CLAUSE 19.—(Application to Scotland.) (Hansard, 13 July 1931)

Mr. R. W. SMITH
I beg to move, in page 22, line 12, to leave out Sub-section (3).
I move this Amendment in order to make the Bill apply to Scotland in the same way as to England. Under Clause 8 of the Bill the Co-operative Union in England is to have the right of having one member on the consumers' committee, and I do not see why there should be any difference in Scotland, where, it will be noticed, under this Clause 19, for the words "Co-operative Union," there is to 163 be substituted a reference to a co-operative organisation of consumers. The point was raised in Committee, and we were told there that it was found that there were other bodies besides the Cooperative Union which represented the co-operative movement in Scotland, and the Lord Privy Seal said: In Scotland, the Co-operative Union does not cover so extensive a field, and it has been felt by co-operative organisations in Scotland that it might be more appropriate to leave the choice open as to which co-operative organisation in Scotland should select the representative."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee B), 7th May, 1931; col. 1026.] It was said in Committee that the Cooperative Union in England really represented the consumer and had nothing whatever to do with trading, but in Scotland there is a Co-operative Union, but there are other co-operative bodies there, including the Co-operative Wholesale Society, and that is not, admittedly, a society composed purely of consumers, but is a trading society. Therefore, it is most unfair that in Scotland the cooperatives should have the power to put a representative of their trading department on a committee which is supposed to represent solely the interests of the consumer.

§ Captain CROOKSHANK
I beg to second the Amendment.

§ The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Westwood)
In view of the decision of the House on Clause 8, we are prepared to accept the Amendment.

Mr. R. W. SMITH
I beg to move, in page 23, line 32, to leave out from the word "boards" to the word "shall," in line 34.
The Minister accepted an Amendment in Committee which is now paragraph (b) of Sub-section (5), and it seems to me, therefore, that these words are quite unnecessary and redundant.

§ Captain CROOKSHANK
I beg to second the Amendment.

§ Mr. WESTWOOD
In Clause 2 (1), it is provided that a board shall be composed of 164 representatives of registered producers elected by them in such manner as may be provided by the scheme, with the proviso that during a period of not more than 12 months after the scheme comes into force, the board shall be composed of persons named in the scheme, together with two persons nominated by the Minister. This procedure is clearly inapplicable to the governing body of an agricultural society that becomes a board. It is already in existence, and does not need to be elected by registered producers; nor is there any need in such a case for a provisional board to be ap-appointed for the first 12 months or a shorter period. For these reasons we cannot accept the Amendment.

§ Mr. WESTWOOD
I beg to move, in page 24, line 12, at the end, to insert the words: ( ) No benefit that may accrue to a landholder or a statutory small tenant or other occupier of an agricultural holding from the operation of this Act shall be taken into account by the Land Court in fixing a fair or an equitable rent under the Small Landholders (Scotland) Acts, 1886 to 1919, or by an arbiter in determining for the purposes of Section twelve of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1923, what rent is properly payable in respect of a holding. This is a manuscript Amendment embodying an Amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and part of an Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Kincardine (Mr. Scott); and it carries out the undertaking given by the Lord Privy Seal when this matter was discussed in Committee.

§ Viscount WOLMER
A manuscript Amendment at this stage is rather a strong order, but I followed this matter closely in Committee, and it seems to me that the difference between the manuscript Amendment and the Amendment on the Paper is not very wide. It applies the same principle to a further class, and that is in accordance with the undertaking of the Lord Privy Seal on the Committee stage. I do not think that my hon. Friends here will have any objection to offer.

§ Mr. SCOTT
As I raised this point in Committee, I think it right to say that I accept the wording of the manuscript Amendment, the effect of which is exactly the same as the effect of the Amendment on the Paper in my name.

Mr. R. W. SMITH
I must protest against manuscript Amendments being handed in at the last minute when we have no opportunity of knowing what they mean. Under the smallholders legislation an equitable rent as between a willing lessor and a willing lessee is to be adjudged by the court. Can the Minister tell me how the arbiter is to take into account as between a willing lessor and a willing lessee what benefits may accrue to a lessee under this Act? It will be an extraordinarily difficult thing for him to do. Another point concerns holdings other than statutory smallholdings. I understand that the arbiter in giving his decision in such cases is not to take into account any benefits that may accrue under this Bill. Is it not the fact that under the English part of the Bill there is no such provision?

§ Mr. E. BROWN
I am quite sure that the hon. Member for Kincardine (Mr. B. W. Smith) would not wish to stand between the Government and this Amendment, because it brings the farmers in to the benefit of the Clause.

Mr. SMITH
May I have an answer?

§ Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE
May we have an answer on that point as to a willing lessor and a willing lessee? I should also like to point out that this is an Amendment moved by a Scotsman which does not get money out of England.