AGRICULTURE (DISPOSSESSED FARMERS) (Hansard, 8 June 1944)

§ Mr. Loverseed (Eddisbury)
I wish to raise a matter of vital interest to the agricultural community of this country—the question of the right of farmers and the agricultural community to appeal against decisions to dispossess them made by war agricultural committees. I raised this question almost a year ago and received from the Minister at that time an unsatisfactory reply. I gave notice at that time of my intention to raise it on the Adjournment and in the meantime I have made exhaustive inquiries throughout the country, in order to be able to present a favourable and reasonable case. I am very sorry indeed to see that the Minister is not in his place because in the course of my speech I shall probably make some remarks which may be interpreted by the Minister as an unfair attack upon him. I see that my right hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary is in his place to answer, and I can only hope that he will not act as a shock-absorber, but will reinforce my arguments with the Minister, as he is well able to do.
1630 The case I am making is no defence of the inefficient farmer. We realise to-day that it is essential for the needs of the community that the maximum amount of foodstuffs shall be produced by the farmers of this country. I have no sympathy whatsoever with the inefficient farmer who will not pull his weight, but, at the same time, in accordance with the principles of British justice, before any man in this country is dispossessed of his farm, his land, or his home, and in fact of everything he possesses, he should at least have the right to a fair trial and an appeal against any decision to dispossess him. I realise the need, especially at this moment, for the maximum production of foodstuffs in this country, but I realise that the vast majority of the farmers of this country are responsible men, who have all their lives been devoted to the land and to the production of food, and I realise, too, that they are fully conscious of the need to produce from the land at this time the maximum possible amount of food. Had they been relied upon for their co-operation, and responsible to committees in which they had complete faith, then they would not have been found wanting at the time of our country's need.
The present methods of selection or appointment of county war agricultural executive committees and the extraordinary powers which were given under Defence Regulation 51 to dispossess farmers, who, in their opinion alone, are guilty of bad husbandry, violate the fundamental principles of British justice. If I go from this House and, in full view of thousands of my fellow countrymen, commit a murder, I shall probably be hanged, but before I am hanged, I shall at least have the right of appearing before a jury composed of my own fellow countrymen, and, even if I am found guilty of the crime, I shall have the right to appeal to an appeal court in this country and, if necessary, to another place. That is British justice as I see it. These are the rights of British citizens. Why should a farmer who has carried on through 20 bleak years be denied the British justice to which any criminal in this country is entitled? It is entirely wrong, and against those very principles for which we are fighting to-day.
The method of appointment of these committees is not in accordance with the 1631 democratic principles of which we in this country are so proud. The war agricultural committees are composed of men appointed by the Minister of Agriculture and his representatives. I do not know upon what qualifications they are appointed, and in looking at some of the committees now in existence, I am surprised that some of the people should have been appointed at all. There is one committee in this country, to which I shall refer later, presided over by an amateur farmer, whose chief interest is banking, and another is presided over by an engineer. When I look at the composition of some of these committees, I cannot believe that they have been selected for any particular knowledge of agriculture. I cannot help feeling that covering many of the acts of some of these committees are local prejudices which are not in accordance with the principles of British justice. If we appear before a court and a jury of our fellow countrymen, then we have the right, under British law, to protest against any member of the jury before whom we appear. The British farmer to-day has not that right, he cannot challenge the position on the executive committee of any member of it; in fact, these committees are judge and jury in their own case and that, I feel, is again a violation of British justice and a violation which no consideration of expediency at this time can condone.
I am prepared to admit that, perhaps, the majority of farmers dispossessed by war agricultural committees may have deserved the fate which they have found, but I cannot help thinking at the same time, that there are also many farmers who have not deserved the fate which they have received at the hands of these committees. I believe there are many injustices to which farmers have submitted in this land. I believe that many farmers have been dispossessed of their land and their homes for insufficient cause; in fact, there are even suggestions in certain cases that perhaps some personal considerations have entered into these things. An inhabitant of a town or a city in this country is amply protected by the Rent Restrictions Acts. If his landlord wishes to evict him, he cannot do so without going to a court of justice and obtaining an eviction order. Why should such autocratic power be given to a few nominees of the Minister of Agriculture to evict men 1632 from their homes and from their lands, to throw their furniture out on to the street to rot from those homes in which they have been brought up and in which they have tried so desperately to serve the community and to obtain a bare subsistence living for themselves?
During the past year I have sought to analyse various cases which have been brought to my notice. There is one case in particular which I would like to bring before this House to-day as an example of the sort of thing which has been happening to the farmers in this country since this war started. The case is not in my own constituency; fortunately Cheshire is blessed with a war agricultural committee which has not worked too badly. There have been certain cases, but taking them by and large, it has not worked too badly—in fact, in certain directions it has done a wonderful job of work. But not every county is blessed with such a good committee as we have in Cheshire, and I have found from the correspondence I have had about other things one committee which seems to be far worse than any of the others. I raise this as an example, with the full permission of my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Rye (Sir G. Courthope), the case of a dispossession by the East Sussex War Agricultural Executive Committee of a farmer, Mr. Wyndham Hartnell, who was an owner-occupier of his own farm and land, a farm of some 200 acres, from which he was dispossessed about a year ago by that committee.
Mr. Hartnell suffered severely during the 20 years preceding this war and only by his enterprise in finding and making his own markets for his produce was he able to stay on his farm at all. To make matters worse, shortly before this war he suffered severely as a result of sewage pollution from which he lost his whole herd of cattle, and from which he incurred a loss of some £2,000. Despite this, he managed to struggle through and effected considerable improvements on his farm. In the autumn of 1941, however, despite the improvements which have been made, he appears to have incurred the displeasure of his county war agricultural executive committee, who then wrote to him telling him of their intention to dispossess him. He was eventually evicted from his farm just about a year ago, despite representations which had been made to the Minis- 1633 ter and to the war agricultural committee from many very responsible sources. To the representations made, the Minister replied that his Land Commissioner and his war agricultural committee had investigated the case and had substantiated the findings of the executive and he therefore confirmed its findings.
I prefer to accept the word of a very well-known local land agent and valuer, a man of the highest repute and integrity, who knows the district, who knows the land and the farms in that neighbourhood, who has written many letters which I have here—

§ Mr. Godfrey Nicholson (Farnham)
May I ask the hon. Gentleman to clear up one point? He said that he raised this with the approval of the right hon. and gallant Member for Rye (Sir G. Courthope). Does that mean with his permission, or that he agrees with the point of view taken by the hon. Gentleman?

§ Mr. Loverseed
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. The right hon. and gallant Member for Rye stated that he was supporting this and agreed with me. He does realise some of the difficulties in the way of appointing tribunals—

§ Mr. G. Nicholson
But he does not necessarily agree with the hon. Gentleman's conclusions?

§ Mr. Loverseed
I would not be prepared to say that he agrees necessarily with my conclusions. In these letters from this reputable estate agent and valuer, who knows the district and land and the people he is dealing with, he stated: I am of the emphatic opinion that the Committee would not be justified in taking over the farm, and I am very surprised that a proposal to that effect has been made. There are many other letters of a similar nature. In reply to a statement by the Minister that the case has been examined by his land commissioner, who is an independent examiner, this valuer states: It seems contrary to the accepted principles of British justice that the Minister should give a decision on ex parte evidence. It appears that the Ministry's Land Commissioner, Captain Banham, works hand in glove with the War Agricultural Committee and can in no sense be regarded as independent and impartial. 1634 I contend that the machinery through which a farmer can appeal, can put forward his case, is quite inadequate and that, as this gentleman states, all these media are working hand in glove. There is no real appeal. This farmer was dispossessed without knowing what complaints, what charges, had been levied against him. In the opinion of many other experienced people, that farm should never have been taken over. Since it was taken over, far from showing increased production it has shown decreased production. For instance, acres of orchard which this farmer had used for grazing sheep are to-day neglected and useless for anything. The farmer had grown damson trees along his hedge-rows, trees which were doing no harm and which were useful as well as being an ornament, yet they have been pulled up, together with many acres of orchard. Land which had been growing rhubarb and other vegetables is now completely wasted. I could produce photographs, if necessary, to show the state of this land before and since dispossession. The farm is in a far worse condition than ever it was during Mr. Hartnell's occupation.
I could cite other instances of land under the jurisdiction of this committee producing far less to-day than it should be producing. There is the case of 58 acres of some of the finest fattening land in the country, which was producing one ton of beef per acre, and which was taken for arable land. In the first year it was ploughed and laid fallow and in the second year it was planted, by the same committee, with flax. It was allowed to deteriorate and the flax was burnt. In the third year sugar beet was planted, after the land had been heavily manured, and 50 land girls worked on it during the summer. In August the whole crop was ploughed in because it was not worth harvesting. These cases prove the inefficiency of this committee, the chairman of which is the banker to whom I referred a short time ago. Acting with that committee, as an official, is a man who a short time ago was prosecuted for producing unclean milk. These committees should be selected from people who are best able to judge and make the most of the resources of the land of this country. The powers which have been given to them are a violation of British justice, and represent some of the worst features against which we are fighting to-day. It 1635 will be argued that the Minister of Agriculture has done a lot for British agriculture. To that I will agree. Hitler did a lot for Germany but we do not agree with the methods he used, any more than we agree with the autocratic methods by which the Minister is attempting to deal with the farmers. My request is that tribunals should be set up which will guarantee to the farmers at least that same justice to which any criminal of this country is entitled.

§ Mr. Godfrey Nicholson (Farnham)
The hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Lover-seed) has raised a very important and interesting subject. It is remarkable that he, coming from the party he represents, should have raised this matter, because, although I do not doubt the sincerity of either himself or his colleagues in the House, he must be aware that the very proper stand he has taken on behalf of the liberty of the individual, and the rights of justice even to an inefficient minority, are in direct contradiction to the tenets of his party.

§ Mr. Loverseed
This is not a party question at all, but a question of right and justice, and it does not conflict in any way with nay other views. May I request that party be kept out of this?

§ Mr. Nicholson
An individual Member of the House cannot be distinguished from his political opinions. His own leader points out in his views as regards the employment of the citizens of this country, that the State must have complete power and that recalcitrants must go to a very tolerable concentration camp. He even reluctantly praises Hitler for some of his methods. The moral that I am trying to draw, not in a party spirit, is that when you get the State taking a direct and firsthand part in a trade or industry, sooner or later the people in that trade or industry, the minority of inefficient farmers or workers, will not fall in with the State's orders and wishes as to conditions of employment or wages and so on, or it may be an aircraft factory which is thought to be inefficient, and the State is forced to use all its authority and prestige and all the power at its disposal to snuff them out. That is why we on this side of the House are very much opposed to Socialism, even the peculiar hybrid form of Socialism that the hon. Member represents. 1636 If I may go one step further, it is for that reason that we hold that Socialism is the ante-chamber to Fascism.
Coming to the matter of the hon. Member's speech, I hold that the House has been remiss in its duty in allowing the State so much power, against which there is little or no appeal, in the prosecution of the war. We have failed in our duty in allowing many of these Regulations to go through. The Minister of Agriculture can, no doubt, make out a case for giving these powers, without appeal, to the war executive committees. He can say that, if there is an appeal, it will take so much time, and a dispossession order would be so hard to get confirmed that a committee would be reluctant to try to enforce it, and we should thus lose in efficiency. I accept that argument but, at the same time, I think the farmer should be left with the feeling that he has some protection against what he may regard as an arbitrary decision. The sort of farmer who is dispossessed is very often a crank, a person with a little bit of a twist. He may already have a grievance against life, and it is a pity that there should be more farmers with a sense of grievance than there are already.
For that reason I think the hon. Member has made a right and proper protest, but I should very much regret if it went out from the House that there was any large volume of opinion which was hypercritical, or even critical, of these committees. Those with which I have come into contact work very well indeed. They are composed in the main of working farmers who give up their time, without any remuneration and with very little thanks, even meeting with some hostility, and old friendships are broken and that sort of thing. They have not had quite the meed of praise from the Minister which I hoped he would have given. I am responsible for a fairly large farm as a trustee and I have agricultural contacts in various counties. I have heard nothing but praise and gratitude and respect for the immense amount of work these committees put in, very often only to get abused by the Minister. When I say that, I am thinking of an incident that happened in Somersetshire a year or two ago. Do not let us lose our heads over this remarkable stand for the rights of man coming from a totalitarian party. Let us get some form of appeal put into the Regu- 1637 tion, but let it, at the same time, go out that we are profoundly grateful to the members of these committees for doing this work and that we wish them all success.

§ Mr. Quibell (Brigg)
I should not have intervened had it not been for the fact that the last speaker has made what I consider to be an attack upon the hon. Member who, in my view, properly raised this matter. I was at the election at Eddisbury and did everything I could to oppose the hon. Member, and he would not have been here if I could have stopped him. But during that election I came across a case similar to the one he has mentioned, where a farmer, who had been a useful supporter of his, came and stated his case to me and I thought he had been very gravely misjudged by this committee that has been praised as one of the best that ever was. I think the hon. Member knows the case. The farmer declared to me that he had been dispossessed because someone who had the favour of the war agricultural committee wished to buy his farm. It was the hon. Member's duty to set about the Ministry of Agriculture and try to put the matter right. In the main, war executive committees have done wonderful work and we can all pay a tribute to them but it is human to err, and there have been mistakes. I cannot see why the Ministry of Agriculture could not provide some machinery by which there might be some appeal. There has been trouble in some districts, and there is not a Member representing an agricultural division who has not had complaints of cases in which injustice seems to have been done. I hope these committees are not only for the duration of the war, but that we shall have some such machinery as a permanent institution. It would take a good deal of the responsibility off the Minister's hands if there was a final appeal. I think that we all agree that some form of machinery should be set up, so that an appeal could be made from these committees. In the main they have done good work, but, as I say, they are human and may make mistakes.

§ Mr. Critchley (Liverpool, Edge Hill)
Speaking quite dispassionately, I think that the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Loverseed) has made a case that ought to be seriously considered. It is appalling to me to think that there are committees set 1638 up with these powers. I feel conscious of my responsibility as a public representative when I find that Ministerial powers are granted which preclude us from raising matters, powers that almost exceed judiciary powers. That, I think, is wrong. I have listened intently to the case submitted by my hon. Friend and to the observations of other hon. Members, and it appals me to think that committees have been set up with judicial powers which can dispossess a farmer not only of his farm, but also of his residence. That makes me conscious of a responsibility that we ought to face. I am sure that the Minister can give an assurance that there will be some right of appeal to some other body. I am not primed on this subject, and I must confess that for the first time I have discovered that an Order in Council has been made giving committees these powers. It appals me to think that such powers should be given to county agricultural committees. There is not a landlord who can eject a tenant from his premises without recourse to the courts, where a case is stated. As far as I can gather from the Debate, the farmer in question had no recourse to the courts. That is not in keeping with the democracy which we are upholding to-day. I am seriously conscious of the responsibility that I carry in speaking from these Benches. I do not represent an agricultural constituency. I have nothing to gain or to lose by what I am saying, but I have the right to state the case as I feel it. I am sure that the Minister will have an adequate reply to the matter raised by my hon. Friend, but I hope he will give us an assurance that there will be an appeal to some tribunal other than to this arbitrary committee. If the Minister could give that assurance I should be much happier in mind than I am.

§ The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. Tom Williams)
I am bound to confess that I regret that my hon. Friend saw fit to raise this matter once again on the Adjournment. I readily appreciate that there is a good deal of sentiment on this question and to some extent ill-informed criticism against the Minister of Agriculture. I appreciate the sentiments expressed by other hon. Members who have spoken in the Debate, but I think I shall be able to show that none of the allegatons of my hon. Friend the Member for 1639 Eddisbury (Mr. Loverseed) can be sustained. My hon. Friend gave me no notice of the individual cases he was about to raise. Fortunately, however, I saw a cutting from a certain newspaper which is, I cannot say popular, but notorious. Curiously, the cases quoted by my hon. Friend appeared in that newspaper one Sunday in July, 1943. [HON. MEMBERS: "Which paper?"] I do not see why I should give it a public advertisement for the lies and innuendoes contained in this article. Having observed what the writer wrote, I thought that my hon. Friend might conceivably refer to one or other of these cases. He has done so, and luckily, although I have not the full story, I know why the farmer referred to was turned from this farm.
It might meet the wishes of the House if I told the story as I know it in the briefest number of words. The reports from the district committee, from the war executive and the land commissioner were that his arable land was badly neglected, that he did contract work for other farmers to supplement his income.

§ Mr. Loverseed
rose—

§ Mr. Williams
The hon. Member has made his speech. He did not give me notice that he was going to raise this case, and he must allow me to reply to the allegations. I am entitled to give the case as I know it. This gentleman was repeatedly warned by the committee about the condition of his land. He had a poor average of milk production. This is a very different story from the one told by my hon. Friend.

§ Mr. Critchley
Who is the judge?

§ Mr. Williams
I will tell my hon. Friend who is the judge and who is the jury if he will only be as patient as I was while hon. Members were making their speeches. This subject has been raised on numerous occasions by Questions. In October, 1941, my right hon. Friend gave a full, frank and, I think, satisfactory explanation to the House on the procedure and power enjoyed by war agricultural executive committees. Every case brought to the notice of my right hon. Friend by any hon. Member has been investigated by the Minister.

§ Mr. T. Williams
In no single case has my right hon. Friend seen fit to change the decision he originally—

§ Mr. Loverseed
There is no appeal from it.

§ Mr. Williams
If my hon. Friend will contain his soul in patience for a moment or two I am going to show that the war agricultural executive committee is not the judge and jury as he has suggested, but that the Minister of Agriculture is absolutely responsible in every case where dispossession takes place. Therefore, please do not charge a war agricultural executive committee, or a district committee—a body of men who have done wonderful work, absolutely honorarily for nearly five years—with being judge and jury in their own case and with having local prejudices, which was the statement made by my hon. Friend.
We have realised from the very first that the power to dispossess is very drastic. It is only used where ample justification exists. Hardships are common in war-time and have been suffered by all sections of the community, but it is particularly a hardship in agriculture if a farmer is dispossessed, because, as the hon. Member truly says, he loses not only his farm but his business and almost always he loses his home. It is because of that situation that infinite care is taken that no wrong decision is made. The success of the food campaign—and it has been successful—is due entirely to the cooperation of farmers, farm workers and landowners, including the executive committees and the district committees, who have given valuable time and experience, purely voluntarily, in the war effort. This power to dispossess, drastic though it is, is an essential part of our food production campaign. Its very existence is an incentive and a warning to every farmer at least to try to do his best in the war effort. It is only when warnings have been disregarded, either wilfully or from inertia or incapacity, that that power is exercised in any county.

§ Mr. Granville (Eye)
When a Member of Parliament takes up one of these cases and the Minister investigates it, to which authority does the Minister go? Does he go to the county war agricultural executive committee for his facts? If so, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us—and this is very important—whether the Minister has ever turned down a case which has been put forward by a county war agricultural executive committee?

§ Mr. T. Williams
I can not only assure my hon. Friend that the Minister has gone into cases which have been put up by war agricultural executive committees, but wherever a Member of this House brings such a case to his notice, he turns up all the papers in that case; and he is satisfied absolutely only when the impartial person, wholly dissociated from the war executive committee, namely, the land commissioner, has reported. Only then does my right hon. Friend take his decision.

§ Mr. Beverley Baxter (Wood Green)
Has the Minister, then, in some cases reversed the decision of the committee?

§ Mr. Williams
I said a moment ago that of all the cases brought to the notice of my right hon. Friend in no single instance has he found it necessary to change a decision originally taken. The test of the system has been the way that it is worked. We know that this power must be exercised with proper safeguards. The hon. Member for Eddisbury says that he wants an appeal; the bon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Critchley) wants an appeal; the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson) suggests that some form of an appeal might be necessary. I would invite hon. Members to listen once again to a brief survey of the procedure followed before any farmer is dispossessed. Every farm in every county has been very carefully surveyed, and only where a farm is classified as being seriously below the standard required is any approach made to the farmer.
How are these approaches made, and what happens once a farmer is regarded as being in category C, that is, the lowest category? The farmer is approached by local farmers who are chosen because of their known agricultural qualifications. My hon. Friend must know that all members of district committees are local farmers who not only know the dis- 1642 trict but know the farmer, too. They know the whole area, and they knew the farmer and the farm probably long before 3rd September, 1939. What is the first thing that happens if the land is in a bad state? The first thing a district committee do is to lend the farmer all the help they can, give him all the advice and guidance they can, and in some cases they give him a warning that unless there is improvement, then some further action may be taken. Ultimately, perhaps, from the district committee, a report is sent to the war agricultural executive committee. Despite what the hon. Member for Eddisbury says, the committee is made up largely of practical farmers, and not only practical farmers but farmers who have the confidence of their neighbourhood, farmers in whom their fellow farmers have the utmost confidence. What do the war agricultural executive committee do? They send along to this particular farm representatives from the war executive committee.

§ Mr. Granville
Officials?

§ Mr. Williams
Representatives of the war agricultural committee who are known to be practical farmers, and who have the confidence of the farming community.

§ Mr. Granville
Are they members of the committee or are they paid officials?

§ Mr. Williams
I said that they were members of the war executive committee, and that they are practical farmers. I said that members of the war executive committee proceeded to that farm on the basis of a report from the district committee—members of the war executive committee who are practical farmers and men who have the confidence of farmers within the neighbourhood. They proceed there and tender to the farmer all the advice and guidance they can. It may be that ultimately they have to give a farmer directions that he must do this or that, say with machinery or fertilisers. It is not their object to dispossess; their object is to help the man attain a higher category, for it is food production with which war executive committees are concerned, not doing an ill-turn to their neighbours. It is only, therefore, as an absolutely last resort, sometimes after a year, 18 months or even two years, and because either the farmer will not or can- 1643 not carry out the instructions of the executive committee, that the executive committee finally recommend dispossession.
Even at that stage, which may be a year, 18 months, or two years after the first inspection, when the farmer knows just why these visits have been taking place, when the district committee have made their report, the war executive committee send along representatives again to the farmer, and if they find that he is utterly hopeless, or incapable of carrying out their directions, they intimate to him what is likely to happen. That is quite unlike the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury. They tell the farmer exactly where his shortcomings lie—they have been telling him for a long time where his shortcomings lie—whether it is fertiliser, or labour, or just where the farm is lacking. We proceed from the district committee to the war executive committee, all practical farmers, all trying to help him to obtain the highest possible production. If all fails, the war executive committee finally recommend dispossession.
That is not the end of the story. The war executive committee cannot dispossess. Ultimately, it is the Minister who decides upon dispossession. But, in every single case, my right hon. Friend, before taking his decision, sends the land commissioner, who is wholly dissociated from the war executive committee, despite my hon. Friend's suggestions of collusion, and he personally makes an investigation of the farm.

§ Captain Cunningham-Reid (St. Marylebone)
Who employs the land commissioner?

§ Mr. Williams
The Minister.

§ Captain Cunningham-Reid
Exactly.

§ Mr. Williams
If the land commissioner or the Minister is suspect, there is no reason why any employee of anybody else should not also be suspect.

§ Captain Cunningham-Reid
Why should only he be able to put a case? Why should not the farmer put his case?

§ Mr. Williams
I have told my hon. and gallant Friend that the farmer puts his case to the committee, and he is told by 1644 the committee that they are recommending dispossession. He is given written reasons for that, and he is invited to send in, in writing, any protests that he wishes to make against the recommendation, and to attend the meeting of the committee, to give reasons against the recommendation.

§ Captain Cunningham-Reid
Does that objection in writing go to the Minister?

§ Mr. Williams
It remains on the file relating to the case, and is available to the Minister. The farmer has his opportunity of appearing before the war agricultural executive committee; and if that is not an appeal to his peers, I do not know what is, I repeat that even that is not the final story, because the Minister has a staff of land commissioners, dissociated from the war executive committees, who act on his behalf, and whose consent must be given before dispossession takes place. Thus it will be seen that it is only after exhaustive, protracted efforts, where a farmer has been given every opportunity, that this drastic action is taken. The war executive committees regard their responsibility in this respect as being very heavy indeed. If they are likely to err at all, it is on the side of leniency. No agriculturist would willingly turn out a neighbouring farmer if anything he could do would persuade that farmer to do what is thought to be necessary. That being the case, it seems to me that no form of appeal or tribunal that any Member of this House could conceive would be equivalent to the tribunal already available to every farmer.
What would happen if we attempted to set up a new appeal tribunal? There would simply be more duplication, more machinery, more inspections, more reports, more personal statements. The appeal tribunal would simply have to go over the whole of a case—by inspection, by records and documents and so forth—which had previously been gone over. It must be perfectly obvious to every hon. Member in the House that the tribunal, with their absence of local knowledge, could not possibly be in the same position to reach a right conclusion as those who are right on the spot. It seems to me that any such appeal tribunal seeking to arrive at a reasonable judgment would have a less degree of knowledge than the committee and that their decisions might not be what hon. Members anticipate.
1645 There is just one other thing. Hon. Members should remember that any appeal tribunal on the lines suggested by hon. Members would be absolutely responsible to no one. The county executive committees are responsible to the Minister of Agriculture, and the Minister is responsible to this House for every decision he takes with regard to dispossession. The existing system may have created a hardship here and there. I do not deny it, but I do ask hon. Members not to confuse hardship with injustice. The duty of the Minister of Agriculture is to secure the maximum production of food in this land. He has appointed those whom he regards as his best agents for that purpose. Would any hon. Member deny that the Minister of Agriculture has done his job in regard to food production? There may have been hardships. Every section of the community has suffered some form of hardship, and those who have failed to fulfil the obligations imposed upon them, whether for military or other service, have had to pay the price.
I say, in conclusion, that agriculture is playing a grand part in the national effort. It has made no small contribution to what will be ultimate victory, and, if agriculture is to play the part in our post-war life that we all hope to see it play, let no hon. Member do anything which is calculated to create indifference or inefficiency. Maximum efficiency alone will produce the food and enable agriculturists to compete fairly with imported food. For that reason I ask the House to try to believe that before a man is made to lose his home, his business, and his farm, every human consideration that can be given, is given, and I hope the House will take it from me that no form of outside tribunal can be as human as the Minister has been in this matter.

§ Captain Cunningham-Reid
The Minister has told the House that the Minister of Agriculture has the last say before a farmer is dispossessed, but he has not answered what I consider the most important question of all, which is—Why should not the farmer have the right to state his case to the Minister? The war executive committee does that, but we deny the farmer that right. Why should he not have it? What is there against it?

§ Mr. Williams
Surely the hon. Member must agree that the district committee and 1646 the war agricultural executive committee are the persons to whom the farmer should appeal. The Minister appointed the war agricultural executive committee to act as his agent out in the country. The land commissioner is an agent of the Minister, and surely, when a farmer has the right of access to those dealing with his case, it is all that he or anyone else can expect.

§ Mr. Driberg (Maldon)
While endorsing the right hon. Gentleman's general tribute to the war executive committees, may I ask him if he is aware that these impartial land commissioners, when they go down, in the last resort, to investigate a case, are always apt, in the first instance, to get their facts from the war agricultural committee and to walk round the farms concerned with representatives of the war agricultural committee rather than with the farmers? Cannot he ask his right hon. Friend to instruct these impartial land commissioners to see to it, not only that justice is done, but that justice shall be seen to be done?

§ Mr. Williams
The hon. Member must have heard it said already that the land commissioner, as a strictly impartial person, knows the seriousness of the step he is about to take. He has just as much concern about the well-being of the farmer as about the executive committee or the Minister. If every land commissioner is to be a suspect, is there any reason why the members of the proposed appeal tribunal should be less suspect?

§ Mr. Raikes (Essex, South-Eastern)
The reply has not entirely satisfied me. The Minister said that they had never found it necessary in any circumstances to reverse a decision made by a war agricultural executive committee. I have a very high opinion of such committees, but it is impossible to imagine that there has never been a case in which a man has been recommended to be dispossesssed unfairly.

§ Mr. Williams
I think I said we have never found it necessary to change any decisions taken by a land commissioner, not by a war executive committee. It is the land commissioner who takes the decision for the Minister.

§ Mr. Raikes
That certainly was not the impression I formed, but I am obliged 1647 to the Minister for having clarified the point. As far as the land commissioner and an appeal are concerned, the matter comes before the local committee, then before the war agricultural committee, and then up to the Minister, who decides, in the long run, to send someone down to adjust the final difficulty before the war agricultural committee are permitted to do the official eviction.
I think that the Minister was unfair in regard to one or two questions, but I do not mean in an offensive way. I think he really misunderstood one or two questions when he suggested that hon. Members of this House were suggesting unfairness on the part of the men who go down to the farms. Obviously, the final man who goes down to the farm will see the war agricultural committee. He will go down with the view that the war agricultural committee are the people who are conversant with the case, and he will naturally take their advice. He generally takes one of their representatives with him when he goes to visit a farm. But that is not to say that he is got at. I feel that in this type of case the farmer has no possibility of appearing before the Minister. No doubt, in 99 cases out of 100 he should be dispossessed, but he should have the right in the final resort—after all, it is his life—to appear before some tribunal in person. The tribunal, although not having quite the same knowledge as other persons, might have the legal knowledge in cross-examination to discover whether there is any bias or unfairness among persons on any agricultural committee, a bias which would never be realised simply by reading the papers, just in the same way as the examples given by the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Loverseed) meant nothing to me from the point of view of arriving at a judgment. They simply consisted, as they were bound to do, of ex parte statements in regard to what certain largely unnamed individuals have written in certain letters. You get that just the same from the other side if you merely have a storm of paper from the war agricultural committee.
In the final resort, I do think that the people themselves should have the opportunity of appearing and cross-examining those who are going to say that they are to be dispossessed. I speak for many sections of the House on this. We are not charging anybody with bad 1648 faith, but we believe there should be a final court of appeal before which a man could appear. We have had it all through British history. It has been one of the foundations of our liberty, and perhaps, if we had that court of law, it might not take a longer time, there would be fewer warnings, and things would be settled rather more quickly than under the present system.

§ Mr. Tinker (Leigh)
Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that when the land commissioner goes down, he interviews the farmer personally and gives him a chance to state his case?

§ Mr. T. Williams
Yes, he both interviews the farmer and goes over the farm with him if the farmer will accompany him.

§ Mr. Driberg
Not in every case.

§ Mr. Granville
May I ask a question on the same point? The right hon. Gentleman has given a patient explanation which has done a lot of good but, when one of these cases is brought to the county committee, does the county committee send a member of the committee who is a farmer, an unpaid official who is doing this patriotic work? Or does it send an official? In effect, what happens is that you are trying to take a decision and a judgment on a piece of land, and what so many farmers complain of is that an official is sent down, but not a member of the agricultural executive committee. I have had this complaint from my own constituency. Can the right hon. Gentleman make it perfectly clear, and give an assurance, that where a man is to be dispossessed, he will be visited either by the land commissioner or by the chairman or somebody on the committee?

§ Mr. T. Williams
I can give my hon. Friend an absolute assurance that no such visit would take place without practical members of the executive committee being there.

§ Mr. Hutchinson (Ilford)
I intervene for the last moment of this Debate in order to reinforce what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Essex (Mr. Raikes) and to make this suggestion. The right hon. Gentleman has rested his case very largely upon the (final decision reached by the land com- 1649 missioner. I would like to invite him to consider whether he could not agree that when the land commissioner goes down to make the final decision, the land commissioner should hold a local inquiry at which the farmer would be entitled to appear with his witnesses, if he desired to do so, and to put his case. Of course the county war agricultural committee would be entitled to do the same. My right hon. Friend knows that a local inquiry is a very common form of semi-judicial proceeding in the local government world. It works reasonably well. I invite my 1650 hon. Friend to consider whether a semi-judicial inquiry by the land commissioner at the final stage, and a report by the commissioner, based upon the evidence that has been given before him by both parties to the Minister, might not prove a satisfactory solution of this difficulty.