew||Rosbotham, D. S. T.||Williams Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)|
|McShane, John James||Rowson, Guy||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)||Sanders, W. S.||Wilson, J. (Oldham)|
|Mansfield, W.||Sawyer, G. F.||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Marcus, M.||Scott, James||Winterton, G. E.(Leicester,Loughb'gh)|
|Markham, S. F.||Scurr, John||Wise, E. F.|
|Marley, J.||Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)||Young, R. S. (lslington, North)|
|Mathers, George||Sherwood, G. H.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.|
|Matters, L. W.||Shield, George William||Mr. Hayes and Mr. Paling.|
|Melville, Sir James||Shillaker, J. F.|
|Acland Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Dugdale, Capt. T. L.||Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)|
|Albery, Irving James||Edmondson, Major A. J.||O'Connor, T. J.|
|Allen, Lt.-Col Sir William (Armagh)||Falle, Sir Bertram G.||Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William|
|Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.)||Ferguson, Sir John||Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)|
|Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.||Fermoy, Lord||Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)|
|Astor, Maj. Hon. John J.(Kent, Dover)||Fison, F. G. Clavering||Ramsbotham, H.|
|Astor, Viscountess||Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonol Francis E.||Reid, David D. (County Down)|
|Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)||Ganzoni, Sir John||Foberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)|
|Balniel, Lord||Glyn, Major R. G. C.||Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell|
|Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.||Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)||Ross, Major Ronald D.|
|Beaumont, M. W.||Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.||Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.|
|Bird, Ernest Roy||Greene, W. P. Crawford||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)|
|Bourne, Captain Robert Croft||Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.||Salmon, Major I.|
|Boyce, Leslie||Gunston, Captain D. W.||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)|
|Bracken, B.||Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)||Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart|
|Brass, Captain Sir William||Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)||Savery, S. S.|
|Briscoe, Richard George||Hartington, Marquess of||Sexton, Sir James|
|Butler, R. A.||Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)||Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome|
|Campbell, E. T.||Hennessy, Major sir G. R. J.||Smith-Carington, Neville W.|
|Carver, Major W. H.||Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.||Smithers, Waldron|
|Castle Stewart, Earl of||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)||Southby, Commander A. R. J.|
|Cayzer, Maj.Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth,S.)||Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.||Spender-Clay, Colonel H.|
|Cazalet, Captain Victor A.||Iveagh, Countess of||Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hn.SirJ.A.(Birm.,W.)||Lamb, Sir J. Q.||Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)|
|Christie, J. A.||Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R||Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.|
|Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.||Leighton, Major B. E. P.||Titchfield, Major the Marquess of|
|Clydesdale, Marquess of||Lewis, Oswald, (Coichester)||Todd, Capt. A. J.|
|Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George||Liewellin, Major J. J.||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|Coivllie, Major D. J.||Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey||Turton, Robert Hugh|
|Courtauld, Major J. S.||Lockwood, Captain J. H.||Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)|
|Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.||Long, Major Hon. Eric||Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert|
|Cranborne, Viscount||McConnell, Sir Joseph||Warrender, Sir Victor|
|Crookshank, Capt. H. C.||Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)||Wells, Sydney R.|
|Croom-Johnson, R. P.||Margesson, Captain H. D.||Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)|
|Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)||Marjoribanks, Edward||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip||Mason, Colonel Glyn K.||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)||Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.||Womersley, W. J.|
|Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset,Yeovil)||Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Dixey, A. C.||Morrison Hugh (Wilts, Sallsbury)||Sir George Bowyer and Sir George Penny.|
|Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert||Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)|
|Duckworth, G. A. V.||Muirhead, A. J.|
§ Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bull."1980
§ The House divided: Ayes, 188; Noes, 119.1981
|Division No. 111.]||AYES.||[12.28 a.m.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)||Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)||Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)||Muff, G.|
|Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher||Harbord, A.||Noel Baker, P. J.|
|Altchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.||Hardie, George D.||Oldfield, J. R.|
|Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')||Haycock, A. W.||Oliver, George Harold (Iikeston)|
|Alpass, J. H.||Hayday, Arthur||Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)|
|Ammon, Charles George||Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)||Palin, John Henry|
|Arnott, John||Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)||Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)|
|Aske, Sir Robert||Herriotts, J.||Perry, S. F.|
|Attlee, Clement Richard||Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.|
|Ayles, Walter||Hoffman, P. C.||Potts, John S.|
|Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)||Hollins, A.||Pybus, Percy John|
|Barnes, Alfred John||Hopkin, Daniel||Quibell, D. J. K.|
|Barr, James||Horrabin, J. F.||Ramsay, T. B. Wilson|
|Batey, Joseph||Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)||Raynes, W. R.|
|Bellamy, Albert||Jenkins, Sir William||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)|
|Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood||John, William (Rhondda, West)||Ritson, J.|
|Bennett, William (Battersea, South)||Johnston, Thomas||Romeril, H. G.|
|Benson, G.||Kelly, W. T.||Rosbotham, D. S. T.|
|Bowen, J. W.||Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Rowson, Guy|
|Broad, Francis Alfred||Kinley, J.||Sanders, W. S.|
|Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)||Lang, Gordon||Sawyer, G. F.|
|Brown, Ernest (Leith)||Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George||Scott, James|
|Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)||Lathan, G.||Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)|
|Burgess, F. G.||Law, A. (Rossendale)||Sherwood, G. H.|
|Burgin, Dr. E. L.||Lawrence, Susan||Shield, George William|
|Caine, Derwent Hall-||Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)||Shillaker, J. F.|
|Cameron, A. G.||Lawson, John James||Shinwell, E.|
|Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)||Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)||Simmons, C. J.|
|Charleson, H. C.||Leach, W.||Sitch, Charles H.|
|Chater, Daniel||Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)||Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhlthe)|
|Clarke, J. S.||Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)||Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)|
|Cooks, Frederick Seymour||Lloyd, C. Ellis||Smith, Rennie (Penistone)|
|Compton, Joseph||Logan, David Gilbert||Smith, Tom (Pontefract)|
|Cripps, Sir Stafford||Longbottom, A. W.||Smith, W. R. (Norwich)|
|Daggar, George||Longden, F.||Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip|
|Dallas, George||Lovat-Fraser, J. A.||Snowden,Thomas (Accrington)|
|Dalton, Hugh||Lunn, William||Stamford, Thomas W.|
|Denman, Hon. R. D.||Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)||Strauss, G. R.|
|Dukes, C.||MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)||Sullivan, J.|
|Duncan, Charles||MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)||Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)|
|Ede, James Chuter||McElwee, A.||Thurtle, Ernest|
|Edmunds, J. E.||McEntee, V. L.||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)||McKinlay, A.||Tout, W. J.|
|Edwards, E. (Morpeth)||MacLaren, Andrew||Townend, A. E.|
|Elmley, Viscount||McShane, John James||Wallace, H. W.|
|Foot, Isaac.||Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)|
|Freeman, Peter||Mansfield, W.||Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)|
|Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)||Marcus, M.||Wellock, Wilfred|
|Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith. N.)||Markham, S. F.||Westwood, Joseph|
|Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)||Marley, J.||White, H. G.|
|Gill, T. H.||Mathers, George||Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)|
|Glassey, A. E.||Matters, L. W.||Williams, David (Swansea, East)|
|Gossling, A. G.||Melville, Sir James||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)|
|Gould, F.||Messer, Fred||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||Middleton, G.||Wilson, J. (Oldham)|
|Gray, Milner||Mills, J. E.||Wilson R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Mliner, Major J.||Winterton, G. E.(Leicester,Loughb'gh)|
|Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)||Montague, Frederick||Wise, E. F.|
|Groves, Thomas E.||Morgan, Dr. H. B.||Young, R. S. (Islington, North)|
|Grundy, Thomas W.||Morley, Ralph||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)||Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)||Mr. Hayes and Mr. Paling.|
|Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Mort, D. L.|
|Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)||Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Beaumont, M. W.||Castle Stewart, Earl of|
|Albery, Irving James||Bird, Ernest Roy||Cayzer, Maj.Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth,S.)|
|Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)||Bourne, Captain Robert Croft||Cazalet, Captain Victor A.|
|Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.)||Boyce, Leslie||Chamberlain Rt.Hn.Sir J.A.(Birm.,W.)|
|Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.||Bracken, B.||Christie, J. A.|
|Astor, Maj. Hn. John J.(Kent, Dover)||Brass, Captain Sir William||Clydesdale, Marquess of|
|Astor, Viscountess||Briscoe, Richard George||Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George|
|Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)||Butler, R. A.||Colville, Major D. J.|
|Balniel, Lord||Campbell, E. T.||Courtauld, Major J. S.|
|Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.||Carver, Major W. H.||Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.|
|Cranborne, Viscount||Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.||Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A|
|Crookshank, Capt. H. C.||Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)|
|Croom-Johnson, R. P.||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)||Salmon, Major I.|
|Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)||Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)|
|Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.||Iveagh, Countess of||Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart|
|Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip||Lamb, Sir J. Q.||Savery, S. S.|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.||Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittoms|
|Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)||Leighton, Major B. E. P.||Smith-Carington, Neville W.|
|Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)||Liewellin, Major J. J.||Smithers, Waldron|
|Dixey, A. C.||Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey||Southby, Commander A. R. J.|
|Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert||Lockwood, Captain J. H.||Spender-Clay, Colonel H.|
|Duckworth, G. A. V.||Long, Major Hon. Eric||Stanley, Maj. Hon. O (W'morland)|
|Dugdale, Capt. T. L.||McConnell, Sir Joseph||Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)|
|Edmondson, Major A. J.||Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)||Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.|
|Falle, Sir Bertram G.||Margesson, Captain H. D.||Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)|
|Ferguson, Sir John||Marjoribanks, Edward||Titchfield, Major the Marquess of|
|Fermoy, Lord||Mason, Colonel Glyn K.||Todd, Capt. A. J.|
|Flson, F. G. Clavering||Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.||Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)||Turton, Robert Hugh|
|Ganzoni, Sir John||Muirhead, A. J.||Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)|
|Glyn, Major R. G. C.||Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)||Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert|
|Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)||O'Connor, T. J.||Warrender, Sir Victor|
|Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.||Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William||Wells, Sydney R.|
|Greene, W. P. Crawford||Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.||Peters, Dr. Sidney John||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Gunston, Captain D. W.||Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)||Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount|
|Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)||Ramsbotham, H.||Womersley, W. J.|
|Hamilton, Sir George (liford)||Reid, David D. (County Down)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)||Sir George Bowyer and Sir G. Penny.|
|Hartington, Marquess of||Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell|
|Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)||Ross, Major Ronald D.|
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN
I rise to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned." I do not do so necessarily in order to insist that it shall stop at this very moment, but to ascertain from the Minister in charge how far he intends to go and whether he can make any proposals.
§ Mr. SPEAKER
The right hon. gentleman had better wait. There is no business before the House. There is a further Amendment on page 481 standing in the name of the right hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore) which I had not selected. It has been put to me that, owing to an Amendment by the noble Lord for West. Derbyshire (Marquess of Hartington) having been accepted in an amended form by the Government, there is need for some short discussion on this subject. Therefore I have selected it.
§ Mr. ORMSBY-GORE
I beg to move in page 4, line 7, to leave out the word "summary," and to insert instead thereof the words "full statement."
The point which I wish briefly to make is that, partly in view of the Amendment which has already been made, but above all in view of the importance of ensuring that, if this £1,000,000 is spent, we get value for it, I am quite satisfied that the draft of this Clause needs further amendment. If all we are to get in the annual report of the operations of this Corporation in carrying out the large- 1982 scale farming experiments is merely a summary, we get nothing of real value from the point of view of scientific evidence as to whether economies have been effected in cultivating land on a large scale, as against a small scale, and in carrying out particular mechanised processes. It is all important that in the annual report, which this Corporation presents to Parliament dealing with these bonanza farms, that each bonanza, farm shall be displayed with its full costing accounts, showing exactly what is the proceeds of each particular crop yielded on the farm and precisely what has been the cost of production of the individual crop. It is only by getting accounts in that form that we can get anything of real value. I gather.that the Minister is sympathetic to the idea—that statistical evidence of this kind is what he is after. If that be his intention, it is all important that the Statute governing the whole operation of this Corporation shall not limit the Corporation in presenting the annual account as is done under the system of drafting in the Bill, but that there shall be a full statement of accounts of the Corporation. I think there is no reason whatever why this Amendment should not be accepted. It would be an immense improvement on the Bill.
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN
I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
1983 I am sorry that it is necessary for me to interrupt the discussion between my right hon. Friend and the Minister who is naturally desirous of replying to his argument. I ask leave to move the adjournment of the discussion to ascertain from the Government what they intend to do with respect to keeping us sitting. It is a very important Bill, and we have had a useful and fruitful discussion, but there are limits to human endurance.
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN
If too great a strain is placed upon Members or Ministers I do not think it conduces to the work done, or to the general good temper which we desire to preserve in the House. After all, we know that the right hon. Gentleman has only recently come out of a sick room and is only now able again to take part in the business of this House. I think the discussion on the last Amendment, if I may say so without offence, shows the strain that has been put upon him by the continuous discussion is as much as he ought to asked to endure. It is not unreasonable that we should adjourn, so that he can bring a fresh mind to the continuance of the discussion. I think he would be able to help the House more, and, at any rate, it will not lead him into the error which, owing to fatigue and exhaustion, he was led into more than once on the last Amendment.
§ Dr. ADDISON
Some time before the right hon. Gentleman was here, at all events to my notice, in fact quite early on, I anxiously raised the question as whether it was possible to have some understanding as to proceedings on this Bill. I am sorry to say, and the right hon. Gentleman will probably hear with regret, that my advances met with no happy reception. We have just got to go on with it. We must make a virtue of adversity and do the best we can. Early in the evening we had a long debate on a trivial Amendment. I regard it as so. We discussed the word "let" for 2½hours and some other Amendments were discussed for a very long time. We have 1984 discussed Clause 1 for two whole days. A very large part of that time has been taken up with discussions which were unduly prolonged, and worse than that. It is common knowledge that when it comes to this time of night a very large number of Members have missed their last travelling facilities. We have made such extraordinary slow progress that we might as well use our time until we catch our morning trains.
§ Mr. O'CONNOR
I am sure that everybody on this side of the House feels, with the right hon. Gentleman who moved the Adjournment of the Debate, a great deal of sympathy with the Minister in his physical difficulties—[Interruption.] After all some regard must he paid to the usefulness of Ministers in connection with the Party machine. I should like to support what my right hon. Friend said when moving the adjournment—that it is perfectly clear that the Minister for some reason or other—[Interruption.] He has apparently forgotten what his Bill contained when it was introduced into the House, because, in answer to the noble Lord, he said that a certain Clause was a result of amendment when it was a portion of his own Schedule introduced by himself on the Second Reading. He has, therefore, if I may respectfully say so, shown by the handling of the last Amendment that the progress of the stage of the Bill will not be assisted if the Debate continues at this time of the night. I respectfully suggest that in the interests of progress the motion for the Adjournment of the Debate ought to be accepted.
To clear up any misunderstanding, I must correct the right hon. Gentleman. The Minister suggests that we on this side of the House were from the first this afternoon desirous of a late sitting. The right hon. Gentleman said that he made inquiries in various directions and got the answer that he must go on with the Bill. Early in the sitting I told him that I must discuss the matter with my friends, that at the moment I did not think it was right to say how long we should devote to the various Amendments. After dinner, I added I should no doubt be in a position to judge better. I told him that, as a result of discussions, we did not think it possible to specify the particular Amend- 1985 ments requiring particular consideration and that we should be given time for discussion and that he should let the Bill be carried on in accordance with the points that arose.
I suggested that we should have two more days. [Interruption.] It may sound a lot to hon. Members who do not know the Bill, but I may tell them that we had twelve days in Standing Committee, and those twelve days were very hard clays, sitting morning, afternoon and, sometimes evening, and with the very unusual power of kangaroo selection of Amendments entrusted to the Chairman of the Committee. At the end of the time, we came to an arrangement with the Government that we would let them have the Bill by Christmas; otherwise, we could well have gone on for another five or six days. In view of the kangaroo which shut out a great deal of discussion which might legitimately have been raised upstairs, and the fact that even under those conditions we had twelve days of truncated discussion in Committee, it was not unreasonable to ask for a total of five days for the remaining stages on the Floor of the House. Of course, it is for the Government to judge what suits their own convenience, but I do not think they will get the Bill any quicker by driving the Opposition unreasonably, although there is no question of expedients of obstruction, because there are ample substantial points to discuss. But what the right hon. Gentleman told us in answer to my right hon. Friend convinces me that he is suffering from brain fag. That is the only possible explanation for his halucination that when he approached us earlier in the evening he was refused any settlement, and so he must carry on with no kind of arrangement.
Marquess of HARTINGTON
I suggest that it is hardly fair to blame the Opposition for the somewhat protracted discussions which took place on earlier Amendments. It is only fair that the House should understand that after two hours' discussion an Amendment of my own was in substance accepted. The Minister for Agriculture had said that the Bill is going slowly and that we have been a long time over this Clause. Under this Clause we are spending at least £1,000,000, and I am bound to say that I do not think that £500,000 a day is 1986 exceedingly slow spending. The Amendments are of very great importance and want consideration. If the right hon. Gentleman would make up his mind rather more in advance as to what he means to do by this Bill a great deal of discussion could be avoided. An Amendment which I proposed that the accounts should be kept in strict form and that the Corporation should be valued by a professional valuer annually was resisted on the ground that the farmers would be in districts so remote from civilisation that the conveyance of valuers to them would be prohibitive. Day after day in Committee we were asking for guidance as to where the farmers were to be and what kind of farming was to be carried on, and we could get no information. None of us who served on the Committee had any kind of idea what kind of farming is to be carried on. I would suggest that if the right hon. Gentleman would accept this Motion now and make up his mind as to what he does mean, we could get on very much quicker.
§ Mr. JOHNSTON
The Motion before the House at this moment is whether we should adjourn or not and the point has been put from the Opposition bench that we ought to adjourn because human nature has its limits and because we could get on very much better and deal with the subject very much more clearly if we postponed the discussion until another day. I agree in the main with the account of the negotiations which took place informally earlier to-night with a view to arranging procedure if it were possible in good time so that if arrangements could not be made hon. Members in all parts of the House would know. But the late Minister for Agriculture omitted, I am sure inadvertently, to inform the House, that when I suggested to him that we, might have a deal to arrange a time limit or time table the right hon. Gentleman sitting beside him assured me that there was no possibility at the moment of arranging anything, partly because all the Members had been warned to be here all night.
I did not say so. I said that Members having been warned to be here we must discuss the matter with them.
§ 1.0 a.m.
§ Mr. JOHNSTON
if the right hon. Gentleman says that the purport of his remark was that his friends had been warned to be here I. accept it. But that is precisely the point he omitted, inadvertently, to tell the House when he was on his feet a moment ago. The facts are these. Most hon. Members have lost their last trains and they have no chance of getting home, and it is unfair—I put it no higher—that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, who could have made an arrangement perfectly easy through the ordinary channels to have the business conducted on some time table, should have declined to make an arrangement—they are able to get to their homes after the last omnibuses have gone—and should then move "That the Debate be now adjourned." Many hon. Members on this side of the House will be left in a position of very great difficulty as to what to do to get home. I trust, now that we are here, that we shall proceed as speedily as we can in the best tempers possible—it is not always easy—to go over as many Amendments as we possibly can, and it might be time enough to ask the Government to consider this matter six or seven hours after this.
§ Viscount WOLMER
I do not think I have ever listened to such an argument as that we should discuss a Bill because hon. Members do not want to walk home. They are making many electors walk to the poll. Perhaps we shall soon have a proposal for free passes for the omnibuses. I wish to protest against the fact that this Bill was kangarooed in Committee in a way in which a measure of similar importance has never been kangarooed in the history of Parliament. Part of Clause 3 was never discussed at all. The Chairman of the Committee, for reasons which he was not bound to confide to the Committee, and which we had no right to ask, decided to take no Amend-
§ ments on that part of the Bill and it was never discussed in Committee, as most Bills generally are discussed. There were a great many Amendments which we, at any rate, were anxious to discuss, but we had no opportunity of discussing them, and we expressly reserved the right, which is inherent in the Opposition, to raise, on Report, matters which had never been discussed in Committee.
§ I venture to say that it is an absolute scandal when important parts of the Bill have never been discussed in Committee to try and take the Bill in the small hours of the morning, when there is no chance of publicity, and when we all know perfectly well that the points we bring out will not be reported in the Press. The Government wish this Bill to proceed without adequate consideration, and, in view of the treatment which we received in Committee, we ought to receive some accommodation on Report stage. I would venture to say to the right hon. Gentleman opposite that we would make better progress if he did one of either of two things: if he would let us know if he would accept some of our Amendments or give some reason why he cannot do so. He seems to be under the impression that a simple refusal on his part is adequate to satisfy our desires. I can assure him that so long as he adopts that attitude he will find us stubborn. We have no desire to be stubborn; we have proposed a series of Amendments some of which, at any rate, he could have accepted without jeopardising the usefulness of his Bill in the slightest degree. Not only did he refuse to accept them, but he refused to give a reason why he could not accept them, and, if we make slow progress, it is entirely due to the way the Bill had been handled.
§ Dr. ADDISON rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put." Question put, That the Question be now put."
The House divided: Ayes 179; Noes, 114.1991
|Division No. 112.]||AYES.||[1.8 a.m.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)||Alpass, J. H.||Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Ammon, Charles George||Barnes, Alfred John|
|Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher||Arnott, John||Barr, James|
|Altchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.||Aske, Sir Robert||Batey, Joseph|
|Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')||Attlee, Clement Richard||Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood|
|Bennett, William (Battersea, South)||Hoffman, P. C.||Palin, John Henry|
|Benson, G.||Hollins, A.||Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)|
|Bowen, J. W.||Hopkin, Daniel||Perry, S. F.|
|Broad, Francis Alfred||Horrabin, J. F.||Paters, Dr. Sidney John|
|Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)||Hudson, James H. (Huddenfield)||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.|
|Brown, Ernest (Leith)||Jenkins, Sir William||Potts, John S.|
|Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)||John, William (Rhondda, West)||Pybus, Percy John|
|Burgess, F. G.||Johnston, Thomas||Quibell, D. J. K.|
|Burgin, Dr. E. L.||Kelly, W. T.||Ramsay, T. B. Wilson|
|Caine, Derwent Hall-||Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Raynes, W. R.|
|Cameron, A. G.||Kinley, J.||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)|
|Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)||Lang, Gordon||Romeril, H. G.|
|Charleson, H. C.||Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George||Rosbotham, D. S. T.|
|Chater, Daniel||Lathan, G.||Rowson, Guy|
|Clarke, J. S.||Law, A. (Rossendale)||Sanders, W. S.|
|Cocks, Frederick Seymour||Lawrence, Susan||Sawyer, G. F.|
|Compton, Joseph||Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)||Scott, James|
|Cripps, Sir Stafford||Lawson, John James||Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)|
|Daggar, George||Lawther W. (Barnard Castle)||Sherwood, G. H.|
|Dallas, George||Leach, W.||Shield, George William|
|Dalton, Hugh||Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)||Shillaker, J. F.|
|Denman, Hon. R. D.||Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)||Shinwell, E.|
|Dukes, C.||Lloyd, C. Ellis||Simmons, C. J.|
|Duncan, Charles||Logan, David Gilbert||Sitch, Charles H.|
|Ede, James Chuter||Longbottom, A. W.||Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)|
|Edmunds, J. E.||Longden, F.||Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)|
|Edwards, E. (Morpeth)||Lovat-Fraser, J. A.||Smith, Rennie (Penistone)|
|Elmley, Viscount||Lunn, William||Smith, Tom (Pontefract)|
|Foot, Isaac||Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)||Smith, W. R. (Norwich)|
|Freeman, Peter||MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)||Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)|
|Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)||McElwee, A.||Strauss, G. R.|
|Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)||McEntee, V. L.||Sullivan, J.|
|Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)||McKinlay, A.||Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)|
|Gill, T. H.||MacLaren, Andrew||Thurtle, Ernest|
|Glassey, A. E.||McShane, John James||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Gossling, A. G.||Malone, C. L' Estrange (N'thampton)||Tout, W. J.|
|Gould, F.||Mansfield, W.||Townend, A. E.|
|Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||Marcus, M.||Wallace, H. W.|
|Gray, Milner||Markham, S. F.||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)|
|Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Marley, J.||Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)|
|Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)||Mathers, George||Wellock, Wilfred|
|Grundy, Thomas W.||Matters, L. W.||Westwood, Joseph|
|Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)||Melville, Sir James||White, H. G.|
|Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Messer, Fred||Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)|
|Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)||Middleton, G.||Williams, David (Swansea, East)|
|Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)||Mills, J. E.||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)|
|Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)||Milner, Major J.||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Harbord, A.||Montague, Frederick||Wilson, J. (Oldham)|
|Hardie, George D.||Morgan, Dr. H. B.||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Haycock, A. W.||Morley, Ralph||Winterton, G. E.(Leicester,Loughb'gh)|
|Hayday, Arthur||Mort, D. L.||Wise, E. F.|
|Hayes, John Henry||Muff, G.||Young, R. S. (Islington, North)|
|Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)||Noel Baker, P. J.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)||Oldfield, J. R.||Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.Paling.|
|Herriotts, J.||Oliver, George Harold (likeston)|
|Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)||Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut-Colonel||Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George||Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.|
|Albery, Irving James||Colville, Major D. J.||Greene, W. P. Crawford|
|Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)||Courtauld, Major J. S.||Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.|
|Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.||Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.||Gunston, Captain D. W.|
|Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)||Cranborne, Viscount||Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)|
|Astor, Viscountess||Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.||Hamilton, Sir George (liford)|
|Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)||Crookshank, Capt. H. C.||Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry|
|Balniel, Lord||Croom-Johnson, H. P.||Hartington, Marquess of|
|Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.||Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)||Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)|
|Beaumont, M. W.||Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip||Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.|
|Bird, Ernest Roy||Dalkeith, Earl of||Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.|
|Bourne, Captain Robert Croft||Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hartford)||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (HacKney, N.)|
|Boyce, Leslie||Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset,Yeovil)||Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.|
|Bracken, B.||Dixey, A. C.||Iveagh, Countess of|
|Brass, Captain Sir William||Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert||Lamb, Sir J. Q.|
|Briscoe, Richard George||Duckworth, G. A. V.||Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.|
|Butler, R. A.||Dugdale, Capt. T. L.||Leighton, Major B. E. P.|
|Campbell, E. T.||Edmondson, Major A. J.||Liewellin, Major J. J.|
|Carver, Major W. H.||Ferguson, Sir John||Lockwood, Captain J. H.|
|Castle Stewart, Earl of||Fermoy, Lord||Long, Major Hon. Eric|
|Cayzer, Maj.Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth.S.)||Fison, F. G. Clavering||Lymington, Viscount|
|Cazalet, Captain Victor A.||Fremantle, Lieut-Colonel Francis E.||McConnell, Sir Joseph|
|Chamberlain,Rt.Hn.Sir J.A.(Birm.,W.)||Ganzoni, Sir John||Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)|
|Christie, J. A.||Glyn, Major R. G. C.||Margesson, Captain H. D.|
|Clydesdale, Marquess of||Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)||Marjoribanks, Edward|
|Mason, Colonel Glyn K.||Ruggles-Brise, Lieut-Colonel E. A.||Titchfield, Major the Marquess of|
|Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)||Todd, Capt. A. J.|
|Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)||Salmon, Major I.||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|Muirhead, A. J.||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)||Turton, Robert Hugh|
|Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)||Sandemau, Sir N. Stewart||Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert|
|O'Connor, T. J.||Savery, S. S.||Warrender, Sir Victor|
|Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William||Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome||Wells, Sydney R.|
|Penny, Sir George||Smithers, Waldron||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)||Southby, Commander A. R. J.||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)||Spender-Clay, Colonel H.||Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount|
|Ramsbotham, H.||Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)||Womersley, W. J.|
|Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)||Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell||Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.||Sir George Bowyer and Captain Wallace.|
|Ross, Major Ronald D.||Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)|
§ Question put accordingly, "That the Debate be now adjourned."1992
§ The House divided: Ayes, 113; Noes, 179.1993
|Division No. 113.]||AYES.||[1.20 a.m.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Dixey, A. C.||Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)|
|Albery, Irving James||Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert||O'Connor, T. J.|
|Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)||Duckworth, G. A. V.||Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William|
|Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.||Dugdale, Gapt. T. L.||Penny, Sir George|
|Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)||Edmondson, Major A. J.||Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)|
|Astor, Viscountess||Ferguson, Sir John||Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)|
|Balfour, Captain H. H. (l.of Thanet)||Fermoy, Lord||Ramsbotham, H.|
|Balniel, Lord||Fison, F. G. Clavering||Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)|
|Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.||Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.||Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell|
|Beaumont, M. W.||Ganzoni, Sir John||Ross, Major Ronald D.|
|Bird, Ernest Roy||Glyn, Major R. G. C.||Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.|
|Bourne, Captain Robert Croft||Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)|
|Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.||Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.||Salmon, Major I.|
|Boyce, Leslie||Greene, W. P. Crawford||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)|
|Bracken, B.||Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.||Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart|
|Brass, Captain Sir William||Gunston, Captain D. W.||Savery, S. S.|
|Briscoe, Richard George||Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)||Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome|
|Butler, R. A.||Hamilton, Sir George (liford)||Smithers, Waldron|
|Campbell, E. T.||Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Southby, Commander A. R. J|
|Carver, Major W. H.||Hartington, Marquess of||Spender-Clay, Colonel H.|
|Castle Stewart, Earl of||Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)||Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)|
|Cayzer, Maj.Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth,S.)||Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J||Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)|
|Cazalet, Captain Victor A.||Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.||Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hn.Sir J.A.(Birm.,W.)||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)||Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)|
|Christle, J. A.||Iveagh, Countess of||Titchfield, Major the Marquess of|
|Clydesdale, Marquess of||Lamb, Sir J. Q.||Todd, Capt. A. J.|
|Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George||Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement.|
|Colville, Major D. J.||Leighton, Major B. E. P.||Turton, Robert Hugh|
|Courtauld, Major J. S.||Liewellin, Major J. J.||Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert|
|Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.||Lockwood, Captain J. H.||Warrender, Sir Victor|
|Cranborne, Viscount||Long, Major Hon. Eric||Wells, Sydney R.|
|Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.||Lymington, Viscount||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Crookshank, Capt. H. C.||McConnell, Sir Joseph||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Croom-Johnson, R. P.||Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)||Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount|
|Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)||Marjoribanks, Edward||Womersley, W. J.|
|Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip||Mason, Colonel Glyn K.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.||Captain Margesson and Captain Euan Wallace.|
|Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)||Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)|
|Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)||Muirhead, A. J.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)||Brown, Ernest (Leith)||Edmunds, J. E.|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)||Edwards, E. (Morpeth)|
|Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher||Burgess, F. G.||Elmley, Viscount|
|Altchison, Rt. Hon. Cralgie M.||Burgin, Dr. E. L.||Foot, Isaac|
|Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.(Hillsbro')||Calne, Derwent Hall-||Freeman, Peter|
|Alpass, J. H.||Cameron, A. G.||Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)|
|Ammon, Charles George||Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)||Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)|
|Arnott, John||Charleson, H. C.||Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)|
|Aske, Sir Robert||Chater, Daniel||Gill, T. H.|
|Attlee. Clement Richard||Clarke, J. S.||Glassey, A. E.|
|Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)||Cocks, Frederick Seymour||Gossling, A. G.|
|Barnes, Alfred John||Compton, Joseph||Gould, F.|
|Barr, James||Cripps, Sir Stafford||Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)|
|Batey, Joseph||Daggar, George||Gray, Milner|
|Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood||Dallas, George||Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)|
|Bennett, William (Battersea, South)||Dalton, Hugh||Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)|
|Benson, G.||Denman, Hon. R. D.||Grundy, Thomas W.|
|Bowen, J. W.||Dukes, C.||Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)|
|Broad, Francis Alfred||Duncan, Charles||Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)|
|Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)||Ede, James Chuter||Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)|
|Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)||McElwee, A.||Sawyer, G. F.|
|Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)||McEntee, V. L.||Scott, James|
|Harbord, A.||McKinlay, A.||Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)|
|Hardie, George D.||MacLaren, Andrew||Sherwood, G. H.|
|Haycock, A. W.||McShane, John James||Shield, George William|
|Hayday, Arthur||Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)||Shillaker, J. F.|
|Hayes, John Henry||Mansfield, W.||Shinwell, E.|
|Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)||Marcus, M.||Simmons, C. J.|
|Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)||Markham, S. F.||Sitch, Charles H.|
|Herriotts, J.||Marley, J.||Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)|
|Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)||Mathers, George||Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)|
|Hoffman, P. C.||Matters, L. W.||Smith, Rennie (Penistone)|
|Hollins, A.||Melville, Sir James||Smith, Tom (Pontefract)|
|Hopkin, Daniel||Messer, Fred||Smith, W. R. (Norwich)|
|Horrabin, J. F.||Middleton, G.||Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)|
|Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)||Mills, J. E.||Strauss, G. R.|
|Jenkins, Sir William||Milner, Major J.||Sullivan, J.|
|John, William (Rhondda, West)||Montague, Frederick||Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)|
|Johnston, Thomas||Morgan, Dr. H. B.||Thurtle, Ernest|
|Kelly, W. T||Morley, Ralph||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Mort, D. L.||Tout, W. J.|
|Kinley, J.||Muff, G.||Townend, A. E.|
|Lang, Gordon||Noel Baker, P. J.||Wallace, H. W.|
|Lansbury, Rt. Hon George||Oldfield, J. R.||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)|
|Lathan, G.||Oliver, George Harold (likeston)||Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)|
|Law, A. (Rossendale)||Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)||Wellock, Wilfred|
|Lawrence, Susan||Palin, John Henry||Westwood, Joseph|
|Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)||Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)||White, H. G.|
|Lawson, John James||Perry, S. F.||Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)|
|Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)||Peters, Dr. Sidney John||Williams, David (Swansea, East)|
|Leach, W.||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)|
|Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)||Potts, John S.||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)||Pybus, Percy John||Wilson, J. (Oldham)|
|Lloyd, C. Ellis||Quibell, D. J. K.||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Logan, David Gilbert||Ramsay, T. B. Wilson||Winterton, G. E.(Leicester,Loughb'gh)|
|Longbottom, A. W.||Raynes, W. R.||Wise, E. F.|
|Longden, F.||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)||Young, R. S. (Islington, North)|
|Lovat-Fraser, J. A.||Romeril, H. G.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Lunn, William||Rosbotham, D. S. T.||Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Paling.|
|Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)||Rowson, Guy|
|MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)||Sanders, W. S.|
§ Question again proposed, "That the word summary' stand part of the Bill."
§ Dr. ADDISON
The Amendment moved by the noble Lord the Member for West Derbyshire (the Marquess of Hartington) to insert the words:such accounts to be on a detailed ousting system and to include a valuation of the Corporation's farmssubstantially covers the point. The Amendment before the House is to leave out the word "summary" and to insert instead thereof the words "full statement". It is quite evident you could not have detailed accounts. You must bring together accounts of the different groups of farming operations. I am sure it will be as full an account as is necessary.
§ Mr. SPEAKER
I must ask hon. Members to remember that I only selected this Amendment on the understanding that there would be a short debate. I hope hon. Members will understand that.
May I briefly clear up the position? The debate earlier in the evening was on the question of what accounts would be furnished to the Minister or Secretary of State. It is true we had considerable discussion on the details of these accounts, but it was pointed out, and not denied by the Government, that the form of accounts as presented to the Minister; would not in any way govern the publication to Parliament and to the farmers who were to profit by this information. I think the right hon. Gentleman is not accurate in his suggestion that the whole thing has been disposed of already by securing that he gets the information. We want to make sure that the House of Commons and the public do not get a merely garbled summary, but that they get in its full details those descriptive accounts as to the farming of which we had a discussion earlier in the evening.
§ Dr. ADDISON
In order to summarise the discussion, I am quite sure the right hon. Gentleman will say that this provision is very much affected by what we did before. We decided before that certain farm accounts would have to be 1995 provided. Now we say that a summary of these accounts must be presented to Parliament. We both desire the same thing. I do not desire to have a garbled account. I want a full and honest account of the transactions and so does everybody else. We want to know success as well as failure. You will not
§ make it any more certain by publishing any full statement instead of a summary. It must be a bona fide statement of accounts.
§ Question put, "That the word summary stand part of the Bill."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 175; Noes, 108.1997
|Division No. 114.]||AYES.||[1.37 a.m.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)||Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)||Mort, D. L.|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)||Muff, G.|
|Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher||Harbord, A.||Noel Baker, P. J.|
|Altchison, Rt. Hon. Cralgle M.||Hardie, George D.||Oldfield, J. R.|
|Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')||Haycock, A. W.||Oliver, George Harold (likeston)|
|Alpass, J. H.||Hayday, Arthur||Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)|
|Ammon, Charles George||Hayes, John Henry||Palin, John Henry|
|Arnott, John||Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)||Paling, Wilfrid|
|Aske, Sir Robert||Herriotts, J.||Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)|
|Attlee, Clement Richard||Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)||Perry, S. F.|
|Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)||Hoffman, P. C.||Peters, Dr. Sidney John|
|Barnes, Alfred John||Hollins, A.||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.|
|Barr, James||Hopkin, Daniel||Potts, John S.|
|Batey, Joseph||Horrabin, J. F.||Pybus, Percy John|
|Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood||Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)||Quibell, D. J. K.|
|Bennett, William (Battersea, South)||Jenkins, Sir William||Ramsay, T. B. Wilson|
|Benson, G.||John, William (Rhondda, West)||Raynes, W. R.|
|Bowen, J. W.||Johnston, Thomas||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)|
|Broad, Francis Alfred||Kelly, W. T.||Romeril, H. G.|
|Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)||Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Rosbotham, D. S. T.|
|Brown, Ernest (Leith)||Kinley, J.||Rowson, Guy|
|Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)||Lang, Gordon||Sanders, W. S.|
|Burgess, F. G.||Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George||Sawyer, G. F.|
|Burgin, Dr. E. L.||Lathan, G.||Sherwood, G. H.|
|Calne, Derwent Hall-||Law, A. (Rossendale)||Shield, George William|
|Cameron, A. G.||Lawrence, Susan||Shillaker, J. F.|
|Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)||Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)||Shinwell, E.|
|Charleson, H. C.||Lawson, John James||Simmons, C. J.|
|Chater, Daniel||Lawther W. (Barnard Castle)||Sitch, Charles H.|
|Clarke, J. S.||Leach, W.||Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)|
|Cocks, Frederick Seymour||Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)||Smith, Rennie (Penistone)|
|Compton, Joseph||Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)||Smith, Tom (Pontefract)|
|Cripps, Sir Stafford||Lloyd, C. Ellis||Smith, W. R. (Norwich)|
|Daggar, George||Lagan, David Gilbert||Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)|
|Dallas, George||Longbottom, A. W.||Strauss, G. R.|
|Dalton, Hugh||Longden, F.||Sullivan, J.|
|Denman, Hon. R. D.||Lovat-Fraser, J. A.||Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)|
|Dukes, C.||Lunn, William||Thurtle, Ernest|
|Duncan, Charles||Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Ede, James Chuter||MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)||Tout, W. J.|
|Edmunds, J. E.||McElwee, A.||Townend, A. E.|
|Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)||McEntee, V. L.||Wallace, H. W.|
|Edwards, E. (Morpeth)||McKinlay, A.||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)|
|Elmley, Viscount||MacLaren, Andrew||Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)|
|Foot, Isaac||McShane, John James||Wellock, Wilfred|
|Freeman, Peter||Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)||Westwood, Joseph|
|Gardner, B. W. (Wert Ham. Upton)||Mansfield, W.||White, H. G.|
|Gibson, H. M. (Lancs. Mossley)||Marcus, M.||Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)|
|Gill, T. H.||Markham, S. F.||Williams, David (Swansea, East)|
|Glassey, A. E.||Marley, J.||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)|
|Gossling, A. G.||Mathers, George||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Gould, F.||Matters, L. W.||Wilson, J. (Oldham)|
|Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||Milville, Sir James||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Gray, Milner||Messer, Fred||Winterton, G. E.(Leicester,Loughb'gh)|
|Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Middleton, G.||Young, R. S. (Islington, North)|
|Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)||Mills, J. E.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Grundy, Thomas W.||Milner, Major J.||Mr. T. Henderson and Mr. Ben Smith.|
|Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)||Montague, Frederick|
|Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Morgan, Dr. H. B.|
|Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)||Morley, Ralph|
|Acland-Troyte. Lieut.-Colonel||Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)||Bourne, Captain Robert Croft|
|Albery, Irving James||Balniel, Lord||Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.|
|Allen. Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)||Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.||Boyce, Leslie|
|Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)||Beaumont, M. W.||Bracken, B.|
|Astor, Viscountess||Bird, Ernest Roy||Brass, Captain Sir William|
|Briscoe, Richard George||Glyn, Major R. G. C.||Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)|
|Butler, R. A.||Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)||Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon. Barnstaple)|
|Campbell, E. T.||Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.||Ramsbotham, H.|
|Carver, Major W. H.||Greene, W. P. Crawford||Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)|
|Castle Stewart, Earl of||Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.||Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell|
|Gayzer, Maj.Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth,S.)||Gunston, Captain D. W.||Ross, Major Ronald D.|
|Cazalet, Captain Victor A.||Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)||Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.|
|Chamberlain,Rt.Hn.Sir J.A.(Birm.,W.)||Hamilton, Sir George (liford)||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)|
|Christle, J. A.||Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Salmon, Major I.|
|Clydesdale, Marquess of||Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon. Totnes)||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)|
|Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George||Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.||Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart|
|Colville, Major D. J.||Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.||Savery, S. S.|
|Courtauld, Major J. S.||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)||Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome|
|Courthopa, Colonel Sir G. L.||Lamb, Sir J. Q.||Southby, Commander A. R. J.|
|Cranborne, Viscount||Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.||Spender-Clay, Colonel H.|
|Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.||Leighton, Major B. E. P.||Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)|
|Crookshank, Capt. H. C.||Liewellin, Major J. J.||Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)|
|Croom-Johnson, R. P.||Lockwood, Captain J. H.||Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.|
|Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)||Long, Major Hon. Eric||Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)|
|Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip||Lymington, Viscount||Titchfield, Major the Marquess of|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||McConnell, Sir Joseph||Todd, Capt. A. J.|
|Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)||Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)||Margesson, Captain H. D.||Turton, Robert Hugh|
|Dixey, A. C.||Marjoribanks, Edward||Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert|
|Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert||Mason, Colonel Glyn K.||Wells, Sydney R.|
|Duckworth, G. A. V.||Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Dugdale, Capt. T. L.||Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)||Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount|
|Edmondson, Major A. J.||Muirhead, A. J.||Womersley, W. J.|
|Ferguson, Sir John||Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Fison, F. G. Clavering||O'Connor, T. J.||Captain Euan Wallace and Sir Victor Warrender.|
|Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.||Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William|
|Ganzoni, Sir John||Penny, Sir George|
§ Dr. ADDISON
I beg to move, in page 4, line 7, after the first word "the," to insert the word "annual." This is entirely a verbal Amendment.
§ Mr. ORMSBY-GORE
I do not understand the point of this Amendment. As I understand, the Minister's two Amendments, taken together, will readincluding a summary of the annual accounts of the Corporation".What on earth is the difference between that and what stands in the Bill:including a summary of the accounts of the Corporation for the last preceding year".Really, the words in the Bill at the present moment appears to be more specific, and I would like to know from the Minister what advantage he expects to get by the change of words.
§ Dr. ADDISON
If the right hon. Gentleman will recall the discussion we had in Committee on this point, he will remember that a question was raised as to what particular day the farming year should start in respect of the accounts presented to Parliament not later than 1st May, and I am advised that if the words "for the last preceding year" are left in that might be the year from 1st January to 31st December, and, in order to make sure that we refer to the farming year, we make the change.
§ Sir D. HERBERT
May I suggest that, if that is what the right hon. Gentleman 1998 means, he should put it in the Bill and say that it is a summary of the accounts for the preceding farming year. At the present moment, as he proposes to amend the Clause, it seems to me that it reads rather like nonsense. If the Amendment is carried, the words will read:including a summary of the annual accounts of the Corporation".Suppose that the Corporation has been in existence for five years, it seems to me it would naturally mean a summary of the annual accounts for those five years. But the Minister says that these words are necessary because if you add "for the last preceding year" it might mean some year other than the farming year of the Corporation.
I suggest in all seriousness that the provision relating to the summary of the annual accounts of the Corporation does not show that the summary is to be for one year or five years or one month or twelve months. It is really loose legislation, and, if the Minister, instead of striking out the words "for the last preceding year," would make it read:the last preceding financial year of the Corporation",it would show exactly what it means. As it is, I suggest that it is quite obvious that his own supporters do not understand what the right hon. Gentleman means, and perhaps somebody would ex- 1999 plain to us why we should not have it perfectly plain that the Minister means the accounts of the preceding financial year of the Corporation.
§ Dr. ADDISON
The hon. Gentleman has not clearly read the Clause: It reads:The Minister and the Secretary of State shall make to Parliament not later than the first day of May an annual report"—There is no question of five years.
§ Sir D. HERBERT
The right hon. Gentleman means that a report for every year, but he does not say it is to be the report of the business for that year.
§ Dr. ADDISON
I will continue reading—san annual report as to the operations of the Corporation, including a summary of the annual accounts.
§ Dr. ADDISON
The only point is to ensure that the year of the Corporation shall coincide with the calendar year.
§ Mr. TURTON
I want to put one point. The summary of the annual accounts cannot include future years, but it can include a number of past years. The annual report is a report made once a year. Now we carry it on one stage further. The annual report of the operations of the Corporation equally can be a report of their operations during any time during which the Corporation is operating. That can be one year, two years, or any number of years up to five. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consult the Law Officers on this matter so as to get a Clause more satisfactory to the House.
§ Mr. ERNEST BROWN
There is a practical point. One of the most valuable reports is the Annual Statistical Abstract and that covers sixteen years in an annual report. I think the Minister should consider this question.
Question put, "That the word 'annual' be there inserted in the Bill."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 173; Noes, 103.2001
|Division No. 115.]||AYES.||[1.57 a.m.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)||Cocks, Frederick Seymour||Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Compton, Joseph||Harbord, A.|
|Addison, Bt. Hon. Dr. Christopher||Daggar, George||Hardie, George D.|
|Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Cralgie M.||Dallas, George||Haycock, A. W.|
|Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')||Dalton, Hugh||Hayday, Arthur|
|Alpass, J. H.||Denman, Hon. R. D.||Hayes, John Henry|
|Amman, Charles George||Dukes, C.||Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)|
|Arnott, John||Duncan, Charles||Herriotts, J.|
|Aske, Sir Robert||Ede, James Chuter||Hoffman, P. C.|
|Attlee, Clement Richard||Edmunds, J. E.||Hollins, A.|
|Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)||Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)||Hopkin, Daniel|
|Barnes, Alfred John||Edwards, E. (Morpeth)||Horrabin, J. F.|
|Barr, James||Elmley, Viscount||Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)|
|Batey, Joseph||Foot, Isaac||Jenkins, Sir William|
|Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood||Freeman, Peter||John, William (Rhondda, West)|
|Bennett, William (Battersea, South)||Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)||Johnston, Thomas|
|Bowen, J. W.||Gill, T. H.||Kelly, W. T.|
|Broad, Francis Alfred||Glaesey, A. E.||Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas|
|Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)||Gossling, A. G.||Kinley, J.|
|Brown, Ernest (Leith)||Gould, F.||Lang, Gordon|
|Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)||Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George|
|Burgess, F. G.||Gray, Milner||Law, A. (Rossendale)|
|Burgin, Dr. E. L.||Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Lawrence, Susan|
|Caine, Derwent Hall-||Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)||Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)|
|Cameron, A. G.||Grundy, Thomas W.||Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)|
|Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)||Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)||Leach, W.|
|Charleson, H. C.||Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)|
|Chater, Daniel||Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)||Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)|
|Clarke, J. S.||Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)||Lloyd, C. Ellis|
|Logan, David Gilbert||Noel Baker, P. J.||Smith, Tom (Pontefract)|
|Longbottom, A. W.||Oldfield, J. R.||Smith, W. R. (Norwich)|
|Longden, F.||Oliver, George Harold (likeston)||Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)|
|Lovat-Fraser, J. A.||Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)||Strauss, G. R.|
|Lunn, William||Palin, John Henry||Sullivan, J.|
|Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)||Paling, Wilfrid||Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)|
|MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)||Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)||Thurtle, Ernest|
|McElwee, A.||Perry, S. F.||Tinker, John Joseph|
|McEntee, V. L.||Peters, Dr. Sidney John||Tout, W. J.|
|McKinlay, A.||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.||Townend, A. E.|
|MacLaren, Andrew||Potts, John S.||Wallace, H. W.|
|McShane, John James||Pybus, Percy John||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)|
|Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)||Quibell, D. J. K.||Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)|
|Mansfield, W.||Ramsay, T. B. Wilson||Wellock, Wilfred|
|Marcus, M.||Raynes, W. R.||Westwood, Joseph|
|Markham, S. F.||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)||White, H. G.|
|Marley, J.||Romeril, H. G.||Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)|
|Mathers, George||Rosbotham, D. S. T.||Williams, David (Swansea, East)|
|Matters, L. W.||Rowson, Guy||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)|
|Melville, Sir James||Sanders, W. S.||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Messer, Fred||Sawyer, G. F.||Wilson, J. (Oldham)|
|Middleton, G.||Sherwood, G. H.||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Mills, J. E.||Shield, George William||Winterton, G. E.(Leicester,Loughb'gh)|
|Milner, Major J.||Shillaker, J. F.||Young, R. S. (Islington, North)|
|Montague, Frederick||Shinwell, E.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Morgan, Dr. H. B.||Simmons, C. J.||Mr. T. Henderson and Mr. Ben Smith.|
|Morley, Ralph||Sitch, Charles H.|
|Mort, D. L.||Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)|
|Muff, G.||Smith, Rennie (Penistone)|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Dugdale, Capt. T. L.||Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William|
|Albery, Irving James||Edmondson, Major A. J.||Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)|
|Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)||Ferguson, Sir John||Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)|
|Astor, Maj. Hn. John J.(Kent, Dover)||Fison, F. G. Clavering||Ramsbotham, H.|
|Balfour, Captain H. H. (I of Thanet)||Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.||Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)|
|Beaumont, M. W.||Ganzoni, Sir John||Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell|
|Bird, Ernest Roy||Glyn, Major R. G. C.||Ross, Major Ronald D.|
|Bourne, Captain Robert Croft||Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)||Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.|
|Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.||Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)|
|Boyce, Leslie||Greene, W. P. Crawford||Salmon, Major I.|
|Bracken, B.||Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)|
|Braithwaite, Major A. N.||Gunston, Captain D. W.||Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart|
|Brass, Captain Sir William||Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)||Savery, S. S.|
|Briscoe, Richard George||Hamilton, Sir George (liford)||Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome|
|Butler, R. A.||Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Smithers, Waldron|
|Campbell, E. T.||Hartington, Marquess of||Southby, Commander A. R. J.|
|Carver, Major W. H.||Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)||Spender-Clay, Colonel H.|
|Castle Stewart, Earl of||Henneasy, Major Sir G. R. J.||Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)|
|Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth,S.)||Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.||Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)|
|Cazalet, Captain Victor A.||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)||Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.|
|Christle, J. A.||Lamb, Sir J. Q.||Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)|
|Clydesdale, Marquess of||Leighton, Major B. E. P.||Titchfield, Major the Marquess of|
|Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George||Llewellin, Major J. J.||Todd, Capt. A. J.|
|Colville, Major D. J.||Lockwood, Captain J. H.||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|Courtauld, Major J. S.||Long, Major Hon. Eric||Turton, Robert Hugh|
|Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.||Lymington, Viscount||Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert|
|Cranborne, Viscount||McConnell, Sir Joseph||Warrender, Sir Victor|
|Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.||Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)||Wells, Sydney R.|
|Crookshank, Capt, H. C.||Margesson, Captain H. D.||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)||Marjoribanks, Edward||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Mason, Colonel Glyn K.||Womersley, W. J.|
|Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)||Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)||Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)||Sir George Penny and Captain Euan Wallace.|
|Dixey, A. C.||Muirhead, A. J.|
|Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert||Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)|
|Duckworth, G. A. V.||O'Connor, T. J.|
§ Sir D. HERBERT
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he could not, for those of us who feel some doubt, agree to leave in these words, with the addition of the word "financial" or "farm" before the word "year," and, if he likes, after that put in the words "of the 2002 Corporation," so that it will read as he has said he meant it to meanfor the last preceding farming year of the Corporation.I gladly make a present of these words to the right hon. Gentleman in all seriousness and with a view to trying to carry out what he bas described as his intention.
§ Dr. ADDISON
After the conversations we had in Committee, I was advised that the introduction here of the word "farming" might lead to difficulties. It is clear what is meant—the annual accounts of the Corporation. You need not describe those accounts. It will be according to the convenience of the Corporation. It may be from Lady Day to Lady Day. I can assure the hon. Member that there is nothing in the point which he has raised, but I will look into it again and see if anything can be done elsewhere, if it should be necessary.
§ Sir B. PETO
In view of what the Minister has said, may I point out that, if he leaves out, these words and puts in those suggested by the hon. Member for Watford (Sir D. Herbert) then to any ordinary layman the last words of his Sub-section:a summary of the annual accounts of the Corporation","accounts" being in the plural, would certainly imply a summary of the accounts of several years. If the Minister insists on leaving out these words, I suggest that it would make his purpose rather clearer if he put in the word "account" instead of the plural "accounts," because, if you say "the accounts of the Corporation," you would expect to find it followed by some such words as these: "for the preceding five years." Leaving it as it is no one will know whether you mean a summary of the accounts for one year or for all the years.
Amendment agreed to.
The following Amendments stood upon the Order Paper:
In page 4, line 9, after the word "purchase," to insert the words "by agreement."—[Mr. Guinness, Sir D. Newton, Captain Bourne.]
In page 4, line 9, leave out from the word "purchase," to the end of Clause, and insert instead thereof the words:land by agreement, and to lease such land to local authorities, universities, or agricultural colleges for the purpose of being utilised as demonstration farms under the management and control, as agents of the Minister, of the body or bodies to whom the land is leased."—[Viscount Wolmer, Sir D. Newton, Captain Bourne.]In page 4, line 16, at the end, insert the words:
"Provided that(a) the Minister shall, before exercising the power conferred upon him by this sec- 2004 tion, consult the council of the country in which the land proposed to be purchased is situate; and(b) there shall not be any obligation upon any local authority, university, agricultural college, or other body to act as the agents of the Minister under this section without their consent, and such consent may be given for a limited period."—[Sir D. Newton, Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Ruggles Brise.]