AGRICULTURE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL.

HC Deb 14 October 1941 vol 374 cc1272-331

Considered in Committee. [Colonel CLIFTON BROWN in the Chair.]

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 2.—(Amendment as to period for making Exchequer grants towards land drainage expenditure.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Loftus (Lowestoft)

I would like to point out to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture that this Clause extends the powers and, I think, the expenditure of catchment boards. I feel that the Committee, before passing this Clause, is entitled to some assurance that this expenditure will be efficient and economical and to some assurance about the control of the expenditure of these catchment boards. At present it appears to me that there is a lack of control over such expenditure. I speak as one who has been a member of a catchment board. I would like my right hon. Friend to explain exactly what control his Department exercises at the present time. It is an astonishing position that the catchment boards should work, as it were, on their own. There is no check or control either by county councils or by county borough councils over their expenditure or their methods. It is impossible even to raise such matters at a county council meeting. We all desire to see the powers given which this Clause authorises, but we also desire to see that the money is expended properly.

The answer may be given that such expenditure is controlled by my right hon. Friend's Department, but I confess that from instances I have known I am not satisfied that it is adequate control. I can give one case in point, that of the catchment board for East Suffolk in regard to very heavy expenditure of roughly £30,000 on the drainage of the River Blythe. I was on the catchment board when the scheme was initiated. We got the very best expert advice, the best harbour engineer in Great Britain, and the scheme was authorised and approved. Then the plans were altered, I think by the Ministry of Agriculture. The original plan by this eminent harbour engineer had what every harbour entrance on the East Coast has, an overlapping North pier.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. T. Williams)

May I ask the hon. Member whether the case to which he now refers is on a main river or whether it is work done inside an internal drainage board area?

Mr. Loftus

It is on the River Blythe, in Suffolk.

Mr. Williams

I am afraid that the hon. Member is referring to catchment board expenditure upon main rivers, when, in fact, Clause 2 refers to internal drainage board areas.

Mr. Loftus

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that explanation. I will not pursue that instance, but I will give him a minor case which is covered by the Clause. Within a couple of miles of my house to-day 300 acres are liable to be flooded. All that is required to prevent this is about 150 yards of wood piling with faggots behind, and clay. Instead of doing that simple and inexpensive scheme, I understand that, under orders from my hon. Friend's Department, they are building a new wall right across the marshes. Three excavators are working at the present time, with great expenditure on what men with any practical knowledge would say will be hopeless as a preventive of erosion and flooding. Here is a case which we cannot criticise on the county council, and that is the reason why I am pressing for some assurance that the Ministry of Agriculture will really see that the heavy expenditure of these boards is efficient and economical, and conducted in accordance with the best advice. Apropos of that, I would add that possibly local men who have worked on these banks and whose fathers and grandfathers have done. so, have far better knowledge of the facts than many engineers who have high qualifications. I press that before we agree to this Clause we may have an assurance about the control of expenditure, and further, that the Minister should consider giving the county councils some power to control and check, or at least to discuss in detail, the expenditure of these catchment boards.

Sir Ernest Shepperson (Leominster)

This Bill will extend the activities of catchment boards, and the State is to make a 50 per cent. grant towards expenditure, for which we are very grateful. But I am concerned with the remaining 50 per cent. Who is going to meet that liability? Under the Land Drainage Act the catchment boards were set up, and their expenditure was met by two sources of income, one a precept on the rate of the general upland area limited to 2d. in the pound, and the other a precept on the internal districts within that catchment board area. If the expenditure of the catchment board exceeded 2d. in the pound on the general upland area, the internal districts in that area would have to bear that extra liability. I am appealing on behalf of the internal district drainage boards that they shall not have their liability extended because of the extension of the activities of the catchment boards.

Mr. T. Williams

Replying first to the hon. Member for Leominster (Sir E. Shepperson), the question raised would have been more appropriate on Clause 5. The expenditure to which the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Loftus) refers is abnormal, and will not be undertaken unless it can be proved that there will be a substantial increase of food production in that area following the carrying-out of the work. I have no knowledge of the case to which he has referred. If he is willing to provide us with particulars, I shall be very happy to look into the matter and see what can be done.

Mr. Loftus

I understand that one reason given for this extravagant work is that they cannot get the wood to build 150 yards of piling.

Mr. Williams

If the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to supply me with particulars, we will have the matter looked into at the earliest possible moment. With regard to economy in the carrying out of drainage schemes, I would say that the catchment boards are very largely made up of representatives of county councils and the county council in many cases, more or less dominates the catchment board. To that extent, the representatives of the county council have a very large say in any scheme being carried out at the request of the war agricultural committee.

Mr. Loftus

I attended my county council last Tuesday and asked whether there was any possible method of criticising the action of the catchment board and I was informed there was none whatever.

Mr. Williams

It may well be that the representatives of the county council on the catchment board would not criticise, in open council, the actions of the catchment board but it is obvious that the county council have so many representatives on the catchment board that they wield a heavy influence and are very largely responsible for work being either undertaken or not undertaken as the case may be. I assure my hon. Friend and the Committee that we are very anxious that the money expended on any drainage scheme, whether on minor works or on main rivers, shall be expended to the best advantage. We are desirous to produce the maximum results for the minimum expenditure. What we are particularly anxious about at this moment is that we shall have drainage over as wide an area as possible, consistent with a large increase in the food production of this country and I hope that nothing that is said will tend to prevent the continuance of the good work of the past two years.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clauses 3 and 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 5.—(Extension of powers as to drainage schemes.)

Mr. T. Williams

I beg to move, in page 2, line 43, to leave out from "or", to "of", in line 44.

This Clause is an extension of powers to carry out drainage schemes within an internal drainage board area, but a proviso in sub-section (1) prevents schemes being carried out by catchment boards within a drainage district except with the consent of the drainage board. Without this Amendment, we find that the catchment board might be prevented from carrying out this work by the internal drainage board simply doing nothing. They could decline either to give or withhold consent and to that extent could delay the work. If these words are deleted, then if the catchment board does not receive the consent or refusal of the drainage board, they will be in a position to refer the matter to the Minister at once for his decision.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir Annesley Somerville (Windsor)

I beg to move, in page 3, line 9, at the end, to insert: Where by reason of the increased cost of labour (including transport) or any other cause outside the control of a catchment board the expenditure of such catchment board in preparing and carrying out any scheme approved by the Minister under Section 14 of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous War Provisions) Act, 1940, exceeds the amount of the expenditure as certified by the Minister, the Minister may defray the whole or part of such excess out of moneys provided by Parliament. It may well be found that if work is carried out under this Clause the total amount expended will exceed the original estimate. In considering this matter yesterday the Thames Conservancy appeared to believe that the whole of the extra cost would fall upon the owner, and in order to guard against that possibility, this Amendment is being moved. I submit it on behalf of the Thames Conservancy in order to get an explanation of the position.

Sir Joseph Lamb (Stone)

This is a very important matter. The Amendment raises the question of the money to be expended and of who, in the end, is to find it. Under the old Act there was a limit of £5, but now we are increasing that to £10, and I would like a guarantee that the £10 value represents all that we shall be asked, later on, to pay. It is a question of whether this work is to be done expeditiously and with the us.; of a reasonable amount of labour or whether it is to be done in an expensive way. If it is to be done in an expensive way, then it is going to involve an additional charge upon the owner or occupier and what it really means in the end is a charge upon food production. We have to look at the matter from that point of view. I would like a guarantee that reasonable charges only will be laid upon the land and that we shall not have imposed, in perpetuity, a charge which may increase the cost of the production of food.

Mr. T. Williams

I think I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that money will not be unnecessarily thrown away on drainage schemes. With regard to the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Sir A. Somerville) the answer is that there is no need for it. The amount of the grant is fixed in relation to the net cost of the scheme—as it must be of necessity —and net cost can be ascertained only after the work has been completed. In other words, whatever is the ultimate cost of the scheme, 50 per cent. grant will be paid and nobody can, in advance, say exactly, to the last pound, what will be the expenditure on any scheme. We can only undertake to say that no scheme will receive the approval and consent of the Department which seems to us to be an imposition either upon the land itself or upon the cost of the food of the people.

Sir A. Somerville

I understand from the explanation that the extra cost is to be divided between the Treasury and the owner, each paying 50 per cent., and if I have that assurance, I am prepared to withdraw the Amendment.

Sir J. Lamb

Before my hon. Friend does so, may I say that I am not entirely satisfied with the explanation given by the Parliamentary Secretary? I do not think that he has given any guarantee, in principle, that this expenditure is not going to be extraordinary and unremunerative expenditure, or that those concerned will have a say as to what work shall be done or how it shall be done. The owner or occupier who will, ultimately, bear the burden, to the extent at least of 50 per cent. of the extra cost, is to have no say whatever. I am aware that under the Third Schedule there is provision for arbitration but there is to be only a single arbitrator. We are putting ourselves entirely in the hand of one individual, and we are given no guarantee that charges may not ultimately be placed on the land which will, as I have said, increase the cost of the production of the food of the people.

Mr. T. Williams

I do not quite understand my hon. Friend's anxiety, because, even though Clause 5 will extend the powers to carry out drainage schemes within the internal drainage boards' areas, the procedure in no way differs from the procedure in the past.

Sir J. Lamb

If my right hon. Friend will refer to the Bill itself, he will see that there is cause for anxiety.

Sir A. Somerville

Having had my right hon. Friend's assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Colonel Sir George Courthope (Rye)

I beg to move, in page 3, line 13, after "shall," to insert until the expiration of three years from the end of the war period. This Clause extends the power of the catchment boards which carry out works under the Act passed last year. On a number of occasions already there has been disagreement as to whether a scheme carried out by the catchment board is the best for the area. The Act of last year makes it possible for the board to carry out this work without consulting the owner of the land on which the scheme is to be carried out. One feels that that is undesirable and can be justified only as a war measure, and that any extension of the powers should be limited to the war period.

Mr. T. Williams

As has already been explained, this Clause will extend the power of catchment boards to carry out certain drainage schemes. Under the Act of 1930, extended by this Clause, the Bill enables catchment boards to carry out works other than works on rivers. Under the Land Drainage Acts, catchment boards have no power to carry out works except on a main river. But existing works should be maintained. Otherwise the State will be wasting a good deal of money, and this Clause gives power to catchment boards to continue to maintain the works that they have carried through. This proposal is an innovation, but, I think, a very necessary innovation. My right hon. Friend sees no objection, however, to the limitation of such maintenance to a period of three years after the war, since we are all hopeful that these war Acts dealing with drainage will become unnecessary long before the expiration of the three years. We are willing, therefore, to accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 3, line 22, at the end, insert: being expenses incurred before the expiration of three years from the end of the war period."—[Sir G. Courthope.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Sir E. Shepperson

I want to raise a point upon which the reply of the Parliamentary Secretary was not quite satisfactory. It relates to the extended activities of the catchment boards for improving the drainage of a district. I want an assurance that an increased burden will not be placed upon town districts within the catchment area, and then they will not have their rates increased for improvements when they have had no voice in the matter.

Mr. T. Williams

I think I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that he asks for. Any expenditure that an internal drainage board carries out will have to be met by that internal drainage board, and owners or occupiers outside the area of that internal board will not be involved in any expense whatever.

Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 6.—(Recovery of expenses of certain drainage works.)

Mr. Pym (Monmouth)

I beg to move, in page 4, line 19, at the end, to insert: (2) Where, on the termination of a tenancy of a holding within the meaning of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1923, in respect of which any sum has been paid or become recoverable by virtue of a notice served under the said Third Schedule as applied by this section, the landlord proves to the satisfaction of an arbitrator appointed under that Act that all or any of the work in respect of which the payment has been or will be made was rendered necessary by the neglect of the tenant to comply with any obligation relating to the maintenance or repair of a watercourse imposed on him by virtue of the contract of tenancy, the arbitrator shall award the landlord compensation equal to so much of the sum paid or payable as was attributable to the doing of that work. Provided that, where any agreement is made between the landlord and tenant of such a holding as aforesaid for the payment by the tenant of any contribution in respect of the sum paid or payable as aforesaid, that contribution shall be recoverable from the tenant in lieu of compensation under this sub-section. For the purposes of any arbitration under this sub-section, a certificate by the Minister that such part of any sum paid or payable as aforesaid as may be specified in the certificate was attributable to the doing of work so specified shall be conclusive evidence of that fact. The Clause is worded in almost similar terms to a provision in the Act of 1940. Under this Clause the Minister may recover from the owner the cost of work which he has done in the exercise of powers conferred upon him by the Defence Regulations. It may be that some of that work would be the responsibility of the occupier. The Amendment provides that on the termination of a tenancy the arbitrator shall take into account such payments in respect of work which was the liability of the occupier and make a simple adjustment in the outgoing valuation. The point is exactly that which was met in the Agriculture (Miscellaneous War Provisions) Act, 1940.

Mr. T. Williams

The provisions contained in the Amendment appear in the Agriculture (Miscellaneous War Provisions) Act, 1940. We see no objection to the Amendment, since any sums to be recovered from the tenant would have to be decided by arbitration.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mrs. Tate (Frome)

Under the Bill it is obvious that when the Minister has done any drainage work he can recover the cost from any owner whose land has been increased in value by the work. I cannot understand how the increased value of the land will be assessed unless it can be ensured that the produce: of that land may be sown at a profit. The machinery for settling this is contained in the Third Schedule, but it is absolutely certain that the land which is said to have been increased in value will cover a considerable area and that different people in that area may be in entire disagreement as to whether the value of their land has increased. They will have to pay for the execution of work which may be done on an extremely extravagant scale, and their position will be very precarious in the absence of any guarantee that after the war production from their land will be on a paying basis.

Sir E. Shepperson

I previously put a question to the Minister which should be raised on this Clause. Drainage works are undertaken by a catchment board, and the interest on the cost of such new works will be charged to the tenants of the land. I would like to know whether, when interest on the cost of new works is charged to the tenant, it will be recognised by the Inland Revenue as a natural farm cost or whether it will have to be; borne by the tenant as a capital charge.

Mr. T. Williams

The answer to the question of my hon. Friend is that this would be regarded as in the nature of capital expenditure. Payments to be made by owners of land in the reimbursement of the cost of carrying out drainage schemes or works for the improvement of grassways over fenlands would not be deductable in computing the income of the owners for taxation purposes. The position would be the same whether the owner is a landlord or an owner-occupier.

Sir E. Shepperson

I understand that 50 per cent. of the cost falling on the tenant or owner is to be borne as a capital sum.

Mr. Williams

According to the Inland Revenue, that is the conclusion to be drawn.

Sir E. Shepperson

In view of the very small amount that will be left to the owner or farmer after having paid all the taxes, the fact that he has to bear this additional sum will, I fear, largely hamper his activities.

Mr. Williams

I am afraid that my hon. Friend cannot be aware of the full contents of the Bill, otherwise he would observe that the owner need not put down any money in the early stages, and that my right hon. Friend has power to advance the total cost of the whole works. You only commence to recover from the landlord at a certain stated period after the work is completed. Therefore, it is an advance that we are making. Where schemes are held up because of the fear of the body carrying out the work that they may not have funds at their disposal, the total sum can be advanced and the work completed. I think that my hon. Friend will see that we are doing all we can to help willing landowners to have their land definitely improved.

Mrs. Tate

The Parliamentary Secretary has talked a lot, but he has not answered my point in the very smallest degree. The unfortunate owner is to have his land nominally improved, and the Government are going to come along and, with all the generosity in the world, advance the cost. After a number of years the Government will come along and say "Having increased your land in value, we are now going to reclaim from you repayment of the cost of this expenditure." [Interruption.] That is what I understood the Minister to say. Well, then, 50 per cent. of the cost. As we have had already proved only too clearly by bitter experience, we have no guarantee that this work will be done in an economical manner. Therefore, 50 per cent. of the cost is not by any means the lure it might otherwise be. The owner of the land may find himself compelled to provide his 50 per cent. of the cost when the produce of the land has in actual fact decreased in value. We have no proof whatever that land which has increased in value to-day will provide' produce which has increased in value after the war, when, it may be, the owner will have to begin to pay 50 per cent. of the cost. I really call this an exceedingly hot bit of work.

Brigadier-General Clifton Brown (Newbury)

When you come to value the improvement in the land, is not the matter put into the hands of an arbitrator? If the price of the produce has not increased, the arbitrator will take that into account and will therefore not give the landowner the whole of the money to which he would be entitled if it had increased.

Mr. Orr-Ewing (Weston-super-Mare)

My hon. Friend the Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate) has raised an important point, especially in the low-lying lands where there is a difficulty with regard to drainage work and the expenditure may be very considerable indeed, and, in fact, where the whole nature of the soil of the land, and the crop which can be produced from that land, will be entirely altered by the activities of the National Board. I feel that there is something in what my hon. Friend has said. You cannot possibly compare the value of one crop against the value of the other when you do not know the value of either of them.

Sir J. Lamb

Where the word "value" is used, does it mean agricultural value?

Mr. T. Williams

I should really hate to be charged, as I have already been charged by the hon. Lady the Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate), with talking a lot, as I am usually so quiet. I would like to say to the hon. Lady that I do not think that her fears need really exist. No scheme will be undertaken unless the county war executive committee think that by undertaking any such scheme there will be a substantial increase in the value of the land for agricultural purposes.

Brigadier-General Brown

It does not say that.

Sir J. Lamb

What about the agricultural value?

Mr. Williams

If my hon. and gallant Friend will look at page 4, Sub-section (1, b) of the Bill, he will find that it says: in any case may be recovered from the owners of land, the value of which for agri

Division No. 21.]	AYES.
Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)	Harmon, Sir P. J. H.	Procter, Major H. A.
Adamson, W. M. (Cannock)	Harland, H. P.	Pym, L. R.
Albery, Sir Irving	Harris, Rt. Hon. Sir P. A.	Ramsden, Sir E.
Ammon, C. G.	Headlam, Lt.-Col. Sir C. M.	Rathbone, Beatrice F. (Bodmin)
Anstruther-Gray, W. J.	Henderson, J. (Ardwick)	Rawson, Sir Cooper
Attlee, Rt. Han. C. R.	Henderson, J. J. Craik (Leeds, N.E.)	Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham (SI. M.)
Barnes, A. J.	Henderson, T. (Tradeston)	Reid, J. S. C (Hillhead)
Barr, J.	Hill, Dr. A. V. (Cambridge U.)	Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P.	Hollins, J. H. (Silvertown)	Rickards, G. W.
Beaumont, Hubert (Batley)	Horabin, T. L.	Ridley, G.
Beechman, N. A.	Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.	Robertson, Rt. Hon. Sir M. A. (M'ham)
Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.	Horsbrugh, Florence	Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.
Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)	Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (H'okn'y, N.)	Russell, Sir A. (Tynemouth)
Bower, Cotndr. R. T.	Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)	Salt, E. W.
Braithwaite, Major A. N. (Buckrose)	Hume, Sir G. H.	Savory, Professor D. L.
Brocklebank, Sir C. E. R.	Hurd, Sir P. A.	Schuster, Sir G. E.
Brooks, H.	Jarvis, Sir J. J.	Scott, Donald (Wansbeck)
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)	Johnston, Rt. Hon. T. (Stl'g & C'km'n)	Scott, Lord William (Ro'b'h & Selk'k)
Butcher, H. W.	Kerr, Sir John Graham (Scottish U's)	Selley, H. R.
Cadogan, Major Sir E.	King-Hall, Commander W. S. R.	Silkin, L.
Campbell, Sir E. T.	Kirkwood, D.	Simmonds, O. E.
Channon, H.	Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.	Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)
Charleton, H. C.	Lathan, G.	Smith, T. (Normanton)
Christie, J. A.	Lawson, J. J.	Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir D. B. (Crewe)
Cluse, W. S.	Lloyd, Major E. G. R. (Renfrew, E.)	Somerville, Sir A. A. (Windsor)
Cobb, Captain E. C.	Loftus, P. C.	Storey, S.
Collindridge, F.	Lucas, Major Sir J. M.	Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)	Lyons, A. M.	Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (Northwich)
Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.	Macdonald, G. (Ince)	Stuart, Rt. Hn. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Craven-Ellis, W.	McEntee, V. La T.	Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.
Crooke, Sir J. Smedley	McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.	Summerskill, Dr. Edith
Crockshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F.	McKinlay, A. S.	Sutcliffe, H.
Crowder, J. F. E.	McNeil, H.	Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Davidson, Viscountess (H'm'l H'mst'd)	Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)	Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)	Macnamara, Lt. Col. J. R. J.	Thorne, W.
Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)	Maitland, Sir A.	Tinker, J. J.
Davison, Sir W. H.	Makins, Brig.-Gen. Sir E.	Touche, G. C.
Dobbie, W.	Wander, G. le M.	Train, Sir J.
Doland, G. F.	Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.	Tree, A. R. L. F.
Donner, Flight-Lieut. P. W.	Malior, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)	Wakefield, W. W.
Drewe, C.	Messer, F.	Walkden, E. (Doncaster)
Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)	Mills. Sir F. (Leyton, E.)	Ward, Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Duckworth, W. R. (Most Side)	Milner, Major J.	Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)
Dugdale, Major T. L. (Richmond)	Molson, A. H. E.	Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.
Edmondson, Major Sir J.	Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.	Watt, Lieut.-Col. G. S. Harvie
Emrys-Evans, P. V.	Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Cl. Rt. Hn. J. T. C.	Webbe, Sir W. Harold
Erskine Hill, A. G.	Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Universities)	Wedderburn, H. J. S.
Evans, Colonel A. (Cardiff, S.)	Munro, p.	Wedgwood, Fit. Hon. J. C.
Fildes, Sir H.	Naylor, T. E.	Westwood, J.
Foot, D. M.	Nicholson, Captain G. (Farnham)	White, Sir Dymoke (Faroham)
Frankel. D.	Nicolson, Hon. H. G. (Leicester, W.)	Wickham, Lt-Col. E. T. R.
Fremantle, Sir F. E.	Noel-Baker, P. J.	Williams, C. (Torquay)
Gammans, L. D.	Orr-Ewing, I. L.	Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)
George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'broke)	Owen, Major G.	Wilmot, John
Gledhill, G.	Paling, W.	Windsor, W.
Goldie, N. B.	Parker, J.	Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.	Peake, O.	Woodburn, A.
Griffiths, j. (Llanelly)	Peat, C. U.	Young, A. S. L. (Partick)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H.	Peters, Dr. S. J.	Young, Sir R. (Newton)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)	Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Hannah, I. C.	Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
		Mr. Boulton and Mr. Grimston.

NOES
MacLaren, A.	Stephen, C.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Rothschild, J. A. de	Stakes, R. R.	Mrs. Tate and Sir Joseph Lamb
Shepperson, Sir E. W.

Mr. Maxton (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

On a point of Order, Colonel Clifton Brown. I was in the Select Committee when the

cultural purposes will be increased by the doing of the work.

Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 181, Noes, 5.

Division bells sounded, and on coming into the House I found that I was too late to get into the Division Lobby. I was going to vote "No." May I ask you whether the time allowed for a Division in these precincts is precisely the same as it was in the other place?

The Deputy-Chairman (Colonel Clifton Brown)

I allowed two minutes between the first call and the second call, and after the second call, I allowed an extra minute, that is to say, five minutes. I thought this would give plenty of time, but I was keeping my eye open, and if I had seen further Members coming in, I would have extended the time further.

Mr. Maxton

I am sorry you did not see me.

Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 8.—(Provision as to ways over fen-lands not in any internal drainage district.)

Mr. Pym

I beg to move, in page 6, line 15, at the end, to insert: (5) In determining for the purposes of this section, and of the Third Schedule to this Act as applied by this section, whether, and the amount by which, the value for agricultural purposes of any land will be increased by the doing of the work, due regard shall be had to the provisions of the two last preceding subsections. In the Agriculture (Miscellaneous War Provisions) Act, 1940, where cost and maintenance have been charged in a certain way the arbitrator is instructed to take notice of that award in arbitrating upon the value of the land. The purpose of my Amendment is simply to place land brought within the scope of this Clause in the same position as similar land which is covered by the previous Act.

Mr. T. Williams

The words in this Amendment are similar to those in Section 2, Sub-section (11), of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous War Provisions) Act, 1940, in regard to the recovery of the costs of improving ways over fen-lands not in internal drainage districts. It seems reasonable that the same provisions should apply here, and therefore, we accept the Amendment.

Mr. MacLaren (Burslem)

I think it is time this nonsense stopped. The insertion of the words in this Amendment is contemplated simply because they appeared in another Bill. What is meant by the phrase "value for agricul tural purposes"? Is there anyone in the Government, or outside it, who can define what the phrase means? The rental value of the land is affected, whether the land be used for agricultural purposes or has houses built on it, but merely to specify some particular value of land and call it agricultural value is sheer humbug and nonsense. The Division which we had a short time ago brought to the surface the utter vagueness of the mentality of the Committee on questions of land value. We were told that the value of the land would be affected by the cost of vegetables sold after the war. Probably it is quite a feasible assumption that after the war the price of agricultural produce will go down. The landowner, or the tenant farmer, may find himself in the position of being faced with a 50 per cent. charge for an improvement and of not being able to recover it on the price he receives for his products. What does my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary mean when he gets up and gives the Committee an assurance that there is such a phrase in the Bill as "value for agricultural purposes"?

Mr. T. Williams

I mean value for agricultural purposes.

Mr. MacLaren

Suppose that it is value for anything else? Is the value of land to be ascertained merely according to the function it is performing? Is the value of the land to be determined by the function it performs, or its value on sale, irrespective of its function? That is a fair question to anyone on the Front Bench or on the back benches. Will the hon. Gentleman who so slyly moved the Amendment rise in his place and define what he means? Are we to understand that we have before us a Bill in which the Government themselves have no clear idea as to what they are doing, and therefore, are prepared to accept in an Amendment language that has no meaning, simply because that language appeared in a previous Act? As I understand the Bill, if it means anything, it means that some improvements will be effected by the Government. The Government will say that certain land is not being properly used, is under water, or is being badly farmed, and they will coerce the owner or the user of the land to put it to its best use, for agricultural purposes, I suppose. The Government will effect certain improvements in the land and will charge the owner or the tenant 50 per cent. of the cost. If this is done with any sane view as to future development, the net result will be to increase the rental value of the land, the value which the landowner will expect to get from a tenant as a result of the newly-added improvements. What has that to do with agriculture? Nothing. Therefore, I want to make a protest. A joke is a joke, but when one sees Parliament and the Government continuing this kind of joke, it has to be stopped, because there are thinking people in the country who wonder at times what we are doing in the House when we use language that has no meaning.

In this Bill we are either talking about the increased selling value of land or we are not. Once you attach your assessment of the value of land to its functions, the farmer or grower can come along later and say, "It is true that these improvements have been effected, but I cannot secure the necessary amount of money to cover the charge of these improvements out of the sale of my products." You are landed, because you have fixed yourself to this very stupid idea that the value will be determined according to the function of land. It is laughable—indeed, the whole Bill is laughable—for intelligent Members of this House of Commons who really understand what they are talking about to see those who are handling the Bill sitting soberly on the Front Bench without the faintest, childlike idea of what they are talking about. If there is any doubt or any idea in the back of the mind of the Mover of the Amendment that I am incorrect, I hope he will get up and clear the atmosphere, because already he has got away with two very subtle Amendments over which there has been no protest. We have now come to this vital issue, and I want to know from the Government whether the increase in value attaching to this land as a result of national expenditure is to be recouped by the State irrespective of the functions to which the land is put. If that is so, why is it necessary to put all this nonsense about agricultural purposes in the Bill?

Mr. T. Williams

Perhaps I should invite my hon. Friend the. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) to read the marginal heading of the Clause. It reads: Provisions as to ways over fen-lands not in any internal drainage district. If he had read the Bill very carefully, I am quite sure he would have understood that we were dealing with agricultural land used exclusively for agricultural purposes. We are dealing with this land because it was known that without roads it could not produce in such prolific quantities. When he asked me what is the value of land for agricultural purposes, it is quite clear that he himself replied to the question. The improvement in the value is determined by the rent that any landowner can charge to a would-be tenant farmer who would use the land for agricultural purposes—it is "agricultural purposes" throughout the Clause and the Bill. I suggest that the process is very simple. If the Government had done nothing, we should not have been producing food in the areas in which this work has been carried out. For instance, the growing of sugar beet was impossible prior to schemes being carried out; to-day we are producing very good crops of sugar beet, and to that extent we are increasing our stocks for the people of this country.

If the owner is called upon to make a contribution towards the expense incurred, quite clearly there is only one source from which he can secure redress, and that is the tenant. The tenant has only one source of redress, and that is by selling his produce. I am quite convinced that Clause 8 is justifiable, as well as the whole of the Bill. To any hon. Member who sits down and tries to understand the Bill, I think the matter will be clearly understood and will be seen to be sensible. I suggest to the hon. Member that to import non-arable land or non-agricultural land into our discussion on this Clause is strictly besides the point, because the Clause deals with roads within certain areas which make it possible to improve productivity. The Clause is very simple and clear, and it is extremely desirable. Therefore, I hope my hon. Friend will see the wisdom from the point of view of food production, of supporting the Clause.

Earl Winterton (Horsham and Worthing)

I rise to support what my hon. Friend has just said, because I think it is high time that the somewhat high-flown idea of the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren), who suffers from the delusion that everyone in the House is wrong and that he is always right on this subject, should be redressed. Some people talk of single taxes, but I talk of single-mindedness. The hon. Member seems to be single-minded, and I think he was very unfair in regard to those sitting on the Front Bench. King Charles's head looms up in every speech the hon. Member makes. The hon. Member suggests that this is an entirely novel principle. It is nothing of the sort. It has been adopted in almost every Crown Colony and in most of the Dominions. From my own experience, I know of millions of acres of land in the Dominions and the Colonies where a similar situation has arisen. Land may be of the richest character, of rich black chocolate soil, but it is absolutely useless without communications and drainage, because you cannot get the produce away. This situation has happened again and again, and a provision exactly similar to this Clause has been brought in whereby the owners of the land, whether the Government or private individuals, have to contribute to the cost of improvement. Where improvement has been effected, it is the Government or the private individuals who benefit. There is nothing novel about it. Many believe that if land is good land, it is valuable. Unfortunately that is not so, because if there is no drainage or communications it is useless for growing produce. I must apologise to the Committee for having lectured them in this way, but I should not have done so if the hon. Member for Burslem had not delivered his lecture and suggested that the Parliamentary Secretary was wholly incompetent.

The Deputy-Chairman

I must remind the Committee that we are not now discussing the whole of the Clause but a rather limited Amendment.

Sir E. Shepperson

The hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) has sought after a certain amount of knowledge. He has asked what we mean by the value of agricultural land. I will tell him in a very few words. If the receipts on agricultural land are £10 per acre and the costs are £9 per acre, there is £1 gross profit, making the value of that land £20 10s., the fact is that it requires a certain amount of money to make the impassable roads passable.

The Deputy-Chairman

I think it would be as well if we discussed the Amendment now and the Clause afterwards.

Mr. MacLaren

I wish to discuss the words in this Amendment. The Noble Lord would have done better to have applied himself to the Amendment instead of giving me a curtain lecture. I have been many years in the House, and I have watched the gyrations of the Noble Lord. Sometimes I wonder how he is able to fit into any part of the House. He has a very easy way of changing his opinions to suit his advantage in politics. I am sorry to have wasted so much time on the Noble Lord.

Earl Winterton

The hon. Member has made a personal attack on me and says I have changed my political opinions in accordance with my advantage. Will he define exactly what he means by that malicious and untrue statement?

Mr. MacLaren

I am sorry that we have wasted time in discussing personalities. The next time you get up to discuss something that is before the House, perhaps you will defend yourself and never mind the Government. It will be a sad day for the Government when they have to wait on your defence.

The Deputy-Chairman

I must ask the hon. Member to address the Chair.

Earl Winterton

On a point of Order. The hon. Member has accused me of changing my political opinions in accordance with what advantaged me, and I have given him an opportunity of withdrawing that accusation. I asked him to explain it, and he has refused to do so, and I ask that he shall be asked to withdraw it.

The Deputy-Chairman

All sorts of accusations are made in Debate, and we have to put up with them.

Mr. MacLaren

The point here is that certain improvements have to be effected on the land. I agree that if land is derelict and is not performing any useful function, it is to the advantage of the community that it should by some means or other be put to its proper use. We are told that the Government must come along and spend money in making improvements so as to facilitate the agricultural use of the land. I am not disagreeing with that. It was suggested from the Government side of the Committee that I am trying to inject into the Debate something of an urban conception of the value of land. Is this simple elementary fact unknown, that the rental value of land, whether in the middle of the City of London or in an agricultural district, is what a tenant will pay for its use? If it is the same thing that we are talking about, let us be clear about it. What we are discussing here is the rental value of land and what the landowner expects to get for it if he rents it or sells it, capitalising his rent, and he is made more secure by this means at the national expense. Therefore you are not talking about the function of the land, you are talking about the realisable rent, and the landlord will get it whether it is used for building or for growing beet sugar.

I am protesting against this loose language in the Bill, that we are dealing with a value which apparently is agricultural. It is not. It is land value—site value—and the site value is determined by the demand made for the use of the site, whether for farming or for anything else. I am not protesting against your doing your best to improve the value of the land, but there are other Clauses coming along under which the Government are proposing to buy land and dispose of it after improving it, and, prior to these Clauses coming along, I want a clear-cut idea of what we are talking about. Are we to value the land irrespective of the improvement brought about by Government money? Is it to be the value of the land according to the market price or according to the site value plus improvement? The noble Lord can toss about with that all night in his bed, and perhaps he will see what I have been driving at.

Mr. Pym

My Amendment has nothing to do with the interesting things that the hon. Member has been telling us about. It merely takes words from another Act and says that in certain circumstances that shall be taken into account.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 9.—(Power of Minister to buy requisitioned land.)

Sir R. W. Smith (Aberdeen and Kincardine, Central)

I beg to move, in page 6, line 24, after "advice," to insert: of a majority of the committee consisting of not less than two-thirds of all the members. I do not say what the majority should be, but it seems to me that there is a point of substance in the Amendment. When the Ministry is going to ask advice of a war agricultural committee we should see that there is quite a reasonable number of the members of the committee present when they come to their final decision, more especially as these agricultural committees are all voluntary bodies. It would be a very serious thing if only one or two members were present when a certain policy was arrived at. I should like to see that at least a reasonable majority of the committee must come to a decision in regard to what is to be done to the land before it is compulsorily taken.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. R. S. Hudson)

I am afraid we cannot accept this or the next Amendment, which I take to be consequential. It is usual in such bodies as agricultural executive committees for the majority to rule. It does in this House. Therefore, for administrative reasons it would be impossible. There is a further reason which renders the Amendment unacceptable. It might invalidate the certificates already issued for taking possession of land. It would be necessary to go back and determine what number of members were present on any particular occasion, and it is conceivable that the necessary two-thirds were not present.

Sir R. W. Smith

When it is said that in this House a majority is necessary, I would point out that s. quorum is also necessary. What is the quorum on an agricultural committee?

Mr. T. Smith (Normanton)

There is nothing in the Amendment about a quorum. All it says is that before the Minister can act the committee must have a two-thirds majority.

Sir R.W. Smith

I did not tie myself to a figure, but I think there ought to be some figure.

Mr. Smith

The Amendment refers to two-thirds of all the members. I have had experience of local government, and I have seen some curious things happen in voting. I have seen some curious things happen in trade union voting also, but I cannot imagine the House passing an Amendment which lays it down that before the Minister can act the majority must consist of not less than two-thirds of the members. We make laws of the land without any regard to a two-thirds majority, and there have been occasions in the House when I have thought that we ought to insist on a two-thirds majority. Some of the laws to which I object would not be on the Statute Book if that had been done.

Sir R. W. Smith

I do not stick to a two-thirds majority, but I would like to ask the Minister what the quorum of an agricultural committee is.

Amendment negatived.

Mrs. Tate

I beg to move, in page 6, line 33, at the end, to insert: and that increase in value cannot by another means be preserved for the Crown. Owing to the short time between the Second Reading and Committee stage I have not had time to put this Amendment on the Paper, and I had to hand it in as a manuscript Amendment. The Amendment provides that the Section shall not be invoked unless the Minister is satisfied that by no other means can the value be preserved to the Crown. Clause 9 introduces an entirely new principle to our law. Authorities have always had the power to buy out owners of land which is wanted for occupation in connection with electricity undertakings, aerodromes, or work of that nature. This Clause permits the Crown to buy land which it does not propose to occupy permanently, and that is something which has not been done before. It is sought to justify this in paragraph 2 on page iii of the Explanatory Memorandum by the necessity to preserve to the Crown the benefit of increases in value created by the Minister of Agriculture who has gone into occupation of the land under the Defence Regulations. Such entry is, of course, made when either the land is not being cultivated at all or is not being cultivated in accordance with the rules of good husbandry.

This is the outline of the procedure. Assume that possession has been taken; the Minister then certifies that the value of the land has been or will be substantially increased by things done or intended to be done by the Minister. The Minister compulsorily acquires the land, compensation is calculated, and the amount is settled by arbitration in accordance with the provisions of the Acquisition of Value (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919. That compensation does not cover severance, loss of amenity, etc. It is to be ascertained as at the date on which the Minister gives notice to treat. There must be deducted two things: any increase in the value which is due to anything done by the Minister since he went into occupation under the Defence Regulations, and any appreciation in the value of the land which is "directly or indirectly attributable to the war." Within five years from the end of the war the Minister must offer to resell the land to the dispossessed owner. I hope the Committee will note that the person to whom the Minister is obliged to offer to resell is the owner, whereas it is the tenant who may have been in possession of the land. That is a grave distinction. The price to be paid to the Crown will, however, be the postwar value calculated and settled under the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919. If the offer to resell is not accepted within a month the Minister may sell the land to anybody else. Finally, the Crown retains to itself not only the increased value caused by the exertions of the Crown in cultivating the land, but also whatever accretions of value have occurred up to the date of the resale.

We must therefore consider the following points: The grounds which are advanced in support of the whole idea are fallacious. Admitting that the Crown is entitled to any increased value in the land caused by its own activities, that increased value could be secured to the Crown by a charge on the property without expropriating the owner. The whole process is based on failure either to cultivate at all or else to cultivate according to the rules of good husbandry, and seems to assume some dereliction of duty to the nation on the part of the owner of the land. The assumption is, however, quite mistaken, for three reasons. Unless the owner of the land was also the occupier—Members know how often the owner of the land is not the occupier —the cultivation was in the hands of the tenant and not of the owner. There is plenty of land which was not under cultivation for very good reasons; for example, it was being held for some other purpose—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] When hon. Members say "Hear, hear," they must remember the economic conditions of agriculture before the war, which made the cultivation of a large part of our land completely uneconomic. Its cultivation was not a paying proposition. Under pre-war economic conditions probably few holdings were farmed up to the stringent standard of the rules of good husbandry laid down in the Agricultural Holdings Act. In practice, agricultural valuers interpreted the rules in the light of their own knowledge and experience.

The compensation to be paid when the Minister buys the land is to be reduced by any appreciation in value ''directly or indirectly attributable to the war." We might almost say that the expropriated owner cannot receive more than the prewar value for his land. If, on the other hand, the land had some value outside the agricultural value, it may well be that the value has temporarily gone during the war. The Committee will realise that before the war there were large stretches of land which had considerable value as building land but which have now been expropriated, and that value will not attach to them after the war. In such circumstances the Government would not pay the pre-war value but, apparently, would pay the temporarily reduced value. In the result the Government always acquires the land on most favourable terms, namely, the pre-war value or the war-time value, whichever is the lesser. When the Government come to resell the land they receive the full post-war value. They eat their cake and have it. It follows that if the expropriated owner desires to have his land back he not only has to pay the increased value caused by the Government's exertions on his land but any increase in the value which has accrued since before the war.

Mr. Stokes (Ipswich)

Will the hon. Lady explain from whom the landlord expropriated the land in the first place, because that would really clear up a good deal of doubt?

Mrs. Tate

I have never been a student of history, and that would be going too far back, sorry as I am not to be able to satisfy the curiosity of the hon. Member. He will have to consult H. G. Wells. It will be noticed, therefore, that if the war period lasted four years, the unfortunate owner might have to pay out to the Crown any increase in value which had occurred over a period of nine years. I realise that I am pleading an absolutely lost cause. I quite appreciate that the Minister can summon his henchmen from the dining-tables of the House and that I shall probably get no support, but it seems to me that the House has been hustled into accepting a Bill of dimensions far too great for it to digest in the short time it has had in which to digest it. I really suggest that the Minister had no right to bring forward a Bill of these dimensions and to give us no time whatever between the Second and Third Readings; and if the House likes to accept an entirely new principle in law which enables the Government to eat its cake and have it and the owner of land to be cheated, because that is what it really amounts to— The hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) need not laugh. The hon. Member may perhaps not know that there are some very tiny owners of land. Not all owners of land are the wealthy people he seems to imagine. However, I say that Clause 9 does allow a very great injustice to be done, and I beg that the Committee will gravely consider the question before passing this Clause.

Sir Joseph Lamb (Stone)

I wish to support this Amendment. I would make it clear that I in no way challenge the right of the Government to the benefits which may accrue from what they have done to the land. What I am afraid of is that the procedure proposed will probably result in increasing the cost of production of the food of the people. If we are to have open sale of this land that will, to a certain extent, put a permanent charge upon the land which will have to be met out of the revenue from the production of food, and I wish the Minister to say that in all these cases he will fully consider the possibility of adopting some other method by which he could obtain the advantages to the Government which he is legitimately trying to get; that is, to get a return for the money which he has legitimately expended by some method which will not result in this permanent additional charge.

I should have thought there must be some method of putting a charge on the land which would be relevant to the return from that land other than putting on the permanent charge which will result from the open sale of the land. We know that when a sale of land takes place many other things than its actual food-producing capacity are taken into consideration by a purchaser. After the last war a number of men who had had opportunities of making money easily during the war wished to invest that money. They knew nothing whatever of the value of land or of its capacity to produce food. All they wanted was an investment for their money, and it was a quite legitimate desire on their part, but if such men are to buy up land it may have a very deleterious effect upon the value of that land from the point of view of food production, because it may leave that land with charges which are too heavy for it to bear economically. I know of cases where one farmer bid against a brother former who had farmed his land well. The occupant of the farm had to buy his farm not only in order to preserve its food producing capacity but in order to preserve his own home, and had to pay for other benefits which are not adequately met under the Act which gives compensation for disturbance. Consequently he had to give a bigger price than the land was really worth. To raise the money he had to go to a monevlender, and he found himself saddled with charges upon his land which were double those which he had to meet prior to the war. I hope the Minister will fully consider whether he cannot adopt other methods in preference to sale in the open market, while seeing that the fertility of the land is retained and that any money which has been spent upon it by the Government shall return to the Government.

Mr. Hudson

I followed very carefully the speech of the hon. Lady the Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate). She complained that we had not left sufficient time for the proper consideration of the Bill, but at any rate she has found time in which to produce a full exposition of her case, though, if I may say so without disrespect, what she said seemed to have nothing to do with her Amendment, nor, for that matter, were the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) more to the point.

Sir J. Lamb

It will give you an opportunity to reply.

Mr. Hudson

After all, this Bill will deal only with a small minority of cases in which the owner of land has refused, or failed, to carry out the orders of war agricultural committees, orders issued with a view to increasing to the maximum the productivity of the land. This is not a Bill to enable me to take possession of all the land in the country. The Bill comes into effect only when there has been default on the part of the owner of a particular piece of land, because the owner has failed, or refused to avail himself of the opportunities given to him to put his land in order. Then the Government come in in order to see that the land produces the amount of food which it is capable of producing, and we must be entitled to recover what we have spent upon the land, or such part of it as an arbitrator will say subsequently is the fair proportion to be recovered. That is really all that the Clause does.

The hon. Member for Stone talked about what happened after the last war, but this has no relevance to what happened after the last war. The Committee will remember that I gave an instance of the sort of case that has cropped up, a case in which a man had neglected his land and it was taken over in the last war. The land was put right then, but he has neglected it since and it has had to be taken over again in this war. Speaking from memory, he had allowed all the roofs to fall in, he had practically no stock on the land and it was overgrown with weeds. You cannot impose a charge upon that land. The proper thing is to take the land, spend the money upon it and then resell it.

Sir J. Lamb

I am not challenging, in fact I am supporting, the object which the right hon. Gentleman has in view, but what I do want to avoid is the adoption of the process of open sale as a means of recovering what has been spent upon the land. My object is to get the Government to adopt any other course than that of resort to open sale, because it cannot be denied that as a consequence of what happened after the last war certain farms are to-day bearing rents which are very much higher than they were able to carry previously.

Mr. Hudson

My hon. Friend will remember that I gave an explanation on the Second Reading. Much the easiest way of dealing with these cases is to let the land to a competent farmer at once, and I want these powers to enable us to do so. We are proposing to effect what the hon. Member wants.

Major Owen (Carnarvon)

I know of a case in my own town where a farm has been requisitioned as the result of bad farming by the tenant. What happens when farms are on estates, the landlords of which are considered to be very good? What is the position of the farmer if the war agricultural committee takes over the farm and obtains the dismissal of the tenant? Does the Minister take over the farm?

Mr. Hudson

The normal procedure is that the committee consult with the owner or his agent to persuade him to find a tenant of whom the committee approve. If the owner should say "No," we want to have these powers to make sure of the position.

Mrs. Tate

In view of the Minister's statement, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Pym (Monmouth)

I beg to move, in page 6, line 40, to leave out "or any neighbouring."

I move the Amendment in order to ascertain what the Minister has in mind. It looks as though he requires these words in order to tidy up the Clause and give him certain powers, but it seems strange to put them into the Bill. Why on earth, because he is the owner of a particular plot of land, should he give himself powers over and above those possessed by an ordinary landowner? There appear to be two reasons. One is that he seeks to put himself in a position different from that of an ordinary landowner, but that will be very undesirable; or he may have in mind the importance of food production in war-time. He already has full powers to enable him to do something to increase food production on neighbouring land, so it is difficult to see the real purpose of these words.

Mr. Hudson

I cannot accept my hon. Friend's Amendment. Obviously, one of my main preoccupations must be to increase food production, and I must be assured that anything I do on a particular piece of land, whether for the benefit of that land or of neighbouring land, can be done without interference. The original owner, to whom the land may subsequently be offered back, will not be damnified by the retention of these words, which must be retained for the purpose of obtaining the maximum food production required by the war.

Mr. Pym

I cannot understand the argument of the Minister. It seems to imply that the owner of land which the Minister has compulsorily acquired will be sitting on the other side of the fence watching what he is doing, and saying now and again that the Minister cannot do this or that. I cannot see any reason why these words are required.

Mr. Hudson

I will try to clear up my hon. Friend's fears. I: will be remembered that at one stage it was suggested that we should leave out the words "in his opinion," and I was advised that I ought not to agree to that because it would enable a previous owner of the land to go to the courts and issue a writ against us saying that we were acting outside our powers, although we had formally taken possession. In order to prevent that danger arising, we insisted that those words should stay in, and for the same reason the words which this Amendment proposes to delete should stay in. They cannot do any harm.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Stokes

I beg to move, in page 7, line 15, at the end, to insert: ( ) The compensation payable in respect of the acquisition of any land under this section may, if the Minister thinks fit, be satisfied in whole or in part by the creation of a rentcharge issuing out of the land acquired. In moving this Amendment, I should say that my hon. Friend the Member for North Battersea (Mr. Douglas) in whose name it stands has unfortunately found it impossible, on account of circumstances outside his control, to be present. What my hon. Friend seeks to do is to introduce into Clause 9 what I might term a reciprocal arrangement, if that would be the correct description, to that which exists in Clause 10 regarding the disposal of the land at the end of the war period or within five years thereafter. If hon. Members will look at Clause 10, they will see that on page 9, in Sub-section (7) it is stated: (7) A sale by the Minister under this section may, if the Minister thinks fit, be made in consideration, wholly or partly, of the granting to the Minister of a rentcharge issuing out of the land sold, and on any sale by the Minister under this section, any part of the price may, if the Minister thinks fit, be left outstanding and secured by a mortgage to the Minister of all or any part of the land sold. Under the present arrangement in Clause 9, the Minister only has power to acquire by payment land which he may require. What this Amendment seeks to introduce is an option on the part of the Minister to rent the land from the existing landlord. I should like to explain certain advantages which that would have. It would avoid any capital payment for the present time. The Minister himself, speaking on an earlier Clause in the Bill, made the observation that the reason it was necessary for the Government to have these powers of compulsory acquisition was because, in the opinion of the Government, in most cases the landlord had failed to avail himself of the opportunity which the national resources offered and was not properly cultivating his land, thereby departing from his duty to the community. Under the Clause as it stands the Government merely propose to compensate the landlord, for failing to do his duty, by a capital sum perhaps out of all proportion to the value of the land, especially having regard to the fact—so far as I know—that we have had no definition of the basis on which the valuation is to be made.

Another point I wish to make—I shall refer again to the valuation question when we come to the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill"—is this: it seems to me that if, at the end of the war period or within the stated period thereafter, the Minister has the right either to rent the land or sell it, either to the original proprietor or to some other person, surely in acquiring the land he ought to have the right of option between paying a capital sum or a small rent charge for its use. That would be much less expensive, generally speaking, to the community as a whole, and it would have the advantage that if at the end of the war the Minister found it either undesirable or impossible to dispose of the land he would continue to enjoy its use at the pre-war rental, which would surely be to the benefit of the community. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will see fit to accept this Amendment, which seeks to put him in exactly the same position with regard to acquiring the use of land as with regard to its disposal, namely, either by rent or by sale.

Mr. Hudson

I am sorry that I cannot accept this Amendment, because I think it would inflict considerable injustices, especially in the case of trustees. There is a considerable difference between telling a man you are going to take his property and saying to him that you are going to sell him something and that he can pay on the instalment system. Suppose we created this rent charge; what in fact would happen? If the owner wanted to dispose of his land, he would go around the country hawking the rent charge and trying to sell it for what capital sum he could get. It would not be a very satisfactory way of dealing with the matter, and we think that on the whole it is much better that we should pay cash for the land.

Mr. Stokes

I cannot possibly accept that very—if I may say so—"one-eyed" explanation. What we are seeking to do is not to deprive the sitting landlord of any of his justifiable rights; the Minister himself has said that the Government have found it necessary to introduce this Measure because the landlord has defaulted in his obligations to the community. We now have the crazy suggestion that because the man has defaulted in his obligations it is proposed to buy him out. All I am suggesting to the Committee is that the land could be rented at a nominal value. It would have to be a very low value, in view of the fact that the land has apparently been misused in the past and is not therefore of high value to the landlord. Instead of my proposal, the Minister intends to have an altogether arbitrary valuation put on the land, and pay a capital sum to compensate the trustees or whoever may have been misusing the land. I have always thought that we were living in a kind of "Alice in Wonderland," but this is the Mad Hatter's Tea Party in excelsis. I ask the Minister to reconsider his decision that he cannot accept this Amendment. It seems to me perfectly reasonable that in acquiring land he should have at least the same alternative rights as in disposing of it. Does the Minister really suggest that in present conditions, with the powers the Government have, he is to be blocked by a set of trustees? If that is the best reply that the Minister can put forward in answer to my arguments, I hope the Committee will support my Amendment and refuse to support the Government.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Henry Strauss (Norwich)

I beg to move, in page 7, line 43, after "held," to insert "or agreed to be held."

The Amendment which I propose is to insert certain words which slightly alter the definition of the land held by the National Trust which is mentioned in Subsection (6) of Clause 9. That Subsection prevents the Clause from authorising the Minister to acquire certain lands, including land which belongs to the National Trust. My right hon. Friend has put in words which will be entirely satisfactory to the National Trust in the vast majority of cases, and it may be that he will think that the fears of the National Trust, which I am endeavouring to remove by this Amendment, are unnecessary. Let me explain to the Committee what those fears are. The words which define the property of the National Trust for the purposes of this Sub-section say: Any land the fee simple absolute in possession of which belongs to, and is held inalienably by, the National Trust. In a number of cases where property is left to the National Trust there may be a considerable interval between the death of the late owner of the land who leaves the property to the National Trust and the date when, for various legal reasons, his executors are in a position to give the vesting assent. In that interval it is very doubtful whether the latter part of the definition which I have read would be held to be satisfied. To give an example to the Committee, the great estate of Blickling in Norfolk has been left to the National Trust. There is, of course, no doubt that far the greater part of that estate will in due course be held inalienably by the Trust. Nevertheless, at this moment, Blickling would not fall within this definition. I am therefore moving this Amendment as a protection in cases of that kind. I do not think for one moment that my right hon. Friend would dream of abusing his powers in order to take advantage of a short period of time before an estate has been vested inalienably in the National Trust. Nevertheless I think the point is one which deserves consideration. The Amendment in the form in which I am moving it has been drafted very hastily, and it may be that my right hon. Friend's advisers may say that it is not definite enough or is possibly too wide. If that is the case, I would urge my right hon. Friend to consider whether he cannot himself move, at a later stage, some form of words more satisfactory to himself and his advisers to meet the risk which I have brought to the attention of the Committee. I thank him for putting in this exception of the National Trust, but I would ask him to consider whether the National Trust's fear of the failure of his definition to meet some cases may not be veil-founded and whether he may not be able to remove it.

Mr. Hudson

The National Trust and my Department work, I am happy to say, in the closest co-operation, and there is not the slightest likelihood of my Department, under myself or any successor, seeking to acquire or to sell land which belongs to the National Trust, or in respect of which there is evidence that the property will pass to the National Trust. The words on the Order Paper are very vague and very wide, and as I do not think there is any chance or likelihood whatever of the eventuality of which the hon. Member spoke coming about, I hope he will not press the Amendment because, in its present terms, I cannot accept it.

Mr. Strauss

I do not wish to press the Amendment after what my right hon. Friend has said. At the same time, I would ask him to consider whether there might be sufficient substance in what I have said for him to consider a more suitable form of words. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Ammon (Camberwell, North)

Before we part with this Clause I would like to ask the Minister whether he contemplates acquiring, under his powers, land in which there is already a public interest, such as that in the London Green Belt. Some of that land has been acquired not to be used for building purposes, subject to existing tenancies continuing. Such requisitioning should not divert the land from its original purpose so that the Minister could buy land and resell it and it be used not subject to planning. That would make a very serious difference to what has been contemplated when the land was acquired.

Mr. Creech Jones (Shipley)

Subsection (6) of this Clause does seem to me to be somewhat narrowly drafted, and it occurs to a number of my hon. Friends and myself that there are certain types of common-land which are excluded from the definition included in this Sub-section. I would like, if I may, to ask the Minister whether between now and the discussion of this Bill in another place, he will consider whether the exception in respect of common-land can be somewhat widened. As I understand the position from the definition used in the Clause, there are common-lands which are excluded, such as those regulated by. rural district councils or urban authorities under the Commons Act of 1899, commons situated in an urban district which have become subject to a statutory right of public access under the Law of Property Act, 1925; there are certain rural commons under that Act, there are commons which have been included in draft planning schemes for preservation as permanent open or private spaces, and, I believe, commons needed to supply pasture for the cattle and sheep of commoners. There is some doubt as to whether all that class of common is included in the definition under this Subsection. I would ask the Minister, therefore, whether consideration can be given to the point, because I am quite certain it is his intention that all common-land should be properly covered. If the Clause is somewhat ineffectively drafted, I hope that, at a later stage of the Bill, some Amendment may be made in order to cover all common-land.

Mr. Denman (Leeds, Central)

I must apologise to the Minister for asking a question that arises merely out of my ignorance of this matter. I want to know whether on the various documents that are issued under this Clause and the following Clause Stamp Duty will be payable. It would obviously be a hardship for an owner whose land is taken away from him and who is compelled to buy it back if he were compelled to pay full Stamp Duty on it.

Sir Francis Fremantle (St. Albans)

I want to raise a point relating to Subsection (6). The British Waterworks Association are concerned, naturally and rightly, for the protection of the water supplies of this country. In some cases there are extensive gathering grounds which may be rough and uncultivated, according to the definition in this Clause. It would appear, therefore, that the Minister is being given power to take over such land and to sell or let it for the purpose of development at various times, which, right as it may be in other circumstances, would not add to the safety of our drinking water. The Association want some assurance that the Minister will protect their interests, whether by the insertion of further words in the Subsection or in some other way. Although the Waterworks Association have no evidence of any such land being likely to be so acquired they have to protect the public against dangers of several kinds. It is just as important to protect these water interests specifically as to protect the National Trust specifically.

Sir E. Shepperson

The Minister is taking power under this Clause to acquire land compulsorily, at a value to be fixed by arbitration. At the end of the time the land will be offered back to the landlord, at a value also to be fixed by arbitration. Certain land may have not only an agricultural value but a building, or site, value as well. It might be that land would have had this value in pre-war conditions but that, owing to the war, the building value will have disappeared altogether. The land is to be acquired when the building value has disappeared, but when it is offered back two or three years after the cessation of hostilities, the building value may again have been added to the land, and the landlord will then receive the land back with not merely an enhanced agricultural value, but an enhanced building value as well.

Mr. Stokes

I hope that, after the speeches which have been made, the Minister will appreciate the kind of mess that he is getting himself into. We have had one of my hon. Friends explaining that it is quite possible that the Minister will find himself wanting, for agricultural purposes, to acquire land which has already been acquired by some competent authority for building purposes. Under this Bill, the Minister is to acquire that at a valuation which is to be calculated on some perfectly arbitrary figure, but a figure which will take into account the fact that the land may have improved in value Since the war started. It is quite absurd for him to spend public funds in compensating public authorities or private individuals who have already paid a speculative figure for land in the hope of benefiting hereafter. The proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for North Battersea (Mr. Douglas) was a very sound and wise one, and I think the Minister turned it down too precipitately.

It is not clear on what basis this compensation is to be paid. Is it on the rateable value? If so, as agricultural land is derated, it will be calculated as a multiple of the figure nought, which, I might remind the right hon. Gentleman, is still nought. Valuable land which is ripe for development may have been taken. The Minister proposes to take large sums of public money to compensate the owners of such land for something that they have not used. I ask him to remember the story, which I agree may seem to him a little far-fetched, of a very famous pirate called Captain Kidd, who roamed the high seas, sank ships right and left, and acquired great wealth. He had a curious kink: he was not like most pirates: he buried his wealth. But suppose that he had left the money to his descendants and that one of his descendants was living in Park Lane, and that I, being a descendant of one of the people whose ships were sunk, went to a magistrate in the City of London, and said: "What about that money?" The other man would rightly plead the Statute of Limitations, and it would be said, "We have more to do than to compensate you for some wrongdoing which happened all those years back." I quite agree. But suppose that Captain Kidd had, instead of burying the money, floated a company called Piracy, Limited, which was now roaming the high seas, sinking ships right and left, and that the chairman of the Cunard Company came along and said, "This is outrageous; we cannot allow these sinkings to continue." We should all agree. But what would you do? Would you stop it? No, you would gather together all the authorities to work out, on an actuarial basis, what you had to pay Captain Kidd's descendants to stop them from sinking ships in the Atlantic.

I ask the Minister to get up and make it clear upon what basis this compensation is to be paid. The point is that the Government do not know themselves what they are going to do. They are trying to base every purchase on a valuation which has never taken place. I do not want to detain the Committee any longer on a lecture on economics—I could go on on this subject at almost indefinite length—but I ask that there should be a clear definition of the basis of the valuation, and that the Minister should reconsider his attitude and appreciate the wisdom of the Amendment to this Clause which stood in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for North Battersea to retain the right of alternative purchase or rent in acquiring land for the purposes for which he requires it.

Mr. Hudson

I was asked one or two questions, and I will see if I can give an answer. With regard to the L.C.C. and Green Belt, my Department has been in touch with them, but, as far as we know, no case has arisen in connection with the L.C.C, and I cannot see us compulsorily acquiring land in the ownership of the local authority.

Mr. Stokes

Of any local authority?

Mr. Hudson

I would not like to say "of any local authority." I was asked a question about the L.C.C.

Mr. Ammon

This raises the point regarding land acquired where it has been decided that tenants may remain for the rest of their lives. That land is preserved for them, but it is quite likely that some of the land is not being well farmed and may come under the domination of the Minister. It would appear that under the Clause he could requisition it and that afterwards the land might be sold without the planning which had already been laid down under a former Act for better housing and the distribution of the land itself.

Mr. Hudson

The real answer and safeguard are that the Minister of Agriculture is mainly concerned to try and preserve land for agricultural purposes and to prevent it from being built upon. Therefore, it is hardly conceivable that the Minister of Agriculture would take land away from a local authority intended for open spaces and resell it for building. The provisions of the Bill are intended to exclude commons altogether, but if my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Creech Jones) has any doubt and will let me have the opinion of the people advising him, I will go into the matter, and, if there is any doubt, will try and put it right. As far as stamps are concerned, I am informed that Stamp Duty will be chargeable, and as for waterworks, I am not aware of any case such as that referred to, and I have no intention of depriving a water undertaking of the ownership of land essential for the purpose of the supply of water for human consumption.

Sir F. Fremantle

The catchment areas extend over a very wide district, and I believe I am right in saying that the right hon. Gentleman will find his agricultural advisers stating that there are certain areas which could be put to greater agricultural use, and therefore there will be a contest between the two requirements.

Mr. Hudson

I am fully aware of a number of areas where land could be put to better use than that to which, in my opinion, it is put to-day, and I propose to take steps to see whether possibly fuller use can be made of it. As far as the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Sir E. Shepperson) is concerned, there is one obvious way for the owner to prevent any of these dreadful things occurring, and that is, to carry out the instructions of war agricultural committees. Normally speaking, I think the value of the land will be assessed by arbitrators on more or less the same basis. Anyone who is afraid that this sort of thing may happen to him can prevent it by proceeding to carry out the instructions of the war agricultural committees.

Mr. Stokes

I put to the right hon. Gentleman a categorical question, and he has not answered. What does he mean on page 7 of the Bill with regard to the basis of valuation? I understand that the method is to see whether there has been improved value before the war started. That has to be decided before compensation is paid. What is the basis value? How does he propose to arrive at the value which was not taken at the time some, three or four years before war started?

Mr. Hudson

That is a matter that the arbitrator will have to decide in the light of the observations put before him.

Mr. Denman

I would ask the Minister to consider further the point about Stamp Duty. I have no great sympathy with landlords in the circumstances in which we are contemplating these transactions, but it is rather ridiculous that the State should seize a property for good reasons and then, a year or so after, sell it back to the original owner and incidentally charge Stamp Duty. Why should the State on these transactions seek to make a profit? It seems to be rather a tyrannous and brutal procedure, and I hope that the Minister will reconsider the matter before we reach a later stage.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 10.—(Disposal of land acquired under the last preceding Section.)

Mr. Mander (Wolverhampton, East)

I beg to move, in page 8, line 2, to leave out "shall," and to insert "may."

The Amendment will have the effect of making "shall" into "may" and leaving out the five years' limit. I shall be glad if my right hon. Friend will be good enough to explain why he thinks that it is necessary to include a provision of this kind. I can understand that if the whole of the land of this country had been nationalised during the war, as the Government have power to do, some action being taken by legislation to make sure that the question of nationalisation should not be prejudged by the war but that the land should revert to the previous owners. But no such issue is raised at all here. A very minute quantity of land not exceeding 100,000 acres in all we are told is to be taken over, and it will only be taken over for the very good reason that the owner has failed to cultivate it properly. I should have thought that when the State exercised its option in the circumstances it really was going much too far to say that the land must—not may—be offered back to the previous owner under certain conditions laid down in the Clause after the war is over. It is the type of mind which says, "Back to 1939." Nothing would be more unfortunate, if there was any idea of that kind and it would be out of keeping with the wishes of the people of this country.

It may be that the intention of the Clause has been misunderstood. If so, the Parliamentary Secretary, who is not, as a rule, sympathetic towards proposals for selling public land back to landowners, will be able to explain it. It is curious to find him in the position of having to defend a transaction which returns land to private ownership in circumstances of this kind. The whole Clause is quite unnecessary. I am proposing a very modest Amendment indeed. It does not prejudge the issue one way or the other as to whether the land should go back or not, but it would no longer make it compulsory upon the Minister to offer it.

The proposal I am making now is that the Minister should still have power, if he thought fit, to offer the land back, but that he should not be compelled to do so. I hope my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, with his well-known sympathy with the point of view I am expressing—a view previously held by him—and with his well-known consistency in everything he does, will, be able to express approval of the mild Amendment I am moving, and on behalf of the Government will say he can accept it.

Mr. MacLaren

I want to support this Amendment, and for this reason. My hon. Friend said that the Bill as now drafted might bring us back to the conditions which prevailed in 1939, and I would like the Committee to wake up to the fact that we are going forward for some years with a great enterprise which will change the entire face of Europe. In this country we must be far ahead of other countries in our political thinking. I hope no one in this Committee will hug any illusions that after the war we shall pick up the threads of things as they were when the war began. The land of this country will go back to the people of this country as soon as this war is over. Let there be no mistake about that. Every acre of it will go back, not by purchase but by the declaration of Parliament itself, and it is well that hon. Members should know this before it happens. Some of us are determined on that. Westminster will not go on at the steady gait of Victorian times after this cataclysm is over. So I want to give the Committee a hint that with regard to land ownership a fight will take place, the like of which nobody has ever seen. Nearly every household has been asked to contribute men to defend their land, and we are determined that it shall be the pro perty of those who ate defending it when they come back. I suggest that it shall be discretionary on the part of the Minister whether he gives back the land or not, and I would say to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, whose economics were very sound when he was on these benches, "Is this on all fours with what you really believed until recently?" I ask him to take out the word "shall" and put in the word "may," and that there shall be nothing obligatory about handing back the land.

Mr. Denman

I hope that the mover and supporter of this Amendment will not press it, because I am not sure that they have realised its consequences. One consequence is that the proviso which immediately follows this Sub-section would necessarily have to go. It declares that the Minister shall not be under an obligation to offer land back if among other things in the opinion of the Committee it would not or could not be properly managed. That proviso is an exceedingly valuable safeguard, and if the word "may" is substituted for "shall," the whole of this proviso goes.

Mr. Mander

But my hon. Friend and myself mean that there should be consequential Amendments.

Sir J. Lamb

I hope the Government will not accept this Amendment, because there may be cases where land taken over, through no fault of the owner—it may be the fault of the occupier—should be returned to the farmer or State for economic reasons. I hope the word "shall" will be left in, because there may be considerations later which make it quite possible that the land will not be offered because of certain conditions which follow. Later in this Clause there is another Sub-section —Sub-section (6)—where it says "may," and that will give the Government an opportunity of holding the land, with which I agree. There may be cases where the Government own certain lands, and it may be to the advantage of the country, and agriculture generally, that they themselves should be actual demonstrators of agriculture. They could demonstrate new methods and prove some of the theoretical processes which are put forward by their experts before being passed on to farmers as practical.

Mr. T. Williams

My hon. Friend the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander), who moved this Amendment, referred to my opinions in the past. It is, I think, very unkind to remind one of one's political past, particularly when one happens to have changed one's situation in the House. It is true that I have great sympathy with what lurks behind the mind of the mover of this Amendment, and that when sitting on the opposite Bench in 1940 I was guilty of saying that it would be a crime to take possession of an area of land which was being badly farmed, restore it to a high state of fertility and then to hand that land back to the same person who had abused his trust in the past. I felt that then, and I feel that to-day, but it is because Sub-section (1, b) of this Clause gives my right hon. Friend, or whoever the Minister may be, power to refuse to restore land to an owner who had previously abused it, and who, as proved to the satisfaction of the Minister, would make no better use of it if it was handed back to him than he did before it was taken from him, that I can quite readily and with a clear conscience stand here and suggest that if the Amendment were accepted, Clause 10 would automatically go, and I am not sure that that would be consistent with the wishes of the Committee or the country.

We are taking possession of areas of land in cases where we are satisfied that the landowner or tenant-farmer cannot, or will not, farm the land in accordance with the rules of good husbandry. We are doing so under Emergency Regulations, because there happens to be. a war and it is vital to the nation to produce the maximum amount of food. The fact that we are given extraordinary powers to deal with landowners, tenant-farmers or owner-occupiers scarcely justifies us in saying that in all sets of circumstances the land taken over should not at least be offered back to the original owner, if he can satisfy the advisers of the Minister and the Minister himself that he can and will farm the land according to the rules of good husbandry.

Mr. MacLaren

Is there any objection to his renting it?

Mr. Williams

In many cases where land has been taken over from a farmer, we have offered the former work on his own farm on condition that he farmed according to the directions of the county war agricultural executive committee. As long as we take measures of an extraordinary nature in the middle of a war and as long as we are satisfied that the land will not be abused in future as it has been in the past, I think the time-limit of five years imposed in the Bill will give ample time for all those revolutions referred by my hon. Friend the Member for Burslem (Air. MacLaren). If, as he stated, the land will go back to the people vey quickly, with or without compensation, why should he worry about this Clause? Why does he concern himself about 150,000 acres if millions of acres are going back to the people very quickly? My right hon. Friend and I are concerned with winning the war and feeding the people. I hope my right hon. Friend will see that we have at any rate tried to ensure that we shall not restore to the original owners any land unless we are satisfied that they will be better farmers in future than they have been in the past. Having taught the landowner a lesson—having taken possession of the land to begin with, acquired the land later so that large sums of money could be spent upon it and real agricultural work done, and then saying to the landowner, ''You can have the land back now at a value determined by an arbitrator"—having taught the landowner that lesson, which ought to last for the rest of his life, or at any rate until that time arrives when we shall be dealing not with 150,000 acres but with millions of acres, I hope my hon. Friend will see the wisdom of not pressing the Amendment, and will accept our gesture that we will not hand the land back to the landowners unless we are satisfied that they will make the maximum use of it in future.

Mr. Mander

I am afraid I cannot agree that the Parliamentary Secretary has made any gesture in regard to the Amendment. His explanation has not given me any satisfaction, although I have a great deal of sympathy with him at his having to stand at that Box and put forward such unfortunate views as he has done. He said that he is thinking about winning the war and not about the period afterwards, but I venture to say that most people are thinking about both, winning the war and getting a better world afterwards, and a better world in the agricultural sense, too. I thought the most regrettable part of what my right hon. Friend said was when he definitely committed himself to the view that, after all that has happened, after the Government have acquired the land because the landowner was not farming it properly, and in spite of all the progress in thought and tendencies of the age, nevertheless when the war is over it will be right and proper to return to 1939, and to say that those who were landowners in 1939 and who are being displaced by the State at the present time must be reinstated in exactly the positions in which they were. That is my fundamental objection to the remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary, although I quite appreciate the good sense of many of the points he made on other grounds. I think that is a lamentable course for him to have to defend, and one that is not in keeping with the thought of the nation at the present time.

Major Owen

I want to raise one point on which I hope the Minister will be able to give some explanation. This Clause enables a landlord to repurchase his farm, after a certain period, when the Minister decides to give him an opportunity of buying it. At the present time, tenant-farmers are being displaced by the county war agricultural executive committees, but I cannot see anything in the Clause which provides for the reinstatement of farmers.

The Deputy-Chairman

That is a matter which the hon. and gallant Member may raise on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill", but not on this Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Sir G. Courthope

I beg to move, in page 8, line 14, to leave out "considering a report of the Committee," and to insert: having given an opportunity to any persons appearing to him to be likely to be affected of making representations and considered any such representations made. With your permission, Colonel Clifton Brown, and that of the Committee, I should like to deal at the same time with this Amendment and the following Amendments in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Pym). These Amendments are not put forward in any sense of hostility towards the Bill, but for the purpose of removing two possible obstacles which have arisen since this rather complicated Clause appeared in print. It has been suggested that it is only reasonable that the Minister, before certifying that land should not be handed back to an individual because it would not be properly managed, should give that individual an opportunity of being heard and of having his case considered. I have no doubt that the Minister has every intention of doing that, but it would remove some misgivings if a provision to that effect were inserted in the Bill. Secondly, it has been pointed out that the Clause will be operative for five years after the end of the war, and it may well be that in some districts during those five years the county war agricultural executive committees may cease to exist. It would not be right that the Minister should be hampered in giving his certificate in reference to a farm in a district in which there was no longer such a committee.

Mr. T. Williams

We are quite willing to accept the Amendment. We quite agree that there may or may not be in existence after the war the committees referred to in the Schedule. Certainly the words referred to will be necessary for the Minister to take into account any representations that might be made by persons interested in the land. We feel that the Amendment is quite acceptable.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Pym

I beg to move, in page 8, line 41, to leave out "be," and to insert at the date of the offer have been. The object of this Amendment is to provide that the date when the offer was made shall be the date for valuation.

Mr. T. Williams

We are quite willing to accept this Amendment. We think it is far better that the date upon which the offer was made should be the date for valuation.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir G. Courthope

I beg to move, in page 9, line 7, to leave out "one month," and to insert "three months."

It is possible that the persons to whom an offer is made may be scattered over the world, and one month may be insufficient time to enable it to reach them. In order to meet our point, I am asking the Minister to extend the period from one month to three.

Mr. T. Williams

We are quite prepared to accept this Amendment, because a period of one month may be too short where an owner of land may be abroad.

Mr. T. Smith

Will this provision be advertised?

Mr. Williams:

The period of one month is too short for advertising, and, therefore, I think a period of three months would be more suitable.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Pym

I beg to move, in page 9, line 9, at the end, to insert: and where the person to whom the offer is made has accepted the offer he shall be entitled to withdraw such acceptance at any time before the expiration of the said period. The object of this Amendment is to ascertain what is the intention in regard to this offer of resale. Sub-section (3) states: The said offer shall be an offer to sell the land for an estate in fee simple absolute in possession …. I assume that the form in which the offer will be made will be by the issue of a printed document, asking the owner whether or not he will avail himself of the offer. The question arises whether it is an offer at a price or merely an offer. The Minister, having satisfied himself that the owner is a fit person, would ask whether he wished to re-buy the land and the owner would ask the price. A discussion might take place for three mouths, and at the end of that period, if agreement had not been reached, the question of arbitration would arise. The point I wished to ask is this: Is the offer tied to a price? Could the Minister ask the owner whether or not he was going to avail himself of the offer, telling him that the question of price did not arise?

Mr. Hudson

We have just accepted an Amendment to extend the period from one to three months, and I think that ought to be sufficient for any reasonable being; one has to assume that in these matters reason will prevail. I do not think we can really be expected to deal with the position of a man saying first of all that he will accept the offer, and then that he will not accept the offer. Either he accepts it or he does not.

Mr. Pym

Accepts what?

Mr. Hudson

Accepts the offer.

Mr. Pym

What offer?

Mr. Hudson

The offer to re-purchase.

Mr. Garro Jones (Aberdeen, North)

For once, I think the Minister has missed the point. This Bill envisages a situation in which an offer of resale is made to the original owner. The owner accepts that offer, and a binding contract has been made with no price fixed. Obviously that is an impossible situation. The man is utterly unable to say whether he will buy the land or not until he knows what sort of price is to be asked. I think the confusion has arisen because in drafting the Bill the term "offer" has been confused with what is known as "first refusal." The Minister is going to give an owner a first refusal. I have never been able to understand what that term means. I believe it is merely a request to the owner of property not to sell until the person concerned has had time to consider whether he is willing to make an offer of purchase. I think this matter requires a little further consideration, because it is a point of great substance.

Mr. Hudson

If it is the feeling of the Committee that some further consideration ought to be given to the matter, I am anxious to meet their wishes. I will consider it during the week-end, and there will be an opportunity, of course, for recasting the Clause in another place.

Mr. Pym

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir William Wayland (Canterbury)

T beg to move, in page 9, line 24, to leave out "may," and to insert "shall."

The Minister must offer land back to the previous owner within a period of five years and, if the owner does not accept, he may put the land on the market for sale. My Amendment would substitute "shall" for "may." I feel firmly that agriculture is far more likely to be prosperous if the farmer owns the land than if he hires it. I was particularly struck when a Parliamentary party who visited Norway and the Norwegian Minister of Agriculture told us that in that very democratic country 95 per cent. of the land was owned by small farmers. I am certain that, if we want to ensure that agriculture pulls its weight to the greatest extent after the war, we want to make as many owner fanners as we possibly can, and the more farmers who own the land, the better and the more profitable will the land be. One of the drawbacks of letting land for farming in this country has been that leases are usually for five or seven years and sometimes, though not often, as low as three. It is natural that the tenant will not put everything into the land, and, generally speaking, when the tenancy finishes, the land is not in such good heart as it was when he first took it over. That is especially the case with grass. The tenant may cut the grass year after year for hay if he has hired the land from someone else. If he was the owner, he would not ruin it by cutting it year after year. He would manure it and conserve it. On the whole I am confident that the future agricultural prosperity of the country relies upon two things—support from the Government of the day—

The Deputy-Chairman

We are not discussing the whole agricultural future of the country but merely whether we shall put in "may" or "shall."

Sir W. Wayland

I am confident that if the word "shall" is substituted for "may," it will be better for British agriculture.

Sir J. Lamb

Speaking for myself, for the reasons that I gave previously, I hope that this Amendment will not be accepted. I can see very great advantage in the Government having an opportunity of retaining some of this land in their own hands and having to demonstrate the practicability of some theories which have been put forward. There has been a claim for many years for the costing of production. It is a very difficult thing for a farmer, or an association of farmers, to give costings, but, when they have these farms in their own hands, the Government will have something to guide them in the fixation of prices in the future. If they can produce it themselves, there will be some argument that others shall do the same, but, if they cannot, the farmer will be supported in his argument that an article cannot be produced in practice except at a certain price.

Mr. T. Williams

For the very sound reasons that the hon. Gentleman has put forward, we are bound to resist the Amendment. I think it is quite right that, where the terms of Sub-section (1) have been complied with, and the original owner desires to repurchase his land, the Minister should not be compelled to sell merely for the sake of selling, One can think of many uses to which such land might be put. I hope the Committee will not compel the Minister to sell whether he feels disposed to or not.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Garro Jones

I have taken a certain amount of interest in the matter of the hardship imposed on tenant farmers struggling for a living out of their farms with insufficient capital. No doubt great hardship is inflicted on them when they are turned out of their farms. What provision is made for them? Are they to be given any option to be reinstated as tenants, and, if not, what is to be their position as regards the tenant right valuation? It arises on this Clause, because provision is made for the persons to whom the land must be offered when the Minister decides to dispose of it.

Mr. Hudson

We are dealing here with the ownership of land, and the hon. Member is talking about the position of the tenant farmer. The original tenant farmer, if it were the case of land farmed by a tenant, has disappeared. This is only a question of our offering the farm to the original owner.

Major Owen

The Parliamentary Secretary rather led the Committee to infer that the landlord would be able to repurchase his farm on condition that he promised to be a good boy in the future. Why is not the same opportunity given to the tenant farmer? He also may have learned his lesson. Why is he not to have the opportunity to get his farm back and cultivate it in accordance with the rules of good husbandry?

Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 11.—(Prevention of bee diseases.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Earl Winterton

Any speech made on this Clause might easily give rise to some amusement. The keeping of bees in wartime, for example, by cottagers who live near moors, has greatly increased, and my right hon. Friend will agree that it has been a valuable addition to the food supply and the sustenance of the public. I have no doubt that his advisers have told him this Clause is necessary and that some sort of control over bee-keepers is desirable. I would ask him, however, to give us an assurance that the administration of the Clause will be carried out in the mildest form possible, because I am sure the Committee will realise that some small, possibly ignorant, cottager occupying a small cottage near a moor would be rather alarmed if the very full powers in this Clause were brought to his notice. I hope that my right hon. Friend will tell us how he proposes to put the Clause into operation. I would remind the Committee that we have had in respect of agriculture and, indeed, of all other industries, some unfortunate examples since the war began of controllers and officials being appointed who greatly harass individuals carrying on industry. This does not apply in the main to the large areas of land, but in a large degree to the small owners and cottagers.

Mr. Hudson

Although, no doubt, it may be true that the small cottager has increased the number of his bees, I am sure that my noble Friend would be the first to admit that that does not necessarily mean that his bees may not be spreading disease or that they ought to be outside the purview of any control. As I said in the Second Reading Debate, we have been in close touch on this matter with the various associations of bee-keepers. They have promised to put representatives on the strong advisory committee, of which an hon. Member of this House is a member, which will go into the powers given in this Clause in order to advise me what steps I should take to carry them out.

Earl Winterton

That entirely satisfies me provided representatives of this industry are being consulted.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 12.—(Application to Scotland.)

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Wedderburn)

I beg to move, in page 10, line 38, at the end, to insert: and in the said sections the expression 'the Committee' means the Agricultural Executive Committee referred to in subsection (1) of section thirty-one of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous War Provisions) Act, 1940. The definition of "Committee" in Clause 15 does not properly describe the Committee for Scotland, and this Amendment makes the necessary definition.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Wedderburn

I beg to move, in page 11, line 7, to leave out "installation of a".

On the Second Reading the House was afraid that these words might preclude the payment of drainage grants for the improvement of existing water supplies. It is not our intention to preclude such payments or to confine the grants to new installations. In order to make that plain we propose to leave out these words.

Mr. Snadden (Perth and Kinross, Western)

I raised this point in the Second Reading Debate and I am grateful to the Minister for his proposal to change the wording. There is only one point about which I should like an assurance. The Minister of Agriculture said on Second Reading that this provision was meant to apply in cases where, owing to the ploughing campaign, stock had been moved from arable land to hill land and the owner found there was no available water supply on such land. I would like an assurance that this does not preclude a water supply being available for other cases; that the grant is not intended simply for cases in which, through the ploughing policy, stock is driven away from arable land to land where supplies are not available, but that it will apply to all cases.

Mr. Wedderburn

The distinction which my hon. Friend has drawn 15. not one that I have considered. I will have to look into the matter and if I find that the Bill does not make clear my hon. Friend's point I will see that consideration is given to making the necessary alteration at a later stage.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 13 to 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Prevention of speculation in land.)

For the purpose of preventing speculation in land during the present war, and for five years afterwards, no sale of agricultural land shall be made at a higher cost per acre than the cost in the particular locality in which the land is situate prevailing at the thirty-first day of March, one thousand nine hundred and thirty-nine, except for the addition of a fair value per acre for the cost of improvements made in the meantime, and the Minister shall require that the vendor before the completion of any sale shall apply to the County Agricultural Committee, or such successors as the Minister shall appoint, for a declaration of the "average cost per acre at the date heretofore mentioned, and he shall submit to them such information as shall be required in regard to the cost of improvements made thereon which the committee or its successors, if satisfied, shall authorise the vendor to add to the cost per acre for the purpose of sale.—[Dr. Russell Thomas."]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Dr. Russell Thomas (Southampton)

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

I have put down this new Clause because I find that there is a considerable amount of feeling as to the possibility of speculation in land since the war began by speculators both as individuals and as private companies. We see articles in the newspapers advising land buying and covering it up with such- suggestions as that it is high time our people returned to the land. Some of the people buying land are doing so not because they really want to take a part in the work of the soil; they are doing it in order to make future profits out of the possibility of building development or by getting a higher price for the improvements others have put into the land. In my Clause I have suggested that the vendor of the land should not be able to sell the land until he gets a valuation from the county agricultural committee of the land as it was in March, 1939, and that he should have to produce documents to show the value of the improvements. People will say that it is almost impossible for the committee to value land and that land valuation schemes have been tried before and have been a hopeless failure. I believe, however, that the county committees and the district committees working under them have gathered a tremendous knowledge of the land which can be used for this purpose. I can conceive of nothing that would be of greater benefit to the future of this country than that we should stop land speculation during the war.

I shall not go in detail into the effect of speculation between the two wars, but I would point out that 500,000 acres of our country were imprisoned under bricks and mortar in the name of estate development. I shall not go into the state of agriculture between the two wars when the soil of our country was more derelict than if the German hordes had laid it waste. But the gamblers got hold of the best of this land. It consisted of land near towns, land which was fairly flat and well drained owing to the improvements made by local authorities, and land situated on great bypass roads. Farmers who owned small farms near these localities—farms of 150 acres which are so common in England— who found that they were making only about £3 a week owing to the condition of agriculture, said to themselves, "Why should we work at all when the gold of Midas lies around our doors?" Land which was worth £30 an acre was sold by these people for as much as £400, £500, or £600 an acre, and great fortunes were made in that way. But those who were not fortunate enough to own their own farms, the tenant farmers who wanted to live by working on the soil, existed in jeopardy every day of their lives. They had the vision that, at any moment, their best fields might be sold above their heads. They could not foresee the future. It was no good looking ahead.

On the Second Reading of this Bill the Secretary of State for Scotland asked for party co-operation and party unity. I see no cause of disunity if some Clause of this kind is inserted in the Bill, except between the rest of the community and the gamblers who live like parasites on its back sucking away its very life-blood. If we adopt a Clause of this kind we shall go a long way towards helping British agriculture, and we shall go a long way in preventing the land of this country being held to ransom. We shall go a long way to preserve the heritage that is ours, and our children will still be able to see beds of violets blue And fresh-blown roses washed in dew "; and they will still be able to hear The lark begin its flight, And, singing, startle the dull night From its watch-tower in the skies, 'Til the dapple dawn doth rise. I believe that the stolidity of our people, our determination, our inability to acknowledge defeat in the hour of the gravest dangers, spring, in spite of four or five generations of urbanisation, from the soil of our beloved country; and I believe that every fibre of our being is still nourished through the roots so deeply laid in the land of England by our ancestors over so many hundreds of years. I believe that Lord Baldwin was right—perhaps it was one of the few occasions on which he was really right—when he said that there is something in the breasts of all of us which responds to the burning of the wood fires on an Autumn evening; that there is something which stirs the heart of all of us when we see the ploughman disappear over the crest of the distant hill.

It is in this spirit that I ask the Committee to accept this Clause, or, if the Minister can think of something better, it is in this spirit that I appeal to him to prevent the land of this country being held up to auction; to help to preserve it in its purity and in the beauty with which nature has so richly endowed it for, the delight and use of future generations; and, at the same time, to help those who till the land and who earn their living upon the soil to attain greater safety and greater security.

Mr. De la Bère (Evesham)

Someone must initiate it. There must be a beginning.

Major Owen

I am very glad to find that my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton (Dr. Russell Thomas) has been persuaded to put down this Clause. I am not sure that it is the best Clause that could be devised for the purpose, but I would make an appeal to the Minister, if he is not satisfied with the Clause, to do something as quickly as possible to check the ramp which is now taking place. I have here a copy of the "Times" for today. I should like hon. Members to look at the advertisement columns, which include an advertisement of the estate which I mentioned in a previous speech. That estate was originally sold on 22nd September and half of it was bought by a firm of London auctioneers. In less than a fortnight they are publicly advertising that part for resale. The sale is to be held on 3rd November. Last Saturday I had an opportunity of seeing the tenants on that land. What a tragic meeting it was. They are people who have lived for generation after generation in those farms, into which they have put their very best for all those years. The proof of that is that the war agricultural committee in my county, which is a very active and live committee, has not found it necessary to dispossess one of those tenants from his farm. All have worked according to the rules of good husbandry for all these generations, but now they are the victims of the most rabid kind of speculation.

The advertisement refers to one farm, the chief farm, which it mentions by name, Bryn Nodel. It is up for sale with, as the advertisement says, "260 or up to 476 acres." It has been a farm of 476 acres. What are those speculators doing? They go to the tenant and they tell him, "We will sell you this farm, but we are going to take away some of the very best land and add it on to some other holding." That is one excellent way of ruining farming in this country. What do those auctioneers know about that land? They know nothing at all about it. They do not know that this good land is necessary in order to enable the farmer profitably to farm the poorer land. The same thing is happening with another farm. As further proof of the fact that this is pure speculation I find in the advertisement the lines: Lovely camping and building sites with frontage to the fine sandy beach at Hell's Mouth on the rocky and romantic northern coast. It is purely a speculation by a firm here in London that has not the slightest interest in or the slightest knowledge of the conditions of farming, and with no interest whatsoever in the production of food. I do not know whether this Clause is the right kind of Clause to introduce, but I beg the Minister, and I know that I have the sympathy of the whole Committee with me in the matter, to give us an assurance to-day that before we come to the Report stage he will bring in a Clause which will deal with this matter and finally prevent these speculators from spoliating the land and exploiting the farming industry.

Mr. T. Williams

I rise early to reply on the proposed new Clause, because we are very anxious to obtain the remaining stages of the Bill. Hon. Members will appreciate the need for getting a move on with drainage and other matters dealt, with in the Bill. Let me say to the Mover and Seconder of the proposed new Clause that my right hon. Friend and myself are utterly opposed to speculation in land, and that the matter is receiving attention. However, this is neither the right Bill nor the right Clause in which to tackle a problem of this kind. As printed, the Clause can be shown immediately to be impracticable. Owing to the variation in the inherent value of agricultural land in particular localities, it would be impossible for a county war agricultural committee, which, in any case, has not been constituted to act as a valuation authority, to ascertain or declare a flat-rate per acre for agricultural land in each locality. Moreover, the existence of a house and buildings, and their character and state of repair, have a bearing on the value per acre of an agricultural holding. Without wasting the time of the Committee, I repeat that the matter is receiving attention. We are utterly opposed to this speculation, but we can do nothing with the Clause as submitted.

Major Owen

Will the Minister give a pledge that legislation will be brought in immediately to deal with the matter, and that it shall be retrospective?

Earl Winterton

I support most heartily what my hon. and gallant Friend has said. We are in agreement with the proposal, which is a most modest one. but I agree with the Minister that it might not be practicable to put it into the Clause. The Committee knows that I have persistently supported action in this direction, and there is no difference of opinion on any side of the Committee, so far as I know, as to the urgency of the matter. It is one of the biggest questions with which we have to deal. It is rather remarkable, as an hon. Friend has reminded me, that, while we hear much talk of reconstruction and of building after, the war, not until this scandal is raised by Members below the Gangway do we hear anything on the subject from the Government. There has been considerable criticism in the Press on this matter. It was referred to in practically every Sunday newspaper, where it was observed that, once again, when a real scandal had been brought to the notice of the Government, all the Government could say was that the matter was under consideration.

I beg of the Minister to go to the War Cabinet, and to the Prime Minister him self, and to represent to him the strong feeling that has existed during the Debates on this Bill, on Second Reading and in Committee, that this is a grave scandal. I am sure that all my hon. Friends who believe in the private ownership of land will agree with me that nothing is more calculated to injure our case than the action of these abominable sharks, war profiteers, who are attempting to buy up agricultural land.

Sir J. Lamb

I quite appreciate that the Government may not be able to do anything immediately, but I hope the Minister will consider the making of a statement by the Government that legislation will be retrospective.

Mr. Tinker (Leigh)

Will the Minister give us some assurance that action will be taken in this matter, about which everybody feels concern? We ought not to be put off with the statement that the matter will be looked into afterwards. Speculation in land is serious and grievous, and everywhere we go we are being asked what is to happen. We want some definite pledge that the matter will be followed up immediately, so that the position will be put in order.

Mr. Hudson

Obviously, I cannot give any pledge on behalf of the Government, and I cannot commit my colleagues. All I can say, speaking as Minister of Agriculture, is that speculation in land is abhorrent to me. One of the troubles I am up against to-day throughout the country is that many people were forced to buy their farms during the boom of 1921, which was followed by a slump. It is the land speculation of that time that is the cause of much of the bad cultivation with which I am having to deal to-day. I assure the Committee that my Department and I share their feelings; but that is a different thing from committing my colleagues to a major proposal of this kind. All I can say is that we are considering the question and that I will do my best to see that it is considered urgently.

Major Owen

Will the Minister give the Committee an undertaking that he will put this matter before the Prime Minister immediately? We shall be satisfied with that undertaking. If he will give us an undertaking that the matter will be submitted forthwith, without any further delay, to the Prime Minister and the War Cabinet, we shall be satisfied.

Mr. Wedgwood (Newcastle-under-Lyme)

Would the Minister kindly call the attention of the War Cabinet to the opinion expressed in this Committee that the only possible way of stopping speculation in land is to tax land values?

Dr. Russell Thomas

After hearing the assurances of the Minister—I trust that he will do something in the matter—I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion. I should like to add that I put down the Clause because there was a considerable amount of feeling on the matter. Although I feared the proposed new Clause was impracticable, I wanted to ventilate the question in this Committee so that the land of our country should not be put up for barter and be a stake in a gamblers' den.

Mr. Stokes

It always has been.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

First Schedule agreed to.

SECOND SCHEDULE.—(Recovery from Drainage Boards of expenses of certain drainage works.)

Amendment made: In page 16, line 18, leave out "Part of this."—[Mr. T. Williams.]

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

THIRD SCHEDULE.—(Provisions applicable to recovery of expenses from owners of land.)

Sir G. Courthope

I beg to move, in page 16, line 41, to leave out "one month," and to insert "three months."

It is felt that the time laid down, one month, for the payment in this case is rather rushing matters, and we are asking the Minister to agree to extend that period.

Mr. T. Williams

This Amendment, and those which follow it, arc readily accepted.

Amendment agreed to.

Farther Amendments made:

In page 17, line 3, leave our "month," and insert "three months."

In line 18, leave out "month," and insert "three months."

In line 20, leave out "fourteen days," and insert "one month."—[Sir G. Courthope.]

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Fourth Schedule agreed' to.

Bill reported, with Amendments.

Ordered, That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Hudson.]

Mr. Garro Jones

On a point of Order. I do not wish—and indeed it would be too late—to contest the Motion which has just been passed, but I should like to ask whether it is in accordance with the practice of the House to bring in a Motion for the suspension of a Standing Order on Government Business when a large number of Members have left the House believing that the custom of moving that Motion at an earlier stage in the day's Business would have been maintained. I do not wish to contest it at this moment, but I think that the right hon. Gentleman should tell us that he docs not intend to make this a precedent.

Mr. Tinker

I was taken completely by surprise. It is a new thing altogether, and although I had not the temerity to get up straight away, I felt that there was something wrong in the whole business that required some explanation. Members should be notified; it is as well that they should know.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I think the hon. Member ought to know that these Resolutions were originally passed in Secret Session. We cannot therefore very well advertise them.

Mr. Hudson

I should like to explain that I moved this Motion in order to enable us to carry out the programme announced last week, which was Committee and if possible further stages of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill; Committee and remaining stages of the Prolongation of Parliament Bill, and of the Local Elections Bill, in order that the three Bills might go to another place.

Mr. Stokes

Surely this puts us into a very funny position. The normal procedure is that the suspension of Standing Orders is made at the end of Questions?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

Not under the present Rule.

Mr. Stokes

Well, it seems an astonishing procedure that the Government should hold it in their hands to suspend Standing Orders at any moment.

Mr. Silverman (Nelson and Colne)

I agree with the decision of the House in passing the Resolution, but I think the point made by my hon. Friend has not been met. We ought to have an assurance that it will not become the recognised practice of the Government to move Resolutions of this kind at such a very late stage in the Sitting and without giving hon. Members notice of the intention to move it, so that, if they desire, they may oppose it.

Mr. Garro Jones

The right hon. Gentleman must see that a point of substance has been raised, and unless he can make some statement now we shall have to raise the matter after Questions at a future Sitting.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. James Stuart)

It certainly will not be a practice of the Government. This is the second time in my recollection that it has been found necessary to do this. I quite agree with what hon. Members have said; it would be a regrettable habit to get into, and I regret that it should have been necessary. It was hoped that we could have completed the Business, but owing to the time this was doubtful. It is a matter which affects the Sittings in another place. I hope that, with this assurance, the House will be prepared to continue with the Business.

Bill, as amended, considered; read the Third time, and passed.