§ House again in Committee (according to Order).
§ [THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
§ Clause 9:
§
Debate resumed on the following Amendment moved by the Earl of SELBORNE—
Page 7, line 36, leave out from beginning to (" and ") in page 8, line 3, and insert (" the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries if in any case they are of opinion—
may serve notice on the occupier of the land requiring him to cultivate or use the land in accordance with such directions as the Board may give for securing that the cultivation shall be according to the rules of good husbandry or for securing the necessary change in the mode of cultivating or in the use of the land, as the case may be ").
§ VISCOUNT MILNERIt may be convenient to the House that at this stage I should state the view which has been taken by the Government of this Amendment and a number of subsidiary Amendments. I do not make any secret of the fact that the Government would have much preferred if the House had been willing to allow Claues 9 to pass in its present form. We believe that, taking the whole of the clause together, it is calculated best to serve the interests of the country, while providing adequate compensation for those private interests which may be affected by the exercise of the powers here given to the Board of Agriculture and its agents. May I say that I think a great deal of the opposition to the provisions of this Part of the Bill is based upon a misunderstanding. In the first place, I think there is a misconception as to the extent to which the actual exercise of these powers will be requisite in order to carry out the object which Parliament has in view. As I said in my speech on the Second Reading, I believe the number of cases in which these powers will have to be resorted to will be comparatively few. At the same time, without the existence of these or some such powers, as your Lordships will all admit, the object of the 526 measure could not be attained to any very large extent. Another prejudice—I think an unjust prejudice—that exists against these clauses is the persistent idea that the admittedly wide powers which are given by them are going to be exercised in practice by what are called bureaucrats, by some official or officials in Whitehall, ignorant, unsympathetic, plunging about the country and telling everyone how he is to cultivate his land, and without any real knowledge or appreciation.
§ VISCOUNT MILNERBut that is not at all what will happen in practice. These powers are, in practice, going to be worked by local people, farmers and landowners knowing the local circumstances, men whose whole bias will be on the side of agriculturists and against unnecessary and useless interference. Of course, these local bodies, the agricultural executive committees, and those who work for them will occasionally make mistakes. That is admitted. But against injury which may arise to individuals from such mistakes we hold that the ample provisions for compensation which are contained in the clause will be an adequate safeguard. When we come to consider the compensation clause we shall be prepared to listen to suggestions to strengthen it if it can be shown to be necessary. Therefore, as I say, we really feel that this clause as it stands is one which the House might fairly be asked to accept.
At the same time, we recognise, as we are bound to do, the strength of the feeling which exists in many parts of the country against the provisions of this clause as it stands. I have never been under any illusion myself on the point. I have always known that this Part of the Bill is the one to which perhaps the strongest objection might be taken here. I do not complain. The Government are the last who wish to complain of criticisms most reasonably and temperately advanced, and they are anxious to meet them as far as possible. We do not think it necessary to make any Amendment in order to avoid injustice, because we believe that injustice will not arise under the clause as it stands. But it is worth while conceding something and even conceding a great deal in order to allay distrust, and from that point of view we are prepared to accept the Amendment 527 which has been moved by Lord Selborne, who I am sorry not to see in his place at this moment.
In one respect I admit—though this may be a little inconsistent with what I have already said—that this Amendment is an absolute improvement, and that is in bringing in the words "for the purpose of increasing in the national interest the production of food." The clause as it stands says that the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries may do certain things if in any case they are of opinion that any land is not being cultivated in such a manner as the Board think best in the interests of the country. I am prepared to admit that these words are too wide and too vague. This is a Corn Production Bill, and if there is any idea that the terms of this clause might be used in order to encourage any sort of speculative or faddy experiments in land cultivation not bearing directly on the great object of the Bill, it is just as well to remove it. Therefore I think this is in any case an improvement, and we accept the Amendment of Lord Selborne and the subsidiary Amendment which comes later.
We are willing to re-write our clause in the manner in which the noble Earl has suggested. But we very much hope that the House will not insist on our going any further in that direction, as is suggested by some of the subsidiary Amendments. I am afraid that we shall have to resist them, and I cannot help hoping that the House will not press us to insert them. In any case, I fear that if we did insert them they would meet with a very unfavourable reception elsewhere, and we should be glad to avoid any serious difference of opinion between the two Houses on a measure of this character. The reason why we cannot admit the principle of recourse to arbitration practically for every Order which the Board of Agriculture, or really the agricultural executive committees—that is what it comes to—may make for the cultivation of land in a different manner from that in which it is at present cultivated, is that we are convinced that the adoption of such a principle would make the Bill quite unworkable, because of the enormous number of cases in which, in those circumstances, arbitration might be resorted to.
The matter would be easy if all that the country requires in the present great emergency, all our additional needs, could 528 be supplied simply by insisting on the better cultivation of land which is at present badly cultivated. For Orders given with that object we are ready to grant submission to arbitration, and there would be no further controversy in the House on the subject. But, unfortunately, the fact cannot be ignored—it underlies the whole measure—that it is admittedly necessary, if we are to get anything like the production of corn which we require, that some land which is at present reasonably cultivated, not contrary to good husbandry, should be devoted to another purpose from that to which it is at present reasonably devoted. That is fundamental to the whole policy. No doubt it is hard, as the noble Marquess in his persuasive speech last night pointed out—it is hard on the individual who is cultivating his land quite well, and in the manner, in ordinary circumstances, most economically advantageous, that he should be compelled to cultivate it in another way, and there are innumerable cases in which he would no doubt resist. He would go to arbitration if he had a chance, because he would think that he was doing very well with his land at present, that he was treating it in a reasonable way, so why should he be compelled to use it for another purpose. But the answer to this is that the Bill does provide against his being injured; it does afford compensation for any loss he may suffer.
If there is any doubt about it, let us make it clearer. What we cannot provide against is the inconvenience and annoyance, the inevitable inconvenience and the natural annoyance, which a certain number of people may feel when their land has to be devoted to a purpose for which they would not be required to devote it but for national emergency, and to which they do not want to devote it. As the noble Marquess said, that is very hard. But war is very hard upon all of us. As the responsible Government of the country, we cannot do more for these individuals than provide for their adequate compensation. We cannot save them from the annoyance, if they happen to feel it, of their land being devoted temporarily—and the whole thing is only temporary—to a purpose of which they do not approve.
I hope, therefore, that the House will be willing to take this, as I think, fair and reasonable view of the matter. We must always bear in mind the fundamental 529 character of this Bill. It is an emergency measure promoted by the gravest national necessity; and, as I have said, we have done everything that can reasonably be expected of us if we provide, as we are providing, that those individuals who are suffering, if you like to say that, in the public interest by having their land devoted to a necessary public purpose which they do not individually like, should be amply compensated for any material damage which they may suffer in the process.
§ VISCOUNT CHAPLINIn the regrettable absence of Lord Selborne at the moment, perhaps I may be permitted to say a word or two following the noble Viscount. He commenced his observations by pointing out the great apprehensions which are so widely felt as to the way in which the extreme powers given under this Bill to the Board of Agriculture might be exercised. He gave us every assurance that those apprehensions were entirely groundless, and that we need be in no fear of the arbitrary actions which have been so much apprehended. I was very glad to hear what the noble Viscount said upon that point, and I can only say that if it turns out to be so it will present a striking difference from the manner in which powers of this nature have been already exercised, or perhaps I should say sought to be exercised, in many remarkable instances which have come under my own personal notice. I should be sorry to think of the number of complaints which have reached me from individuals all over the country of the extremely arbitrary manner in which they are ordered to do this or that, I suppose under the powers of the Defence of the Realm Act, which are confirmed by, or which will in future be carried out under, this Bill.
I will give the House two instances, and I think it is right that I should do so in order that the Government may know what is happening. Both these instances, oddly enough, occur in connection with two noble Lords who are members of this House. The first is Lord Rosebery. As your Lordships may be aware, Lord Rosebery is a votary of the Turf, and has been one of its most distinguished and successful members for many years. At one time he acquired a property at Epsom, which he still holds, for the purpose of breeding his own animals. He acquired a number of paddocks at a cost, I believe, of £400 an acre. Yet not very long ago, by the responsible authority, his agent was approached 530 and greatly pressed to allow, or rather himself to undertake, the cultivation of these paddocks for the production of wheat. The agent naturally replied that he had neither the means nor the implements, nor the horses, nor anything that would enable him to do it, and that, if it was to be done, the authorities had better do it themselves. Just conceive what that meant. How is it possible that it could be made a paying transaction?
§ VISCOUNT MILNERIs he being compelled to do it?
§ VISCOUNT CHAPLINI imagine he must be.
§ VISCOUNT MILNERIs he, as a matter of fact, being compelled to do it?
§ VISCOUNT CHAPLINNo, he is not; but he was approached, and great pressure was put upon him. The other instance reached me only this morning. This is at Newmarket, in connection with paddocks which have been converted from very bad land indeed—for the land round Newmarket is not good—at great cost into grass land, and belonging to the Secretary of State for War, another leader of racing. He, too, has been approached. I have heard this from the chairman of the association, who fortunately is a man of common sense, and he interfered.
§ VISCOUNT MILNERHear, hear.
§ VISCOUNT CHAPLINAnd, so far as I know, that property has been saved from the assaults made upon it. But many other instances will probably occur, under auspices not so favourable, where this mistaken policy such as was pursued in these two cases will be followed. I have had hundreds of other cases put before me where equally foolish things, in my humble judgment, have been proposed; and as we have received this assurance from the noble Viscount I thought it only right to say what I have said. As to the first part of Lord Selborne's Amendment, under (a), I should be perfectly ready to support it. As a matter of fact, there is a precisely similar Amendment on the Paper in the name of Lord Hindlip, as well as one in my own name. I should not have put mine down on the Paper if I had known that the noble Lord had a similar one there also.
531 May I be permitted to make one suggestion in respect of something which the noble Viscount said? He laid the greatest emphasis on the fact, of which we are all aware, that what we want to grow is corn. Would it not be better, and would it not conduce to a more free acceptance of the clause, if instead of the word "food" you would say "corn," which is the one thing you really want to increase? That occurs in the next paragraph—paragraph (b)—of the Amendment. I want to increase the production of corn just as much as any other member of your Lordships' House. The noble Viscount also spoke of the difficulties that might arise elsewhere in regard to any Amendments that we make. Having been a member of the other House of Parliament for, I think, forty-eight or forty-nine years, I should be the last person in the world to wish to speak with any disrespect of an Assembly in which I spent so large a part of my life, and where I received from all quarters kindness which I never can forget. At the same time, when we are considering a question of great national importance like this, and one with which your Lordships are so intimately connected—because it is all concerned, as a matter of course, with land—I do think that we ought not to be afraid of expressing our opinions quite frankly in regard to any Amendments which may be proposed, without considering on all occasions as to whether or not they will be accepted elsewhere. I think too much stress ought not to be laid upon that. And I would venture to say, in connection with this point, that it is only right to remember that nearly all the landlords, the gentlemen connected with the land who are members of the House of Commons, are away serving their country, and you do not hear in whatever may pass in another place at the present moment the full and correct expression of the general opinion of that House.
I will conclude by expressing the great satisfaction with which I head the noble Viscount say that, after all, we must remember that this is only to be a temporary measure. I hope he may prove to be right. If it rested with him, and him alone, and he could guarantee it, after what he has told us I should have nothing more to say upon the point; but I am afraid, from a long experience of public life, that if we are to rely upon that and nothing more, it is quite possible that it may turn out to be a broken reed.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEI am grateful, and I think many members of the House must be, to the noble Viscount for the considerate spirit in which he has approached the question we are discussing. I regard the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Selborne as a very great and a very important amendment of the Bill, and I am extremely glad that it has been accepted by His Majesty's Government. But I was sorry when I heard the noble Viscount, as I understood him, closing the door absolutely in the face of any proposal in the direction of that which is met by my noble and learned friend Lord Parmoor in the subsidiary Amendment which stands on the Paper in his name. I cannot help still being convinced that in common fairness it would be desirable to do a little more to improve the position of the man who is to be compelled to change his system of cultivation in order that he may conform to the views which find acceptance upon that point by the Government of the day.
The noble Viscount pointed out that this was an emergency clause—a war clause—but I think the House should remember that this clause will operate long after the war has come to an end, if, indeed, it has not come to stay altogether upon the Statute Book. While the war lasts you have the procedure of the Defence of the Realm Regulations, and that procedure, which provides no room for appeals or for any dilatory procedure of any kind, is surely enough to satisfy even those who call most loudly for a drastic treatment of the question. I do not forget that the question of food shortage may remain an acute one after the war has come to an end. I think it is quite likely that it may do so. But the acuteness cannot be as great after the war is over as it is while the war is still in progress, and although I should be the last person in the world to desire to put anything in this Bill to encourage obstruction on the part of those who will come under its operation, I do think that we should hesitate before we leave an absolutely free hand to the body, the war agricultural committee or whoever it may be, to whom for this purpose powers are delegated under the Bill.
The noble Viscount admitted quite frankly that it was conceivable that mistakes should be made, and the fact that the matter is left, as the noble Viscount has told us, in the hands of local people does not at all diminish the possibility of such 533 mistakes being made. I will not say that these local bodies will be actuated by any but the most legitimate and avowable motives, but there is the great danger that the impression may get abroad that they are not always actuated entirely by the sole motive of desiring to increase the output of food in their own locality. Things get said, political motives are imputed sometimes, and I think it is most desirable that there should be some safeguard which would not make the fiat of the local body an absolutely final and irreversible fiat. For that reason I should like to see added to my noble friend Lord Selborne's Amendment some words of the kind which Lord Parmoor has put down. I do not quite like his form of words, however, and I think the drafting would require to be a little altered. I should like to have it left open to any person on whom one of these notices had been served to require the question, not only whether the land had been cultivated according to the rules of good husbandry, but whether it was desirable in the national interest that the change should apply to any portion of the land, to be included in the notice. I should like that to be an appealable point, as well as the question of good husbandry. I do not think it at all likely—and here I believe the noble Viscount is with me—that the cases in which an appeal of this kind would be desired would be many. I think, as a rule, that the parties will accept the inevitable; but I do think it would be right and politic, where there is a strong suspicion that the law has been wrongly applied or that the case is a wholly improper one for enforcing the policy which has been accepted, that in such cases some kind of appeal should be left to the aggrieved person. Therefore if my noble and learned friend Lord Parmoor presses his words, I am, as at present advised, inclined to support him.
§ LORD PARMOORMay I say a word or two on the general question, because my Amendment does not arise at this stage, and I do not want to speak upon it now. I find myself so fully in agreement with the noble Viscount opposite in most that he said that I wonder he came to the conclusion which he did, and which, as I understand, is against allowing any appeal upon the matter to which the noble Marquess has referred. If I may, I will follow what the noble Marquess said. I think in the first instance he is right that there will be 534 very few Orders made at all, because in the vast majority of cases it will be done by arrangement. I know that in my own county, where there is certain friction and trouble, it is the object of the executive committee, instead of issuing anything in the nature of an Order, to call people together in the various parishes and to ask them what is the quota in that parish which ought to be cultivated for corn in the current year, and to arrange matters if possible. My opinion is that arrangements will be made without friction or difficulty in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred. Therefore the argument which the noble Viscount used, that if you put in an appeal, which is, I think, a proper safeguard, you would make the Bill unworkable, is disposed of by his own view of the few cases in which an appeal would be likely to come into operation.
Let me take next the case where an Order is made, for up to the present I have been dealing with cases where it has all been done by arrangement. Even in those cases I think the number of appeals would be likely to be small; but I agree with what the noble Marquess said, that although you quite rightly put confidence in the executive committees, yet these executive committees are not actuated in all cases wholly by public considerations. After all, that is human nature, and what one finds. Therefore the fact that you have a power of appeal is a most important factor in keeping the local body, whatever it is, within its proper limits and powers, and ensuring that it carries out in the right way the duties thrown upon it. Consequently, even in the case in which Orders are made, much greater care is exercised in making them where it is known that if the Order is wrongly made there is a power of appeal to a competent body. That, I think, underlies the whole operation with regard to the fair administration of a Bill of this sort. The noble Viscount referred to compensation, to which we come by and by, and on which I was very glad to hear what he stated; but you do not want, if you can help it, to administer a Bill of this kind in an adverse way which leads to compensation claims. You want, if possible, to administer it in a friendly manner, in agreement and by arrangement, so that both the parties against whom the Bill is put in force are satisfied, and no undue expense is thrown upon the State for compensation proposals.
535 I think the noble Viscount overstated one matter and understated another. He understated the effect of the Defence of the Realm Act at the present time. All arrangements at present are being made under that Act. We were told by the noble Duke the other day that so far as they had gone they had been most successful. I believe that under the Defence of the Realm Act you have sufficient power to get the requisite number of acres—I hesitate to say the exact number—and thereby you will get the land changed from pasture to plough, as it has been put, in the public interest. I believe you will get that done, and it is being done at present under the Defence of the Realm Act. I agree with the noble Marquess that what we have to consider here is not so much a question of emergency policy, but really the question of a new policy in dealing with land interests in this country; and it is from that view most important in the first instance that we should put it on a wise and sound basis.
The meaning of my Amendment—which I do not want to discuss now, and I agree that it might be put in better language—is this. You do not interfere with policy at all. You assume that this has to be done. But you say that in a particular case the local executive committee may be taking the wrong view, and that those who are cognisant of the particular farm, and know its nature, its character, its history, and so on, may take the contrary view. They may say, "What you are doing, so far from being advantageous in the way of a better national production, will, in our opinion, operate exactly in the contrary direction." It may be denied that the local committee are actuated in the particular case by national considerations, and it may be said that there are certain cases in which they have indirect motives. If that is so—and it is human nature—what is the harm of an appeal clause? It is not intended to interfere with the objects of the Bill; it is intended to further them and to make the Bill stronger. These two matters are of great importance—first, that the farmers, on whom you must rely in the long run, should feel that they are fairly protected, which is a great matter in human consideration of questions of this sort; secondly, assuming that the executive committee is not infallible, which I think is not a wrong assumption, that you should give an appeal to an outside authority which can settle the question. I agree with so much of what the noble 536 Viscount said that I am sorry he came to the conclusion he did. I thought he was coming to the other conclusion until he arrived at that part of his speech. I have made these remarks at this stage, although, of course, the actual Amendment will arise later.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWEI hope I may be allowed to say a word in support of the view which has been expressed by the noble Marquess opposite and by my noble and learned friend who has just sat down—that is, to express the hope that His Majesty's Government will admit that at any rate in certain cases an appeal may fairly be claimed by those whose interests are adversely affected by paragraph (b). I have no wish to repeat the various points which have been urged with so much force by my two noble friends, but I am bound to say that I specially concur in the view which the noble Marquess expressed—that it is not safe or reasonable to regard this Bill as representing an emergency measure in the sense that all its provisions must be regarded as temporary. So far as it is an emergency measure, there is nothing of importance in it which cannot be done at present under the Defence of the Realm Act and the Regulations under that Statute; and I cannot help thinking that not merely your Lordships' House and Parliament, but the whole agricultural community, will regard this Bill as representing a settled agricultural policy which in its main features will never be departed from so far as we are able to look ahead.
It is quite clear, for instance, that the principle of the minimum wage, probably even the figure of 25s., will never be departed from. At least it is very difficult to conceive circumstances in which a Government would come to Parliament and suggest a reduction of that minimum figure. Some may say that that is one of the objections to naming a figure at all, because if wheat were to go down to 28s., the 25s. wage might appear in some parts of the country excessive. But I believe that in all its main features this Bill is to become a stereotyped part of the law of the country, and both your Lordships' House and the country generally had far better realise that this is the fact; and this is all the more reason, I venture to think, for giving an appeal in these matters—not an appeal, as has been so truly said, on the question of the policy of growing corn, but on the application of that policy in particular 537 cases. There are all sorts of cases in which I venture to think it would not be entirely safe to trust to the single opinion of the war agricultural committee of a neighbourhood or county. It may seem a trivial matter, but there are districts in which the appearance of the land, the effect of the scenery, counts for something. Nobody can say that Fountains Abbey would look so well in the middle of a ploughed field as it does now in the midst of its grass meadows, and yet it will not be disputed that if those meadows were ploughed you could grow a certain amount of oats on them.
And it is conceivable, not particularly in that one place, but in other places where the natural features of scenery depend upon its being left in something like its present condition, that the interference of a number of corn-growing enthusiasts might permanently ruin a district which not merely is valuable from the æsthetic point of view, but where also a large number of the inhabitants gain a living from the resort of tourists. Your Lordships may say that this is an extreme instance, but it is by no means an impossible instance; and it is in cases of that kind, besides those in which private interests are likely to be adversely affected, that, if no kind of appeal is given from the will of a small number of persons—not elected, and selected sometimes in a purely arbitrary manner—the retention of this Clause as it stands will cause a vast deal of uneasiness and even of terror in the minds of the agricultural community. I therefore appeal to His Majesty's Government to see whether it is not possible, to agree to something like the Amendment of my noble and learned friend below the gangway. I do not at all pledge myself to the particular words as put on the Paper, but some words should be, inserted which will reassure farmers and owners of land generally that they are not to be left to what they will consider may in some cases be the mere caprice of those to whom this work is to be finally entrusted.
§ LORD DESBOROUGHI hope your Lordships will allow me to say a few words on what has been called the general question. I venture to do so because I have an Amendment down later on, and I think it would simplify and shorten the proceedings this evening if one could deal with the principles of these Amendments and perhaps come to some common agreement upon them. May I preface the few words I 538 propose to say by expressing the hope that the Bill, as amended, may be reprinted as soon as possible to-night, so that we may have it in our hands to-morrow morning. It is very difficult to discuss a Bill on Report and Third Reading if you do not know what it is. The House of Commons suffered from the same disability. Vast changes are introduced with very inadequate discussion in either House of Parliament. I should not like to say what, in my opinion, would be the number of sessions or even years which it would have taken to pass a Bill of this character—a Bill which revolutionises agriculture from top to bottom if it had not been for a Coalition Government and a European War. But I venture to ask, with regard to the very important Amendments in the names of Lord Lansdowne and Lord Parmoor, which were settled yesterday to come up on the Report stage, that we might have an opportunity of seeing them before we discuss them.
With regard to the remarks of my noble friend who is in charge of the Bill, I should like to take this opportunity of assuring him that we have the greatest confidence in any measure of which he is in charge, and if he could only assure us that he was going to remain, not only in charge of the Bill, but in charge of its administration when it is on the Statute Book, I do not believe a single noble Lord present would have a word more to say. He says, "You must trust us. Pass the Bill and give us the powers, and they will never be abused." But I remember the case known as the Lumsden case. There we were told by several members who took part in the discussions in the other House that it was contrary to the opinion of Parliament and to the intention of the Bill that anybody should pay Increment Value Duty unless the site value had gone up. In the Lumsden case it was admitted by the Crown and everybody that the site value had not gone up; yet this man was prosecuted for a sum of money which everybody was agreed he should not pay. Besides this case, I think there were something like 100,000 people who had been prosecuted in a similar manner. That is why I ventured to say yesterday that you cannot trust to the professions of Ministers who bring in Bills. What you have to consider is the Bill itself.
I was very sorry to hear the noble Lord say that he did not wish any extension of the concession that is already made. 539 I think you are coming to the crux of the whole Bill—namely, the right of every citizen in this country to have an appeal allowed in cases where he feels aggrieved. If you want to get the best out of farmers, or if you want to get the best out of owners of land, you must inspire confidence. Take the question of the farmer. If at any time a bureaucratic body sitting in London—not under the present œgis—can change the whole mode of cultivation, what confidence has a farmer either in learning his business or in seeking to improve his holding? Then with regard to the landowner. If you want to get the best out of the land, you must give some inducement to the landowner to put capital into his farm. I gave an instance the other day. Take the case of putting up expensive farm buildings. What inducement is there for an owner of land to do that if any Minister in charge of the Board of Agriculture can suddenly ask him to do something quite different? For instance, take extensive cow-houses, where you put up accommodation for, say, 300 cows. You sink your money. Then someone may come along and demand that all your grass land should be ploughed up. I think that the man who is required to do this should have a right of appeal as to whether it is the best thing to do in the circumstances. As I say, we are quite happy at the present time; but we may have a statesman of "push and go "—plenty of "push" but little inclination to "go "—who may have some wonderful policy of his own which he will try to force on the country. Therefore I welcome the proposal of the Government, but reserve, any right I may have to move later on my Amendment with regard to the right of an appeal, provided that satisfactory concessions are not made on the new clauses which are being considered.
§ VISCOUNT HARCOURTI have had on the Notice Paper for many days a Question which I hope to be able to put at the conclusion of business to-night, which deals wholly with the subject of appeal against the policy, or the execution of the policy, of the ploughing up of grass land. I will not deal with the details of that Question now, but I should like to tell your Lordships of the case on which it is founded, which is germane to our discussion at this moment. It is a case which was widely reported in the Press about two weeks ago. I have no personal 540 knowledge of it beyond what I have seen, and I should be the last to vouch for the ordinary accuracy of the Press. But I have compared the reports in different papers, and though they vary somewhat in detail the main facts do not differ. The case was that of a farmer in Cornwall, farming 200 acres of exclusively grass land. He was ordered by the war agricultural committee to plough five of those acres, and he was ordered at the same time to plant them with potatoes. As he had been farming only glass, he probably had no implements, and possibly no horses with which to do the ploughing. It was rather a new departure, I think, to make a specific Order as to what crop should be planted in that ground by the farmer; and it is a remarkable fact that the Order to plant potatoes in Cornwall was, according to the reports in the Press, given on April 19, a date at which I believe in Cornwall they are approaching the digging of potatoes rather than the planting. I speak only from the Press reports, and I have no other knowledge, and they may be inaccurate. But this man neglected to follow the directions which had been given to him. I think some of your Lordships might have done the same. He was prosecuted. A learned counsel, instructed by the Board of Agriculture, came down to press for exemplary penalties in his case, and the farmer was fined £20 for not having ploughed grass in order to plant potatoes as a first crop. If these things can happen now, and conceivable they may happen later on under this Bill, I think there is a case for arbitration, not on the whole question of policy, but on the specific application of policy to particular fields or particular farms. It is an argument in favour of some extension of the Amendment which the noble Viscount has expressed his willingness to accept.
§ LORD HINDLIPI have an Amendment on the Paper which perhaps I might be allowed to mention now. If the noble Lord will forgive me, I do not think he quite understands the whole of the point with regard to which we have certain fears. He is dealing only with the question of corn in the present emergency, but personally—and I believe a great many of your Lordships think the same—I am of opinion that it is not so much a question of the emergency to-day but of the policy in the future. In any business, the man who is really successful specialises. The same is the 541 ease with a successful farmer. And it is this class of man about whom I am more frightened than any other.
In the case of an ordinary mixed farm, with anything from 100 to 250 acres, if you say that a certain amount is to be ploughed up, it does not matter very much if it is ploughed up for a year or two. But take the case of a man who specialises in, say, milk on a large scale, or fruit, or a hundred and one other things; or take the case of a man who has pedigree shorthorns or shire horses, which business it has taken him years of work and experience to build up—and his business is of tremendous value, not only to the country but to his immediate neighbourhood. These men have specialised for many years on the knowledge they possess as to the form of farming best suited to the particular soil. Now is it reasonable for any body of men in London to come down and say, "We know you have the best herd of cattle, or whatever it may be, in the country; we know that, if we make you do what we suggest you should do under some fad of the Reconstruction Minister or the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the time being, your herd will be dispersed and the country will suffer great loss. Nevertheless, you are to have no appeal." It is not fair towards people, who have expended the whole of their energies and capital, to have the whole thing wiped out at one fell swoop.
With regard to ploughing up, all of us could provide cases where ridiculous Orders have been issued. Two cases were given me the other day. One was that of grass land which is flooded every year; the other was where it would take five horses to plough up the land. Another thing. The first Secretary of the Board of Agriculture, Mr. Arthur Young, was a gentleman whose name was a household word with the farming community as a writer upon economics and farming. But when he tried his own hand at farming he lost money over every single farm he took—he lost money over three farms in succession. Of course, I am not competent to lecture your Lordships on a question of economics, but I hope that the danger of employing theorists will be avoided, and that we shall first have regard to the laws of first principles and of supply and demand. If there is a demand for certain food the supply will come, especially if you make it profitable. I hope that the House will support the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, on the question of appeal.
§ THE EARL OF ANCASTERI confess that I do not understand how we stand with regard to the Amendments. The Amendment which I imagine we are discussing is the first one on the Paper, moved by Lord Selborne last night, and also naturally the one on the next page in the name of the noble Earl (Lord Selborne) which is a continuation of that which gives the right of appeal. If I understand the matter, His Majesty's Government are willing to accept both of those Amendments. Since then we have entered into a new controversy raised over an addenda which is down in the name of Lord Parmoor, who wishes to amend Lord Selborne's second Amendment—not yet moved—by inserting, after the word "husbandry," the words" or as to a change in the mode of cultivating any land or the use to which any land is being put." I think we may be getting a little mixed as to how we stand with regard to this matter.
For myself, I prefer the wording of the Bill at the bottom of page 7, "in such manner as the Board think best in the interests of the country." I prefer those words to the words "good husbandry." But I also like the appeal. I understand that Lord Parmoor's Amendment rather brings Lord Selborne's more into line with the words in the Bill—that is to say, it gives them a wider interpretation, which I certainly think ought to be given. Lord Selborne's Amendment is "any land that is not being cultivated according to the rules of good husbandry," and then it goes on in paragraph (b) to say "for the purpose, of increasing in the national interest the production of food…" I think those are dangerous words to put into the Bill. There are plenty of things which people grow on land which are not food, but which are most valuable to the country. The noble Viscount, Lord Chaplin, mentioned the case of Lord Rosebery's paddocks, which were ordered to be ploughed up. It would be very serious, no doubt, if Lord Rosebery did not continue to breed good racehorses.
But there are plenty of other cases where people are cultivating things as to which it is very doubtful whether they are "good husbandry" and which certainly are not increasing the nation's supply of food. There is one case which, from what I hear, is going to give the Board of Agriculture a good deal of trouble. I will take the important industry of bulb-growing, which 543 is carried out so extensively near Spalding by the noble Marquess, Lord Lincolnshire, who will no doubt support me in what I am saying. I consider that it is in the interests of the country that these people should grow bulbs. It is in the interests of the country that we should endeavour to get this trade away from the Dutch. But it is not "good husbandry," nor is it increasing the nation's food. This Bill is not dealing with the Defence of the Realm Regulations for immediate purposes, but is to go on for six years, and very likely longer; it is likely to be our permanent policy in agriculture. I think it will be most serious, if Lord Selborne's Amendment is accepted, if the Government cannot go a little further than the words "good husbandry."
I know that I shall be speaking to unbelieving ears, but I think that we should have advanced a very small way along the path of human progress had it not been for people who did things which were not considered orthodox in their time; and there are many people, very likely agriculturists, who may be doing such things. I think it was Lord Crewe who recently referred to what he called the "idiosyncrasies" of individuals. We may think that they are very wrong-minded, and that they are doing very stupid things; but it is through the efforts of such men that the greatest progress has often been made in many directions for the benefit of humanity. There are, for instance, some people who believe that wheat can be grown for four or five years running on the same land. Personally I do not believe it can be done, and if I were at the Board of Agriculture I should certainly say that such experiments were not in the interests of "good husbandry." I think it is most important, first of all—I understand this is going to be accepted in Lord Selborne's Amendment—that we should have an appeal. I also think that we ought to have some words such as Lord Parmoor suggests, or as the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, suggested, though I failed to catch them at the moment because I was trying to understand the Amendments. I think we ought to have some extension, so that we should leave scope to enterprising people like the bulb growers of Lincolnshire, and to others, against action by a Board of Agriculture official because they are not acting in the cause of good husbandry.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIREI should be very sorry for any noble Lord to think that any tenants of mine were growing bulbs at the present time. We did grow them at one time at very considerable profit, but these bulbs have been ploughed up and we are now growing corn.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD FINLAY)I desire to express my cordial agreement with what Lord Desborough said as to the propriety of having the Bill reprinted immediately, and I am authorised by the Leader of the House to say that if the proceedings end at a reasonable hour to-night the Bill will be reprinted and will be circulated with the Papers to-morrow morning. That will be very convenient for the discussion on the Report stage to-morrow.
The Government very much prefer the Amendment of Lord Selborne as it stands. Some noble Lords have remarked upon the fact that while we are nominally discussing the first Amendment standing in the name of the noble Earl (Lord Selborne), we have really drifted into a discussion upon a suggested Amendment by Lord Parmoor which appears on the second page of the Marshalled List in a very modest note to Lord Selborne's second Amendment. That seems a little odd at first, but I think it saves time in the end, because Lord Selborne's two Amendments form one connected whole, and the suggested alteration in the second portion by my noble and learned friend Lord Parmoor is necessary to be considered in determining what the effect of the whole will be. I listened with great pleasure to what Lord Parmoor said as to the smoothness with which the proceedings under the Defence of the Realm Regulations are working at present. I think that shows that under a system where there is no appeal at all the consideration which the body administering the Regulations displays is sufficient to prevent all friction. I think we may look forward with great confidence to there being the same tact and desire to avoid conflict with those affected by such measures in the administration of this Part of the Bill when it becomes an Act. At the same time I should not be so sanguine as to that if Parliament adopted such an Amendment as Lord Parmoor's, giving a power of appeal in every case. You might have every person saying, "Not my land, but my neighbour's." It is rather fallacious to argue, from the smoothness of the working of the present 545 system where there is no appeal at all, as to the prospects of smooth working when you give an unlimited right of appeal as is proposed in the noble and learned Lord's Amendment.
I am not going to enter into the instance which was mentioned by the noble Viscount. Lord Harcourt, with regard to the Defence of the Realm Regulations in one particular case in Cornwall. The attention of the Board of Agriculture had been drawn to the fact that the noble Viscount proposed to refer to that case in putting the Question which he has mentioned to your Lordships, and I have been provided with particulars of the case which, if the noble Viscount puts his Question, I shall be prepared to supply to the House. But I think it would be a mistake to turn aside from the discussion of this Bill to a controversy upon one particular case that occurred some time ago in Cornwall.
Something was said yesterday as to a right of appeal being given tinder the Schedule affecting Ireland on questions of policy. That is a complete mistake. Any noble Lord who looks at the Schedule with regard to Ireland will see that no appeal is given on questions of policy. There is no appeal against an Order directing what area is to be put under tillage. The appeal is only as to what portion of the land which ought to have been under tillage has not been cultivated in accordance with the Order, and as to the amount of the penalty. There is no appeal on policy.
It is a most singular fact that many noble Lords who are disposed to be friendly to Lord Parmoor's Amendment have expressed the desire that its form should be altered. I believe that my noble and learned friend, with all his ability and experience, would find it impossible so to limit his Amendment that it would not be mischievous in its working. You cannot prevent all sorts of considerations being introduced if once you give an appeal. As it stands, Lord Parmoor's Amendment gives an unlimited right of appeal, and no one can say what considerations might be brought before the arbitrator and taken into account by him. The position of the Government is that on a question of national policy of this kind, as to whether food should be grown on land devoted to other purposes, the decision must rest with 546 the Government. It is a matter of broad policy. You cannot confine the appeal to the question of the particular land. You would have everybody saying, "My land is not suitable "; and if appeals are once allowed they have a great tendency to spread, and you might have a state of things very different from that which at present exists under a system where there is no appeal on questions of policy. The proposal is really to give a general appeal. I would most respectfully ask the House, when the time comes, not to vote in favour of my noble and learned friend's Amendment in the hope that it will be so modified in its form as not to be mischievous. Until we see it in a form where it would not be mischievous it would be most unsafe to act on any such expectation.
I put it to the House that the only safe line is to adhere to giving an appeal where it is a question of good or bad cultivation, and not allow an appeal on the question of general national policy. What sort of considerations are to be taken into account? Lord Crewe referred to the loss of amenity which a neighbourhood might sustain by land being put under the plough. No one is a greater friend of amenities than I am myself, but surely at a time of national crisis one must not attach undue importance to amenities. Of course, one would deplore if anything such as the noble Marquess foreshadowed as possible took place; but I think that everybody would admit that it would be a thousand pities if, merely for the sake of preserving the amenity of a number of interesting and picturesque sites, we were not to grow corn if corn is wanted in the national interests. What would become of our amenities if, for want of food, we should fail in this war? We have our supreme necessity before us, and I respectfully submit to my noble friend that it would be a very great mistake if æsthetic considerations were allowed to interfere with what is the paramount necessity of the hour. I was very glad, indeed, to hear the disclaimer of the charge that has been levelled against Lincolnshire. I do not wonder that the noble Marquess, to whose property it related, was the first to spring to his feet and state that at the present time, however desirable it may be to grow bulbs in ordinary circumstances, the growing of bulbs has been put an end to and that the land in question is now under the plough for the purpose of producing corn. However desirable it may 547 be in times of peace to have a particular form of industry, in time of war, when you must provide for making yourselves independent of food supplies from other countries, other and sterner considerations must prevail. I would respectfully ask the House to support the Amendment of Lord Selborne in the form in which he has moved it, without any such modification as that which we have been discussing.
§ LORD KNARESBOROUGHWith all respect to the Lord Chancellor, I do not quite follow his argument. As I understand him, he says "No appeal, no friction." When there is a dispute and one party is helpless, naturally there is no friction. If one of your Lordships came up and hit me on the head, there might be friction; but if my arms and legs were tied there might be no friction. When there is no appeal, the person who is aggrieved has his arms and legs tied; consequently there is no friction. The argument which was put forward by the noble and learned Lord does not seem to me to be a very good one. We all want this Bill to work smoothly in the national interest; but if your machinery is to work smoothly you must have a safety valve. I look upon the power of appeal as a safety valve. If you have no appeal, you may have trouble. I know that in some parts of the country there is already a very irritable feeling among farmers on account of the limited price they are to get for their stock, and so on. You have stubborn men occasionally among farmers, and supposing they do what I have heard that some of them have already done—they have been tempted by the very high prices of stock and implements and everything they possess to sell and put their money into War Loan, and wait until the time comes after the war when they are convinced things will fall very much in price. They may be wrong, but that is the idea. Supposing a considerable number of farmers were to say to you, "If you think I cannot manage my own business I will sell off, and you can cultivate the land yourselves." You might find yourselves in a very difficult and unpleasant position; and certainly the men who did that would get a good deal of sympathy in the country. If you have an appeal it will act, as I have said, as a safety valve. If a stubborn man is able to go before an impartial tribunal, to begin with a good deal of his wrath will evaporate, 548 and then, if he does not win his case, he will not be able to excite the sympathy of his neighbours and friends in the country. As far as I can see, a power of appeal is not only called for in the interests of fair play but also in the interests of the smooth working of your Bill.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCHThe argument of the Lord Chancellor would seem to be, for some reason or another which I am afraid I was not able to follow, that if the right of appeal were granted we should not produce as much corn as was necessary. I hold entirely the opposite view. If we take all the powers that have been given, without any disrespect to the various gentlemen who occupy these places—we have had Controllers, and Directors-General, and one thing and another—I do not know that there has been anything very satisfactory resulting from their appointment. The things they have controlled have become very much more difficult to get, and have greatly increased in price. I do not think, on the whole, that this compulsion is necessary. What you want is something as much to keep these Committees and the Board of Agriculture in order as to compel the farmer to do what you require. Take the example of Richmond Park, which has been before alluded to. Your Lordships are aware that where a Government Department possess full powers they do not care about any criticism; but if, on the other hand, there is a chance of hauling them up, they are much more anxious to make sure that what they propose is going to be a success. I feel convinced that if the farmers have a fair appeal they will not exercise it in many cases, because they will feel that they have the right if they are unjustly dealt with; and if once they have that feeling you are much more likely to get them to go in for greater production than if you tried to force them. I must say that I do not think that the arguments in favour of vetoing the appeal are anything like as good as those in favour of it, and I am sorry that His Majesty's Government do not seem inclined to accept the proposal. I feel convinced that with a right of appeal you would be more likely to get greater development of production than if the matter is left to the arbitrary power of people who might bungle it and thereby reduce the amount of food likely to be produced.
VISCOUNT GALWAYThere is great dissatisfaction all over the country at the idea of Boards being able to dictate to farmers how they are to farm. It is not so much a question of the present moment, when the work is being done by the agricultural executive committees who are practical farmers and know what they are talking about; but with regard to this Bill, there is a general feeling on the part of farmers that they may be handed over to faddists, if I may say so. There is a feeling that there are a certain number of gentlemen in England who are extreme theorists, and that some special form of agriculture may be introduced by some of these theorists who have got the ear of the Board of Agriculture. That feeling gives rise to the necessity for a right of appeal in every case, both on the question of policy and on the question of the cultivation of land. If there was an appeal, local men with local knowledge could be brought before the arbitrator and could testify as to what the land could grow and what it could not grow. It is impossible for anybody to say that what would be right for one county to grow would be the correct thing for another county. I do not know whether Lord Selborne has moved his second Amendment yet, or what the position is; but I sincerely hope that in every case there will be an appeal, and that Lord Parmoor will persist in his Amendment and give your Lordships an opportunity of recording your votes on the absolute necessity of that right of appeal being given.
§ THE EARL OF SELBORNEI frankly confess that I do not think the matter is as simple as most of my noble friends seem to think. I believe there is a great deal more danger in accepting Lord Parmoor's Amendment than has occurred to them. What I would suggest to your Lordships is that we should get to the point. I understand that my first Amendment—the one which I moved last night, and which is now before the House—is generally acceptable. May I suggest that that should be dealt with, and that then we should go on to consider the proposal of Lord Lansdowne, which is a different one from that of Lord Parmoor, and of which I should certainly like to hear criticism.
§ EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTONI should like to support the appeal of the noble Earl, which I was about to make 550 myself. I would suggest that your Lordships should take the first Amendment of Lord Selborne, and then pass on to the Amendments which follow on the Paper until we come to Lord Selborne's second Amendment on page 2. Then Lord Parmoor will move his Amendment to that Amendment, and I understand that we shall be in a position then to discuss the words which Lord Lansdowne has suggested as an Amendment to Lord Parmoor's Amendment.
THE LORD CHAIRMANI understand that the first Amendment of Lord Selborne is accepted. If it is adopted as it is printed, it will cut out the Amendment standing in the name of Lord Hindlip and two of Lord Chaplin's Amendments. Is that agreed to?
§ VISCOUNT CHAPLINI am not going to raise any objection to that. I do not know whether Lord Selborne was in the House when I suggested that the word "corn" might be substituted for the word "food" in his Amendment. I thought it would strengthen the position, corn being the kind of food we specially want to increase.
§ THE EARL OF SELBORNENo; I cannot agree to that.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD HINDLIPI move to leave out from subsection (1) of Clause 9 the word "may" ["and may provide for securing "], and to insert the word "shall." This Amendment deals with the old story that your Lordships have heard many times. It is the same thing that we have had before of a Government Department attempting to keep all the power in their own hands. I fail to see why, especially in a case like this, they should have this discretionary power. This is a matter of right or wrong. Supposing any act of the Board of Agriculture causes great loss or great injustice, why should the payments be such "as the Board think just "? Under the compensation clause damage can always be assessed, and Government Departments should not have a free hand. It is evident from the clause that 551 the Government contemplate changes in covenants and also in leases, and if there are any benefits accruing or due to the owner I do not see why he should not have what is justly due to him, whether in the opinion of the Board it is fit or not. He should also be compensated for loss. There are many kinds of losses which might be suffered. For instance, I can conceive that a very valuable water supply might be cut off from a man's farm. It is possible that an act of the Board might cause very valuable rights to be void, or, as has been pointed out by Lord Desborough, very extensive buildings put up for dairying or for stock purposes might be made absolutely useless. Surely damages ought to be paid in such cases as those. If the Board and the person aggrieved cannot agree, then I suggest that they should go, as is usual, to an arbitrator. It has been pointed out this afternoon that if there is a power of appeal it will be very seldom used. I think that is so. Government Departments do not like appeals, and if there were this power in the background things would be very much safeguarded.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 9, leave out (" may ") and insert (" shall ").—(Lord Hindlip.)
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORThe Amendment proposed by the noble Lord, if taken by itself, would be absolutely inoperative. But I am not going to treat it by itself, as that would not be right. Merely substituting "shall" for "may" would have no effect, because the clause would then read thus: "and shall provide for securing to the landlord such payments or other benefits (if any) as the Board think just on account of any profit or benefit derived or expected to be derived by the tenant by reason of the suspension of the covenant or condition." The noble Lord proposes further to alter those words, and his present Amendment can be appreciated only by taking both of his Amendments together. He proposes in the second Amendment standing in his name that the words "as the Board think just" should be altered, and that they should run "as are just," not leaving any power of decision with the Board. I submit to your Lordships that it would be very inconvenient for that change to be made. This relates to the terms which are to be contained in the notice, and you must trust somebody to decide matters of that kind. 552 If the Board think it just that any allowance should be made in respect of the matters here dealt with, they are given power to make the necessary provision. If it were in fact just that certain allowances should be made, I suppose the noble Lord would say that there should be the right of going to the Courts to compel the Board to make these allowances. Surely in dealing with the terms of the notice which the Board are going to give, the proper people to decide—and I think your Lordships will be of opinion that the Board will do their best to decide fairly—are the Board who are entrusted with the administration of these matters.
§ LORD PARMOORMay I make a suggestion to the noble and learned Lord? I think that the underlying principle of the Bill is extremely sound, dealing with matters under the compensation principle. I do not know why this particular matter is taken out of that principle. Would it not be fairer to leave this question to the compensation principle in order that a fair amount should be adjusted and paid?
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORI suppose it would form an item in a claim for compensation if the provision were not made.
§ LORD PARMOORIf it would come into the compensation—of course, this must be discussed presently—that would meet the difficulty.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORThat is my impression.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ LORD HINDLIP did not move his second Amendment to which the Lord Chancellor had referred.
§ THE EARL OF SELBORNEI now move the next Amendment which stands in my name.
§ Amendment moved—
§
Page 8, line 14, at end insert:
Provided that if any person on whom any notice is served requiring him to cultivate any land according to the rules of good husbandly is aggrieved by the notice, he may within the prescribed time require the question whether the land has been cultivated according to the rules of good husbandly, to be referred to arbitration in accordance with this part of this Act, and where any question is so referred to arbitration
553
no action shall be taken for enforcing the directions given by the Board until the determination of the reference or except in accordance with the terms of the award and where the person on whom any notice is served is a tenant, the landlord shall have the same right as the tenant of requiring any question to be referred to arbitration."—(The Earl of Selborne.)
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEI have suggested the omission from the Amendment which has just been moved of the words "requiring him to cultivate any land according to the, rules of good husbandry." These words seem to limit the clause needlessly, and I thought it would run better—particularly if Lord Parmoor is going to move his Amendment in his form or in the form I suggested—if the beginning of the proviso read: "Provided that if any person on whom any notice is served under this section."
§ LORD PARMOORI entirely agree with the noble Marquess.
§
Amendment moved to the Amendment—
Leave out (" requiring him to cultivate any land according to the rules of good husbandry ") and insert (" under this section ").—(The Marquess of Lansdowne.)
§ On Question, Amendment to the Amendment agreed to.
§ VISCOUNT MILNERThat is adopting the whole thing. We cannot allow these words to go in before Lord Parmoor's Amendment is discussed.
§ LORD PARMOORI would say this on the point raised by the noble Viscount. I think that as a matter of drafting the way in which we have started is right. I do not think it would matter to the substance of my Amendment afterwards; but I understood that the noble Marquess had a form of words which would come before mine, and I gave way to him.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORTo put Lord Selborne's Amendment in the way proposed would be to eliminate the words which, according to the scheme of Lord Selborne's Amendment, confine the operations of this clause as to appeal to the case of a notice on the ground that the cultivation is not good, excluding the case where 554 the notice proceeds upon the ground that the manner of cultivation is not such as is in the national interests.
§ THE EARL OF SELBORNEIs the noble and learned Lord quite sure that this is so? The Amendment would run, supposing nothing more were done: "Provided that if any person on whom any notice is served under this section is aggrieved by the notice, he may within the prescribed time require the question whether the land has been cultivated according to the rules of good husbandry to be referred to arbitration." Nothing else.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORYes. But the striking out of those words, I presume, was intended to enlarge the operation of this section giving the right of appeal.
§ THE EARL OF SELBORNEI do not doubt that is so.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEThe noble and learned Lord is quite right.
§ THE EARL of SELBORNEMy point is that the noble Marquess's Amendment to my Amendment might be accepted, and the clause would still stand in accordance with the contention of the Government.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORThat is possible. But I understood that this Amendment to the noble Earl's Amendment was moved as indicating that the scope of the appeal was to be extended.
§ LORD PARMOORThe Amendment which has been adopted leaves it open to accept my Amendment, or the Amendment of the noble Marquess, or the noble Earl's Amendment as drafted in its original form.
THE LORD CHAIRMANThe noble Earl, Lord Selborne, moved his Amendment. The noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, moved an Amendment to that Amendment. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Parmoor, expressed his concurrence, and as I heard no objection to that course I put the Question.
§ VISCOUNT MILNERI think that the noble Lord in the Chair is perfectly in order. I do not dispute what he has said. But he moved rather fast, and perhaps 555 our wits did not move quite as fast as his. But we cannot complain of the Lord Chairman for being prompt. I do not think, as a matter of fact, it makes any real difference, and nobody here is, I am sure, going to take advantage of a purely technical point. I think we might go on, and if the next Amendment of the noble Marquess is carried, it is all right; but if it is not carried we shall be at sixes and sevens, though we can put it right later on.
§ VISCOUNT CHAPLINWhat is the precise question?
THE LORD CHAIRMANThere is no Question before the House. It is for Lord Parmoor to move his Amendment.
§ LORD PARMOORI give way to Lord Lansdowne.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEI understand that my noble and learned friend is content to accept my form of words. The words which I propose to insert, after the words "good husbandry" ["whether the land has been cultivated according to the rules of good husbandry "] in the fifth line of Lord Selborne's Amendment, are these: "or whether it is undesirable in the interest of food production that the change should apply to any portion of the land included in the notice." As the matter has been already discussed, I will not add any further explanation.
§
Amendment moved to the Amendment—
In line 5 of the Amendment, after the word (" husbandry "), insert (" or whether it is undesirable in the interest of food production that the change should apply to any portion of the land included in the notice ").—(The Marquess of Lansdowne.)
§ THE EARL OF SELBORNEI have already indicated that I do not entirely agree with the views that many of my noble friends have put forward. I am afraid that if Lord Parmoor's words—which are not before us—had been accepted, or if any words like them were accepted, a dangerous inroad might be made on the policy which the Government of the day, rightly or wrongly, thought essential in the interests of national safety, because agriculturists, landowners, and farmers 556 naturally cling with great tenacity to the method and custom of husbandry in which they have been brought up. There is a very prevalent opinion in this country to-day that in order to produce milk you must farm grass and that if grass land is ploughed up and turned into arable, you may produce corn but you will not be able on that farm to go on producing milk. I believe—and I am sure many of your Lordships will agree with me—that this is not the truth in many cases. It means a very definite change of practice to the farmer; it undoubtedly means the provision of more buildings for horses on the part of the landowner; but I believe I am strictly accurate when I say that on the same land, by good farming, you can produce as much milk under the plough as you can under grass, and produce the corn as well. That view, I know, is not held by a great many farmers, and it might easily be that the Government, with no desire or intention of reducing the milk production but with an intense desire to increase the corn production, might, as a matter of policy, desire land to be transferred from grass to arable, and if there were an appeal open on policy I am afraid there would be so many appeals as really to make this Part of the Bill difficult to work. That is my criticism against Lord Parmoor's Amendment as I understand it.
Lord Lansdowne's Amendment to my Amendment is very carefully drawn so as, if possible, to avoid that danger, though I am not clear that it does altogether avoid it. I feel so strongly upon this matter—I will not repeat what I have said so often before—that I would rather run the risk of an injustice to an individual than run the risk of the country not being made self-supporting in the matter of food. That is the beginning and the end of imposition. But I am quite sure that ii words could be found to meet this point, nothing would more facilitate the working of the Bill. It would remove an immense amount of dissatisfaction, an immense amount of preconceived prejudices, and I would seriously urge the Government, if they cannot accept Lord Lansdowne's words, to try and find words before Report which, while not open to the danger that I fear, would yet give an appeal in cases where there really might be a fair difference of opinion as to whether a wise suggestion had been made as to the use to which the land could be put.
§ VISCOUNT MILNERI am sure that we are all trying very hard to come to a reasonable understanding about this matter. I certainly feel that the words which the noble Marquess has suggested are much less objectionable from our point of view than the original Amendment tabled to Lord Selborne's Amendment; and it is conceivable that, if one had more time to think it out, one might see one's way either to accept these words or some words very like them. But to be frank I feel it is too dangerous, on the point on which the whole success of this measure and of the policy which it is framed to carry out may turn, to accept words which we have had only two or three minutes to look at. The Amendment which has been moved by the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, had been very carefully examined by us before the debate, and we came to the conclusion that it represented the maximum of what it was possible to offer to the House in order to meet the objections of noble Lords, without fatally imperilling our policy. I am afraid that, being called upon to make a difficult choice at a moment's notice, I must on behalf of the Government say that I am not prepared to go any further than that without more consideration.
I will put one point only to noble Lords which I think they ought to consider very carefully—namely, the difficulty in which the arbitrator would be placed who had to decide, not whether particular land is well or ill cultivated, whether it is being cultivated according to the rules of good husbandry, but whether the nature of its cultivation ought or ought not to be changed. It may be my ignorance of the subject, but I cannot understand how he could consider that question excluding considerations of policy. Whether or not the change is justifiable in the case of particular land depends upon the degree of urgency for that kind of change generally; and how can an arbitrator, dealing with a particular case, be aware of that? There might be land which ought to be broken up. If, for instance, we absolutely require 2,000,000 acres broken up, much of which ought not to be broken up if we only required 500,000 acres, how could the arbitrator, called upon to determine whether land ought or ought not to have the nature of its cultivation changed in a particular case, be able to decide that without reference to general economic conditions with which he 558 is not acquainted? I am very sorry that I do not see my way, anxious as I am to meet reasonable objections on this point, to go any further than the acceptance of the Amendment of the noble Earl as it actually stands. Therefore I am afraid that I must ask the House, at this stage at any rate, to vote against any amendment of it.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWESome of us regret that, although the noble Viscount opposite has put his case in so reasonable and persuasive a way, he has not been able to meet my noble friend the noble Marquess at all on this point. I confess that I do not exactly follow the difficulty which he evidently finds in seeing how an arbitrator would be able to deal with a specific case. I should have thought that he would deal with it somewhat in this way. If, for instance, it were a question in one of the grass counties—say Somerset or North Shropshire—of a particular farmer protesting against being instructed by the war agricultural committee to plough up a certain amount of land, the arbitrator would take into consideration what similar farmers were doing and had agreed to do in other parts of the same district. It would not be difficult for him, I should have thought, to say that a certain individual clearly ought not to be excused, even in the circumstances which the noble Viscount mentioned, from ploughing land which economically ought not to be ploughed, but has to be ploughed in obedience to a national demand. There is no reason why art individual should be excused if a number of other people had done and were willing to do the same. I cannot think, therefore, that the difficulty in regard to what I venture to think is not quite rightly called policy in these cases is by any means as insuperable as the noble Viscount seems to believe.
Then there is the further point. I have never been quite clear in my mind whether this measure is intended entirely to supersede all action under the Defence of the Realm Regulations. If it is, I confess I do not see any reason why it should. It is spoken of as an emergency measure, and we need not rediscuss the matter as to how far this action is likely to be permanent. But why not keep concurrently with it the powers, so long as the war lasts, under the Defence of the Realm Regulations, from which we all know there 559 is no appeal, and nobody would say that during the war there should be an appeal. We all agree that where a war emergency exists people must do what the Government of the country thinks they ought to do. But why try to substitute, in the form of a permanent Statute, action which can quite reasonably be taken, and which to the credit of the farming community as a whole has been accepted by them with little complaint, under the Defence of the Realm Act. Why attempt to substitute this measure, which, after all, is going to be continued into a distant vista of the future? I feel sure it will see most of us out, and it seems to me that His Majesty's Government are needlessly tieing their hands if they think of dropping action under the Defence of the Realm Regulations and taking action under this Bill. In those circumstances I should have thought it would not have done any harm to accept the Amendment of my noble friend opposite, while keeping the big stick which the Government are well able to wield for use where necessary, and the blows from which would be received without any complaint, if not from the person who received them, at any rate from all his friends.
§ EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTONI wish very much that we could follow the suggestion of the noble Marquess, and I am afraid that he and his colleagues think that we who sit on this Bench are unreasonable in our attitude. That is not our desire. We are opposing the Amendment, even the mild one moved by the noble Marquess, not merely on its merits, but because we are representing the considered view of the Board of Agriculture. As your Lordships are aware, those of us who are concerned with the passing of the Bill through this House have had the opportunity of close consultation with the President of the Board of Agriculture. The question of an appeal, and the possible and permissible scope of an appeal, is one which he has considered with the utmost desire to meet the criticisms that have been made and the proposals that have been suggested by noble Lords opposite; but I am speaking with knowledge when I say that the President of the Board holds very strong views upon this point. After consideration, he was prepared to go as far in the direction of allowing an appeal as is suggested in the Amendment 560 of the noble Earl, Lord Selborne; but further than that he is unwilling to go. I cannot therefore, on behalf of the Government, in this House assume the responsibility of asking your Lordships to consent to the acceptance of the Amendment of the noble Marquess below the gangway, which I am sure would not be accepted by my right hon. friend the President of the Board of Agriculture.
§ VISCOUNT CHAPLINI am very sorry to hear the decision of the Leader of the House. I understand that it is based entirely on the strong views which he says the President of the Board of Agriculture holds on this particular subject. Is that so?
§ EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTONNot entirely. I said "on the merits of the case," and I added as a consideration the views of the President of the Board of Agriculture.
§ VISCOUNT CHAPLINI cannot conceal from myself, and I do not think the House ought to forget, that over and over again the President of the Board of Agriculture has expressed the strongest possible opinions, sometimes in favour of a particular line of policy and at other times in favour of another line of policy. But everybody knows that he has abandoned them over and over again. I do not understand why the united knowledge of the Board of Agriculture and of the Government, including the Cabinet, is not able to decide upon the very simple point—for it is a simple point, after all—as to-whether or not you are to have an appeal in the particular case suggested by the noble Marquess. I do think, after the long discussion we have had upon this question, we ought to come to a decision upon it; and if the noble Marquess divides, as I hope he will. I shall most certainly support him.
§ On Question, whether the words proposed shall stand part of the Amendment?
§ Their Lordships divided: Contents, 48; Not-contents, 33.
561| CONTENTS. | ||
| Wellington, D. | Northbrook, E. | Harlech, L. |
| Powis, E. | Hindlip, L. | |
| Camden, M. | Verulam, E. | Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.) |
| Cholmondeley, M. | Knaresborough, L. | |
| Crewe, M. | Chaplin, V. | Lambourne, L. |
| Lansdowne, M. [Teller.] | Churchill, V. | Leconfield, L. |
| Falmouth, V. | Monckton, L. (V. Galway.) | |
| Abingdon, E. | Harcourt, V. | Oranmore and Browne, L. |
| Albemarle, E. | Parmoor, L. [Teller.] | |
| Ancaster, E. | Avebury, L. | Ribblesdale, L. |
| Camperdown, E. | Barnard, L. | Saltoun, L. |
| Devon, E. | Blythswood, L. | Sandys, L. |
| Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.) | Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.) | Somerleyton, L. |
| Burnham, L. | Southwark, L. | |
| Eldon, E. | Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.) | Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.) |
| Kimberley, E. | Desborough, L. | |
| Lucan, E. | Digby, L. | Sudley, L. (E. Arran.) |
| Morton, E. | Faringdon, L. | Weardale, L. |
| NOT-CONTENTS. | ||
| Finlay, L. (L. Chancellor.) | Waldegrave, E. | Elphinstone, L. |
| Curzon of Kedleston, E. (L. President.) | Emmott, L. | |
| Farquhar, V. (L. Steward.) | Harris, L. | |
| Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.) (L. Privy Seal.) | Sandhurst, V. (L. Chamberlain.) | Herschell, L. |
| Hatchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.) | Hylton, L. [Teller.] | |
| Islington, L. | ||
| Marlborough, D. | Milner, V. | Kenyou, L. |
| Peel, V. | Muir Mackenzie, L. | |
| Lincolnshire, M. | Newton, L. | |
| Anslow, L. | Ranksborough, L. | |
| Chesterfield, E. | Boston, L. | Stanmore, L. [Teller.] |
| Howe, E. | Buckmaster, L. | Stuart of Wortley, L. |
| Lytton, E. | Charnwood, L. | Treowen, L. |
| Selborne, E. | Colebrooke, L. |
§ Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment to the Amendment agreed to accordingly.
§ Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
§ LORD HINDLIPI move to leave out subsection (2) and to insert a new subsection. The object of this Amendment is to save trouble. It may be months before the owner receives a copy of the notice, and disputes may arise as to whether or not he has received it. To obviate any such difficulty, I submit this Amendment.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 15, leave out subsection (2) and insert ("(2) Where any notice is served on a tenant, a copy of the notice shall at the same time be sent to the landlord by registered post ").—(Lord Hindlip.)
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORI understand that the object of the noble Lord is to ensure that the owner shall get a copy of the notice by providing that it shall be sent by registered post.
§ LORD HINDLIPYes.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORThe Government are prepared to agree to that. That being so, I hope the noble Lord will be content that the clause should stand as it is—namely, "As soon as practicable after the service of any such notice on a tenant, a copy of the notice shall be served on the landlord "—adding the words "personally or by registered post."
§ LORD HINDLIPI want the notice to reach the owner at the same time. I am under the impression now that notices are being sent to tenants, but many weeks elapse before the owner receives any intimation.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORThe Government will accept the whole of the noble Lord's Amendment.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHSince I put the next two Amendments down, I have been told that the question has been raised as to whether the second one might 563 not be regarded by the other House as a breach of privilege. I express no opinion on the point. I may say, however, that the amount recoverable under the provision would apparently be recoverable under subsection (7), so that the Amendment seems to be little more than a declaratory provision. But in view of the question of privilege having been raised, the Government do not think it desirable that they should move the Amendment. If any noble Lord likes to do so in my place, he is welcome.
§ VISCOUNT CHAPLINI will certainly move it. I thought it was generally understood that this was supposed to be a great improvement to the Bill, and that the Government would move it themselves. Now I understand from the noble Duke that there is a question of privilege. But that is not a question in this House.
§ VISCOUNT MILNERIt is between the two Houses.
§ VISCOUNT CHAPLINThat being so, I will move the Amendment. I am not sure that there is not a mistake, but I will take it as it is. If it should be necessary, I can move another Amendment on the Report stage.
§
Amendment moved
Page 8, line 23, leave out (" as required by the Board ").—(Viscount Chaplin.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 35, at end insert (" Where the Board have entered on any land under this provision they shall pay to the occupier such amount as would have been payable by way of compensation on account of crops, tillages or other matters by an incoming tenant, and the amount so payable shall in default of agreement be determined by arbitration under this part of this Act ").—(Viscount Chaplin.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT GALWAYIf your Lordships will look at the bottom of page 8 of the Bill, you will see that power is given to the Board to let the land or any part thereof. It seems to me that there is very great danger that the Board, or somebody else, might let off the most important part of a 564 farm, thereby practically ruining the farm, and then hand the remainder back to the owner. The object of my Amendment is that they should not be able to let off any portion of the farm without the consent of the owner.
§
Amendment moved—
Page, 8, line 37, after the word (" or ") insert (" with the consent of the owner ").—(Viscount Galway.)
§ THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHI cannot accept the Amendment, because the effect of it would be entirely to prevent the Board of Agriculture from re-letting the farm without the consent of the owner.
VISCOUNT GALWAYNo; that is not so. I have no objection to the whole farm being let. What I object to is a portion only being let, which is a very different thing. As noble Lords will appreciate, to let off a portion of the farm, which may be the best bit of land, and leave the rest to the owner would not be fair.
§ VISCOUNT MILNERI think that this Amendment might put the Board of Agriculture in a very unfair position. They would naturally want to let the farm as a whole. If they did not succeed in letting the farm as a whole, and, contrary to their own wish, succeeded in letting only a portion of it, the owner might then prevent their doing even that. This does not seem to me to be a practicable proposal, and I hope your Lordships will not accept it.
§ VISCOUNT CHAPLINI confess I do not understand, and I shall be glad of some explanation upon the point, why the Board of Agriculture should think it necessary or desirable to encumber themselves, in what is a purely temporary emergency measure, by letting a farm on a lease for five years. What is the special object of that? In none of the other cases has it been thought necessary to have a lease, nor have any points been discussed upon those lines.
§ THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHThe Board of Agriculture will take over only land which in their opinion is badly cultivated or more or less derelict. It would not be fair to the incoming tenant to ask him to take a derelict farm for one year only. You must give him a lease.
§ VISCOUNT CHAPLINThis is the first time I have heard anything to that effect. It will relieve many people to hear that the Board propose to take over only land which is badly cultivated or derelict.
§ THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHThat is the intention.
§ VISCOUNT CHAPLINThe noble Duke says that that is the intention of the Government?
§ THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHYes; I should say so, as far as I am able to commit the Government. I imagine that is their intention, subject to the noble Viscount (Lord Milner) saying anything different.
§ VISCOUNT CHAPLINI understand that the representative of the Board of Agriculture does not know whether what he stated is intended or not by the Government. Is it the intention of the Cabinet?
§ VISCOUNT MILNERIt is a little unreasonable for the noble Viscount to put such a question to me. He cannot cross-examine us on every point of detail in this Bill, and ask me whether it is or is not the intention of the Cabinet to take a particular course. I think there must be a little reason in these matters.
§ VISCOUNT CHAPLINEvery Government, certainly in my career, which is a very long one, has been expected to know exactly what it means and what it wants. I ask why it is necessary to let a farm upon a lease, and I am told that it is because the Government intend to take only land which is either derelict or extremely badly cultivated. But how does that tally with what we were told at one time they intended to do, which I believe they have done to a certain extent already? Certainly they intended to take a quantity of good grass land, as we were told by one of the circulars issued from the Board of Agriculture they ought to do, for the purpose of ploughing it up and growing corn.
§ VISCOUNT MILNERI am most anxious not to continue an unnecessary discussion. It has been stated over and over again—there has been no secret about it—that we recognise that there has to be a certain amount of land taken, besides the land which is badly cultivated, in order to 566 carry out the objects we have in view. I am most anxious to explain anything that the noble Viscount wishes me to explain; but there really is no misunderstanding, I think, on that subject.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWEI should like to say a word on the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Galway, which is the actual subject under discussion. The noble Viscount (Lord Milner) said that it would be hard on the Board of Agriculture to have their operations possibly altogether changed by a veto from the landlord upon letting part of the land. That is no doubt true; but it is also possible to conceive what might be a very hard case indeed on the landlord. It is conceivable that the Board, having taken over some land, might let part of it, the outside and possibly the best part of the land, to a neighbouring farmer for, say, five years; but after having been in possession of the buildings and remainder for one year, they might withdraw from possession, as the phrase is, under the Act, and compel the unhappy landlord to take that back without the chance of again acquiring the farm as a whole. That, I think the noble Viscount would agree, would be an exceedingly hard case, and it does seem a pity that it cannot be guarded against.
§ LORD DESBOROUGHI do not think this matter is quite so simple as it appears at the outset. In regulating small holdings, we have found that when a man intended to take a small holding he always wanted the best part of the farm; he may even claim a part of your farm which cuts off your access to water or roads. If the best part of the farm is picked out and let to somebody else, you may be left with the farmhouse and buildings, which you cannot let at all. Therefore it is not merely the damage you suffer in having the best part of your farm taken away, but you also lose the farmhouse and buildings. As I understand, this matter will be subject to arbitration, and I think there ought to be a certain amount of protection given in these cases.
§ LORD PARMOORI hope that the noble Viscount opposite will not press this Amendment. I think that by the right of appeal and compensation which is given, the difficulty is met in a special manner as the Bill stands.
LORD HARRISMy noble and learned friend is rather counting upon this Bill coming back to us eventually in this precise form.
§ LORD PARMOORWe can only take the Bill as it stands.
LORD HARRISI am not so certain that we shall see it in this form eventually. We have had a great deal of experience of Bills coming back from the other House at the last moment and being passed through hurriedly without this House insisting upon the Amendments it has put in. May I suggest to the noble Viscount, Lord Milner, that I am perfectly certain the right hon. gentleman the President of the Board of Agriculture will see at once that there is a very serious hardship to the landowner if a portion of a farm is cut off and let for five years, and the owner has the risk of the remainder being thrown on his hands. May I suggest that, if the noble Viscount (Lord Galway) waves his Amendment to-day and waits until the Report stage, in the meantime Lord Milner might see the President of the Board of Agriculture upon it, and I cannot help thinking that Mr. Prothero would give way on this point. I am certain that he does not want to run the risk of doing a serious injustice and possibly harm to the cultivation of the rest of the land, thereby reducing the output of food.
§ VISCOUNT MILNERI am willing to do that.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWEOne way of mitigating it would be to provide that, where a part of a farm is let, the balance should not be returned to the owner without his consent. I am sure the noble Viscount appreciates the particular kind of hardship that has been referred to.
§ VISCOUNT MILNERIf the noble Viscount (Lord Galway) will adopt the suggestion, I will have the matter further considered before the Report stage.
VISCOUNT GALWAYI think the noble Viscount admits that there is a risk of great harm being done to the landlord. On the assurance he has given, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
568VISCOUNT GALWAYI move the next Amendment because in Nottinghamshire farms are held on yearly tenancies, and I do not see why the question of a lease should be thrust upon us. My Amendment proposes either a yearly tenancy or reducing the period of the lease from five to three years. In my opinion, it would be better when a farm is let that the same custom of tenancy should exist all round—namely, that of a yearly tenancy, as is usual in our neighbourhood.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 38, after (" thereof ") insert (" in a yearly tenancy or ") and leave out (" five ") and insert (" three ").—(Viscount Galway.)
§ THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHI fear we cannot accept this Amendment, because we think it is important to be able to give an incoming tenant security of tenure for a certain number of years.
§ VISCOUNT MILNERThere is nothing to prevent the Board of Agriculture letting the land on a yearly tenancy. The Board cannot let it for more than five years, but it can let it for any shorter period.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN had the following Amendment on the Paper—
Page 9, line 8, at end insert (" Provided always that the provisions of this subsection shall not operate if the owner of the land within reasonable time provides for the good cultivation thereof either by obtaining a tenant or otherwise ").
The noble Earl said: My desire was that the Board should not be able to enter upon land without the owner having an opportunity of finding another tenant, but the Lord Chancellor tells me that this is met already in the clause. Therefore I do not move my Amendment.
§ LORD DESBOROUGH had the following Amendment on the Paper—
§
Page 9, line 15, at end insert the following new subsection:
(6) Provided always that any person upon whom any notice, direction, or order is served under this section, whether by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries or their representative or agent, shall, if application in writing be made to the Board within seven days after the receipt
569
by him of such notice, direction or order objecting to the substance thereof and asking to be heard before the said notice, direction or order is further proceeded with, be entitled to be freed from carrying out the provisions of such notice, direction or order until the matter has been determined by a single arbitrator appointed in accordance with the provisions of the Second Schedule of the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1908, who shall determine which notice, direction or order, if any, shall apply.
Provided that for the purpose of any arbitration under this provision the arbitrator shall be nominated, in default of agreement, by the President of the Surveyors' Institute for the time being.
The noble Lord said: This matter has been already dealt with at considerable length and a Division taken. Therefore I do not move the Amendment.
§ THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHI move to insert the new subsection appearing in my name on the Paper. A point has been raised that if the owner would like to get into possession of his land the Board should give up the tenancy if the owner expressed a desire to take over the obligations and duties in connection with the land. This Amendment meets that view.
§ Amendment moved—
§
Page 9, line 15, at end insert as a new subsection:
( ) If at any time after a contract of tenancy of any land has been created by the Board the owner of the land requires the Board to withdraw from possession of the land, the Board shall so withdraw as soon as reasonably may be."—(The Duke of Marlborough.)
§ LORD PARMOORI think this is a most useful Amendment. But has the noble Duke gone quite far enough in the words: "requires the Board to withdraw from possession of the land "? The Board is not in possession of the land; the tenant is in possession; and you do not want the words "from possession of the land."
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORThe case is this. The land has been let to a tenant who has been working the land, and when the object of the provision in the Bill has been accomplished the owner says, "I should like to enter into the enjoyment of the reversion." I think the words are clear enough if you look at subsection (6), which speaks of the Board withdrawing from possession of the land. Paragraph (c) of that subsection speaks of a case of the land being "subject to any tenancy created by the Board in like manner as if the tenancy had been created by the person 570 who would but for the tenancy have been entitled to resume occupation of the land."
§ LORD PARMOORWill the noble and learned Lord agree to the noble Duke's Amendment running as follows: "If at any time after a contract of tenancy of any land has been created by the Board the owner of the land requires the Board to withdraw, the Board shall withdraw as soon as reasonably may be "? I think that would be a little more accurate.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORWe will consider the point before Report.
§ LORD PARMOORI move that the words "from possession of the land" be eliminated from the noble Duke's Amendment.
THE LORD CHAIRMANI will put the Amendment in this form— Page 9, line 15, at end insert as a new subsection:
If at any time after a contract of tenancy of any land has been created by the Board the owner of the land requires the Board to withdraw, the Board shall so withdraw as soon as reasonably may be.
§ On Question, Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
§ THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN moved to insert, after the word "land "at the end of paragraph (a) of subsection (6), the words appearing in his name on the Paper. The noble Earl said: If your Lordships will look at subsection (6) you will see that it is there provided that when the Board at any time withdraw from the possession of land of which they have taken possession under this clause they shall, before withdrawing, give the prescribed notice in writing of their intention to the person then entitled to resume occupation of the land. My objection is to the word "prescribed." I do not know what term that will be; it will be anything under Regulation. I think that a definite notice of withdrawing ought to be given, and that such notice should be a reasonable notice. It should be provided that such notice should be given six months previous to the determination of the occupation by the Board, and should expire on one of the half-yearly days customary in the district where the land is situate.
571
§
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 21, after (" land ") insert (" and such notice shall be given six months previous to the determination of the occupation by the Board, and shall expire on one of the half-yearly days customary in the district where the land is situate ").—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORI suggest to the noble Earl that it might be better to leave this to the Regulations. For this reason. The Board may have entered merely for a temporary purpose, and when that is performed they may want to go out. In the second place, if the owner were put to inconvenience by having the land thrown on his hands at a time when he could not get a tenant, there would be a claim for compensation; but it would a good deal hamper the operations of the Board in this respect if, when the purpose of taking possession were achieved, they could not give the notice without being tied down by a hard-and-fast statutory rule. I submit that it would be better to leave it as it stands.
VISCOUNT GALWAYSurely when the Board take over a farm they must be bound by the ordinary conditions on which the farm is let, which in my part of the country is six months. It is always a Lady Day tenure with us. All I understand the noble Earl to ask for is that the holding shall not be thrown back on the owner's hands except at the recognised time of the year.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYWhy not follow the Act of 1908, where twelve months notice must be given? Surely it is very hard to give the landlord or any other man very short notice if he is to go out. I have always understood that you could not give less than twelve months notice. In my county one has to give notice on one Michaelmas Day to go out on the next Michaelmas Day. I consider this notice is the least you can give.
§ LORD BARNARDI hope the Amendment will be accepted. Those of your Lordships who have knowledge of agriculture are aware that the date on which the notice will expire is one of vital importance in connection with the cultivation of the land. If you asked a tenant to leave and to effect a change on, say, a week's notice or some recognised time, as you can in the case of a house, you would thereby throw the land out of 572 cultivation. Therefore instead of increasing the production of corn you would be reducing it.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORI do not think the matter is one of very great importance. We do not propose to divide against the Amendment, and will allow it to be carried.
LORD HARRISMight I suggest that the words "not less than" be inserted? The Amendment specifies six months, but in my neighbourhood the legal provision is twelve months notice.
LORD HARRISI do not understand why His Majesty's Government are so anxious not to adhere to what has been laid down and imposed on the landlord in the interests of the tenant. I think it should be not less than twelve months notice. If the noble Earl (Lord Camperdown) will accept the addition of the words I have just put to him, it would be better.
§
Amendment to the Amendment moved—
In line 2, after the word (" give "), insert (" not less than ").—(Lord Harris.)
§ On Question, Amendment to the Amendment agreed to.
§ Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
§ LORD DESBOROUGHI move to insert the new subsection (7) standing in my name on the Paper. The object of this Amendment is that if the Board take forcible possession of any land they shall be charged with the outgoings on that land immediately—that is to say, so long as they continue in possession they can be charged with the fair annual value of the same, and shall discharge all tithe-rent charge, also all rates and taxes, so far as the same shall not be payable by any other person as occupier, also the cost of necessary repairs and insurance. Therefore if the Board take possession of land they will immediately be put in the position of an ordinary landowner. Some of these charges are already due, and I do not see, from the Bill itself, how they can be met if the 573 payment for these matters is postponed to a later period. There are mortgages and family charges, and other things to which I have not alluded, but with regard to which the Board of Agriculture, if they come into the land, should be immediately treated as a landowner and should assume the obligations of the old landowner.
§ Amendment moved—
§
Page 9, after line 30, insert the following new subsection:
(7) When, under the powers conferred on them by this section, the Board take possession of any land they shall, so long as they continue in possession, be charged with the fair annual value of the same and shall discharge all tithe rent-charge, also all rates and taxes so far as the same shall not be payable by any other person as occupier, also the cost of necessary repairs and insurance in respect of the same land, and, as soon as can conveniently be done, shall, after the expiration of twelve calendar months from the day on which they take possession, and so long as they remain in possession, after every succeeding twelve calendar months and after the day on which they withdraw from possession, furnish to the person who but for the entry of the Board would be entitled to possession, an account of such payments and of the fair annual value of the said land, and shall pay the balance appearing in each such account to such person."—(Lord Desborough.)
§ VISCOUNT MILNERThe view of the Government is that the various matters which the Amendment of the noble Lord is intended to safeguard are either cases, in which the landowner will be protected without any legal provision at all, or are covered by the general clause for compensation, with possibly one Amendment to which I shall presently refer. The noble Lord's Amendment, which is one to which I am informed innumerable drafting exceptions can be taken, deals with a number of payments for which the landowner is ordinarily responsible, but for which he rightly desires that the Board of Agriculture, when it stands in the position of the landowner, should become responsible. I do not think there is any difference between us in the matter of principle. The noble Lord has quite fairly explained what the principle is. Now take the various things to which his Amendment refers—first the tithe-rent charge. I speak now on a subject on which I have to take legal advice, because I could not determine it of my own knowledge, but I am informed that it is perfectly clear under the Act of 1835 that the tithe-rent charge is payable by the person who is in receipt of the rents and profits of the land.
§ LORD PARMOORThere has been an Act since then.
§ VISCOUNT MILNERYes; I believe there has been an amending Act. But the point is, the person in receipt of the rents and profits is liable for the tithe-rent charge. Obviously an owner who is not for the time being in possession of his land is not a person who is in receipt of the rents and profits. Our view is—and it is the view of all the legal advisers to the Government—that it is indisputable that in a case of this kind a landowner, as long as he is put out of his land by the Board of Agriculture, will not be liable for tithe-rent charge. Then with regard to rates and taxes. These certainly fall upon the occupier. The occupier will be either the Board of Agriculture or its agents, if they happen to be in possession of the lard themselves, or the tenant to whom they may let it. There can be no question of the landlord being made liable for them. Then as to the cost of necessary repairs and insurance. It would be obviously essential for the Board of Agriculture to meet these, unless it were to voluntarily expose itself to a heavy loss and consequent heavy compensation for which it would become liable to the owner. Then with regard to the right of the owner to receive the annual value of land after these various charges have been defrayed out of the profits of it. That, again, is regarded as being indisputable; and subsection (7) is intended to cover it as well as any other loss to which the owner may be exposed. There is one point which I think is a serious point, and which may not be provided for under the Bill as it stands. It may be contended that the rents as they come in would not be payable to the owner in the case where land is let by the Board of Agriculture, but that he would only be able to get a lump sum at some time or another when he claims compensation for his temporary dispossession. That is not intended, and in order to make that clear we shall be prepared, when we come to the compensation clause, to put in, after the word "amount," the words "the owner shall be entitled to be paid by the Board such amount or amounts by way of periodical payment or otherwise as may represent the loss."
§ LORD DESBOROUGHWould that cover interest on mortgages?
§ VISCOUNT MILNERNo; I do not think it would. The owner will be getting his rents.
§ LORD DESBOROUGHI hope he will.
§ VISCOUNT MILNERIf there is any rent to be got, he will get it. I think in those circumstances the noble Lord may be satisfied that the position is fairly safeguarded. If not, and if there is anything more that might be done, we might consider it on the compensation clause when we come to it.
§ LORD DESBOROUGHI am quite satisfied with the explanation of the noble Viscount. I was asked to bring this point forward because there was a great deal of doubt, and people did not know whether these charges would be met at the time, although they might be compensated afterwards. I think some noble Lords have been under the impression that a landowner who was temporarily deprived of his land would not get anything for a year.
§ LORD PARMOORThat comes on subsection (7).
§ VISCOUNT MILNERYes; the words of subsection (7), by which he is given a year, and not more than a year, in which to advance his claim. But there is no reason why he should not make it immediately, or why it should not be satisfied immediately.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEI do not desire to challenge the statement made by the noble Viscount. On the contrary, it seemed to me a very reassuring one, and it recognises to the full the principle for which many of us have throughout contended, which is that when the Board supersedes the landlord and steps into his place the Board will be expected to shoulder the obligations of the landlord and to discharge those obligations punctually.
I rose merely for the purpose of calling attention to a small point which arises in this part of the Bill, though I will not affirm that it arises on this subsection particularly. The point is, Ought it not to be arranged, for the protection of those who are described as persons interested in any land which is the subject of the notice, that whenever the Board enters into possession of land there should be an official record made of the condition in 576 which it finds the land? It seems to me, as the basis for subsequent compensation, that you want something of that kind. The Board might take possession of land which was grass land worth, let us say, £50 an acre. It might surrender that land subsequently when it had become indifferent tillage land and worth only £25 an acre. But you cannot make a calculation of that kind unless you have, as a point of departure, what the condition and value of the land were when the incumbency of the Board began; and I shall be glad to be told, either in connection with this clause or in some Regulation perhaps issued under the Bill, that that point will not be lost sight of.
§ VISCOUNT MILNERI think that is a very important point, and I will have the matter considered. I may be able to make some statement upon it at the Report stage.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYWhere the present war agricultural committees—I call them the "Holy Seven" in my county—take any land now, the particulars of it are carefully gone into and it is all scheduled field by field, so that they know exactly the state of the land. I am a victim, if your Lordships want to know. I have seen the way in which the land is scheduled. Every field is reported upon, and there is no mistake about it. If the Board of Agriculture does what is being done now by the war agricultural committees there will be the most elaborate and perfect record, and no danger such as the noble Marquess anticipates will arise.
§ VISCOUNT HARCOURTWould His Majesty's Government give some instruction to the Board of Agriculture that they should now, under the Defence of the Realm Regulations, act in accordance with the provisions of this Bill, because at this moment I know of a case in which, with the approval of the Board of Agriculture, a man's whole property of from 600 to 800 acres, which he has been farming himself, has been taken from him, and the war agricultural committee have declined to pay him any rent for it. They have referred him to Mr. Duke's Commission. To-morrow they are selling this man's standing crops by auction, but they do not propose to hand over any of the money which is obtained from these crops, and have referred him to the War Losses Commission. I think some instructions should be given that at least an ordinary 577 payment should be made to the individual who has had the whole of his property—no doubt quite properly—taken from him.
§ LORD BUCKMASTERI hope the noble Viscount will forgive me if I call his attention to a misapprehension with regard to the meaning of subsection (7), because if there is anything there which leads to a misunderstanding I am sure he will be glad to have it put before him. The noble Viscount's suggestion was that these claims could be made at any time within a year, and consequently payments could be made within the year—
THE LORD CHAIRMANThat Amendment is not now before the House, but it will be before your Lordships in a minute.
§ LORD DESBOROUGHI ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ LORD PARMOORI move to leave out from subsection (7) the words "if he makes a claim for the purpose within such time, not being less than one year, after the exercise of the powers as may be prescribed by the Board," and to insert "on making a claim within such time as the Board may prescribe, not being loss than three months after the exercise of the powers."
The point I raise is an extremely important one, but I was very satisfied with what the noble Viscount said more than once—that in his view full compensation should be given to anybody interested in land who suffers loss consequent on the exercise of any of the powers under this Bill. I want to say that in my view, after some experience of compensation cases, the subsection as it stands appears to be in the right form. I have no criticism at all with regard to the form of it, but I do not think it necessary that the words which I move to delete should be retained. Those words have led, and I do not wonder at; it, to a great deal of misconception, because it is thought that a claim could not be made until after a year had passed. I hope the noble Viscount will be able to accept my Amendment. I did propose to put in a limited time, but that was under a misapprehension—it was taken from the ordinary Compensation Acts, where it is necessary to put in a limit because you have to ascertain the price of 578 the land before you take possession of it. But that does not arise in the present case.
If I read this subsection aright—and, as I say, I am in favour of its general form—it deals with a largo number of difficulties which have been suggested in other places in the Bill with regard to hardship, because you really got compensation, which as far as I can see is the right principle. Let me take a concrete case. Suppose land is taken for five years, you would compensate the man for the loss he sustained during the five years that the land has been out of his possession and control. Where land is taken for all time, you naturally compensate him on the principle that he loses in perpetuity any right to the land. But it is extremely common to deal with limited terms, particularly leasehold terms. Let me give your Lordships one or two illustrations. We have spoken about the loss of rent. I am not going into the covenants which may apply in a particular case. It is far better in my view that they should be dealt with by compensation than that you should have some extremely complicated accounts taken in order to ascertain what would be the net annual value. To go into that question would be a matter of very great difficulty, whereas under the compensation provision you might have all these matters considered and the money paid either once for all, or periodically, as might be best. With regard to covenants, suppose a breach of covenant, in the sense of a covenant being put on one side, causes loss, the person interested in the land, on whom the loss falls, will be entitled to claim compensation under this subsection. I agree with what the noble Viscount said on the last Amendment. But there may be cases with regard to tithe-rent charges, rates, cost of repairs to property, and so on, which depend on the covenants between the landlord and tenant. They are very often dealt with by special contract. If that contract is upset to the detriment of either party, then under subsection (7) the injured party would get compensation, as I understand. If I am right, and certainly my view of the Bill has been founded upon this point, all these various matters to which consideration has been given, and to which the attention of your Lordships has been called, would really be subject to compensation if loss follows from them; and it seems to me that that would be far the fairest way to deal with the whole of the question of payment to the person who 579 has suffered loss under the Bill. You do it once for all. If you could not agree as to the amount—which I suppose you would in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred—it would be settled in a simple manner by a single arbitrator, and all the difficulties to which reference has been made would be swept away. The question of the loss, if any, would be considered. In some cases you might have a loss, and in other cases there might be none at all. I am anxious to know if my interpretation is right, because I think the compensation clause in a case of this kind is a matter of very great importance.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 35, leave out from (" shall ") to the second (" be ") in line 37, and insert (" on making a claim within such time as the Board may prescribe, not being less than three months after the exercise of the powers ").—(Lord Parmoor.)
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORI agree with the construction which my noble and learned friend has put upon these lines. They have been misconstrued elsewhere, and it is not, I think, to be wondered at that misapprehension should arise in some cases as to their effect. The words have sometimes been read as meaning that you had to wait a year before making the claim. Of course, they do not mean that at all. What the words mean is this, that the Board are to allow a year for making the claim. It is not that the man is to make, it at the end of the year, but that the Board is not to say he shall be barred if he does not make it within six months. That is the sense which the words are intended to bear, and I think it is the way in which they should be construed. At the same time I suggest to the Committee that it might be desirable to follow the proposal of my noble and learned friend and leave out these lines altogether. But perhaps it would be better not to bring in any words instead of them in that position.
§ LORD PARMOORHear, hear.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORI will read how I suggest the subsection might run—
Any person interested in the land who suffers any loss shall be entitled to be paid by the Board such amount or amounts, by lump sum or otherwise, as represent the loss, on making a claim as prescribed, the time within which such claim must be made not to be less than one year from the occurrence of the loss.580 I suggest some words of that kind, and I think they would come in more naturally at the end of the clause.
§ LORD PARMOORI suggest to the noble and learned Lord that if the words in question were left out it would be much fairer and more satisfactory. If that is done, it leaves the option to the person injured to bring his claim for compensation when he desires to do so. Directly you cover anything "which the Board may prescribe," I think difficulties may arise such as Lord Desborough suggested. You might have to pay outgoings before you got your money. Why should not the person interested claim compensation at such time as he desires after he has suffered loss from the effect of the Bill?
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORThat will be the effect of the words which I suggested. The words I suggested were intended to prevent the Board from saying "You must make your claim within six weeks," or any short period of that kind. But they are not to prevent, a person who has suffered loss from claiming at once. However, I think it is very difficult to discuss matters of this kind until we see them on paper, and perhaps the best plan would be for a form of words to be considered and put down on Report.
§ LORD PARMOORI understand the noble and learned Lord to say that he does not object to my Amendment, which is the abolition of these words.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORThat is so.
§ LORD PARMOORThat is sufficient for my present purpose, and I will not go into the other matters. But I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord whether he agrees that the view which I suggested was right with regard to the scope of the compensation provision.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORThe intention, of course, was that compensation should be made—in fact, I think the Bill says so—for any loss sustained in consequence of the exercise of the powers under this Bill. I cannot say that I agree with everything my noble and learned friend said about it. I am not sure that I followed everything he said. But that is the general scope of the provision. It will be necessary, 581 having agreed to strike out these words, 10 put in—it may be provisionally only—some such words as I suggested at the end of the clause.
§ LORD PARMOORIf these words were taken out, and then the noble and learned Lord were to move what he suggests, we might see how the words stand.
THE LORD CHAIRMANThe question is, to leave out from the word "shall," in line 35, to the second "be" in line 37.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ VISCOUNT MILNERShall I be in order now in moving the words I mentioned?
§ VISCOUNT MILNERI want to put in, after the word "amount," "or amounts by way of periodical payments or otherwise," and "as may represent" instead of "as represents."
§ Amendments moved—
§ Page 9, line 38, after (" amount "), insert (" or amounts by way of periodical payments or otherwise ")
§ Page 9, line 38, after (" as "), insert (" may ")
§ Page 9, line 38, leave out (" represents ") and insert (" represent ").—(Viscount Milner.)
§ LORD BARNARDI regret I do not entirely follow the noble Viscount. I gathered from what he said to Lord Desborough, when he was dealing with that noble Lord's Amendment which was subsequently dropped, that he was going to propose words which would meet the case of charges on land. Lord Desborough mentioned specifically tithe-rent charges, and the noble Viscount dealt with that matter, and also with rates and taxes. But there are other charges on the land, such as rent charges, occasionally in favour of a charity, though it is true that most of these have been redeemed. Only this last week I have myself been dealing with a charge, the origin of which I do not know, which amounts to the somewhat substantial sum of £145 a year. Now, supposing the Board of Argiculture take over the land on which that charge arises, and I say to the person to whom that £145 a year is payable, "I am not receiving anything from this land and I am not going to pay," is there any provision in the Bill which will entitle that 582 person to go to the Board of Agriculture and claim this money? Subsection (7) alludes to losses only. These charges are not losses. Then, Again, quit rents and fee farm rents are constantly due. How are they going to be dealt with? As a matter of fact, I am sorry that Lord Desborough parted so easily with his new subsection.
§ On Question, Amendments agreed to.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORI suggest that provisionally we might here add to the subsection some such words as I now move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 38, after (" loss "), insert (" on making a claim as prescribed, at least a year from the occurrence of the loss to be allowed for making the claim ").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
§ LORD PARMOOR"On making a claim as prescribed," did you say?
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORYes; by Regulations.
§ LORD PARMOORIs it necessary to prescribe the form of the claim? Why should not a farmer or an owner making a claim make it in an ordinary form?
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORYes; but you may want some limitation with regard to the time. It would not be right for a claim to be made, say, after ten years. I think one ought to say that the man should not have more than a year for making a claim after the occurrence of the loss.
§ LORD PARMOORIf it is only that, I think that is reasonable. A man should be able to make up his mind in a year. But I do not like the words "in the prescribed form." They might create a difficulty.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORI merely say "as prescribed."
§ LORD PARMOORDoes "as prescribed" mean as prescribed under the clause or by the Board? I do not want the Board to prescribe the sort of claim, so that if the claim is not made in that form it is held to be inoperative. If the Lord Chancellor means "as prescribed" in the sense of referring to the former part of the clause, I have no objection.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORI cannot imagine that the Board would require the claim to be made in a particular form. If the farmer sent a letter, it would be sufficient. I hope it may be left as it is, at all events for the present. We may consider it to-morrow if any point really arises upon it.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD DESBOROUGHI now move to insert the proviso standing in my name at the end of the subsection (7) with which we have been dealing. This Amendment deals with grass land, which has been ploughed up in considerable quantities and a large amount of which will not produce anything from the seed which has been so laboriously put in. When grass land is ploughed up, you will not be able to ascertain for some time what loss you may sustain. Prices will be kept up, presumably, under Part I of the Bill until 1922; but supposing the prices of cereals have a great slump after that. If your good grass land has been ploughed up, you must have some little time to find out what will be the loss you will suffer. Therefore I propose that the time in which to ascertain that loss should be extended until the year 1926; that is practically four years after the expiration of the minimum prices.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 38, at end insert (" Provided that in the case of a claim for a notice requiring any grass land to be ploughed the time to be prescribed by the Board shall be such that a claim may be made at any time up to the thirty-first day of December nineteen hundred and twenty-six, and in any other case shall not be less than one year from the date of the exercise of the power in respect of which the claim is made ").—(Lord Desborough.)
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORSurely it would be more convenient that, instead of leaving the matter open for a series of years, it should he, calculated at once and the amount paid. That would be so as the subsection stands. Is not that better than leaving it to be brought up, say, five years after the event happened?
§ LORD DESBOROUGHProvided it is clearly understood that there will be prospective compensation for the damage done, I will withdraw. I do not know how it is to be assessed, whether it will be so much per acre or what it will be.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORI understand that whenever a bargain of that kind is entered into the amount asked for leave to plough up the grass land would be based on the possibility of damage happening to the landlord from it. So you would look forward to see what the landlord would suffer, and what sum it was reasonable for him to ask. That is how I understand it. Perhaps my noble friend (Lord Milner) will consider it between now and to-morrow.
§ LORD DESBOROUGHThere are exceptional circumstances, because the prices are artificially kept up for a time to a certain point, but you cannot tell what they will be afterwards.
§ THE EARL OF ANCASTERI think this Amendment raises a very important question. I have an Amendment later on dealing with compensation. One of the great difficulties in this question is the matter of compensation. No man can tell when land is broken up whether it will be a success or not. Some think it will be a failure; some think it will be a great success; and it naturally depends very much upon the class of land which is broken up. I have heard some people say that it would mean ruination to break up the best grass land; but I know others, competent farmers, who say that it is a perfect gold mine to do so. In fact, one farmer in my neighbourhood said that he would pay his landlord £500 in order to be allowed to break up the land, so that there should be no trouble about it. He told me that he considered he would make a really good bargain if he paid his landlord that amount. I know that Mr. Prothero holds different opinions on the subject from those held by Sir Arthur Lee. A short time ago we were led to suppose—I do not know how it got about—that we were all to be given a fixed sum of £3 an acre, which was to be paid in compensation for land that was broken up. This matter has been referred, not only by one war agricultural committee but by a large number of them throughout the country, to the Board of Agriculture. I hold in my hand a circular letter which has been issued to war agricultural committees in England and Wales, signed "A. Lee, Director-General." It says—
Compensation for the ploughing up of grass land.Sir,—It had been hoped that special arrangements might be made to provide for any loss incurred by the conversion of grass land to arable cultivation in connection with the food 585 production scheme. Unfortunately, the proposals which had been framed for that purpose have been found impracticable. It is, however, open to landlords and tenants, where a compulsory Order has been made for the breaking up of grass land, to apply to the Defence of the Realm (Losses) Royal Commission for compensation for any direct and substantial loss incurred or damage sustained by reason of interference with their property or business under the Defence of the Realm Regulations. In order to safeguard the claims of both landlords and tenants where such loss is incurred, the agricultural executive committees should, in every case in which grass land is broken up, make an Order for the purpose under paragraph 1 (e) of Regulation 2M. Such an Order should be made in cases where both parties consent to the breaking up as well as in cases where the landlord or tenant objects to the breaking up.The whole of that circular undoubtedly suggests that it is proposed to give adequate compensation for any loss incurred. At the present moment anybody who is aggrieved has to be told to go before the Defence of the Realm (Losses) Commission, and this circular distinctly states that there is a very good hope of getting something from that Commission if the ploughing up proves a failure. But the point which Lord Desborough raises, and the point which is, of course, at the bottom of the whole of this Amendment, is that nobody can tell for the next five, six, seven or eight years whether the thing is going to be a failure.We know that most of these Orders for the breaking up of land will be issued immediately after the coming harvest. I understand that we are to set to work as quickly as possible, and it is most important that we should know our position with regard to this matter. I would venture to say to the noble Viscount who is in charge of the Bill, and who, I believe, is one of the chief movers in this question of getting land broken up, that the sooner it is stated in the Bill exactly how compensation is to be paid, or some Government statement is made on the matter, the more quickly will matters be expedited. As things stands at present, the majority of the war agricultural committees do not know how to act without inflicting hardship on landlords and tenants by ordering them to do a thing that they cannot possibly do; and when they make a claim they will probably be referred to the Defence of the Realm (Losses) Commission, which it is very likely may have then ceased to exist. You may receive orders to plough up some grass land from which in the first year, on 586 account of wireworm or drought, or something else, you may get nothing at all. Perhaps in the second year you may get a good crop, and in the course of time the land may turn out well and no loss be incurred; but, as I say, you cannot tell for six, seven, or eight years how it will eventually turn out. In my own case I have land which I ploughed up ten years ago which I should like to lay down to-morrow, because every year I am steadily losing money on it.
I submit that we ought to be able to make some claim after six, seven, or eight years, when we may know whether the experiment has turned out a success or not. The enormous expense of laying down land to grass is, of course, well known. It may be so cultivated for four or five years, and if there is anything to be got out of it the tenant gets it. Then it is ploughed up; the farmer finds it is a dead loss; he farms it for one year, but never attempts to clean it, and then gives notice to quit and goes away. The landlord would then have to plough it up again, and nurse it back to decent pasture. I think this Amendment ought to be carefully considered by the Government in view of the large amount of land they are asking the war agricultural committees to order to be broken up.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORPerhaps the noble Lord will omit from his Amendment the words at the end, "and in any other case shall not be less than one year," and so on, as we have provided for that.
§ LORD DESBOROUGHI am ready to do that. I will move down to the words "twenty-six."
§ On Question, Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
§ THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHThe next Amendment, which is one standing in my name, is purely verbal.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 41, leave out from (" by ") to the end of subsection (8) and insert (" arbitration under this part of this Act ").—(The Duke of Marlborough.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 10, leave out subsections (10) and (11).—(The Duke of Marlborough.)
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNSubsection (10) says—
The powers conferred by this Part of this Act shall not be exerciseable so long as the powers exerciseable by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries with a view to maintaining the food supply of the country under the Defence of the Realm Regulations remain in force.I think this was inserted in the other House. The Government insisted upon it here, and said they attached great value to it. Now they propose to withdraw it and to substitute another subsection which will come a little later. The effect is that this Part of the Bill shall come into operation at the expiration of one year from the passing of the Bill or the termination of the present war, whichever is earlier. Therefore instead of allowing the Act to remain dormant, as they said they would, as long as the Defence of the Realm Regulations were in force, the Government now propose to bring it into operation after one year. The result of that will be that both the powers under the Defence of the Realm Regulations and these here will be in force at the same time. Perhaps the noble Duke will explain why that is done.
§ THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHI am informed that in a year's time, when Part IV comes into operation, the Defence of the Realm Regulations will cease automatically.
§ THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHIt is not stated in the Bill, but it is a fact.
§ LORD PARMOORIt is of great importance that the Defence of the Realm Regulations should come to an end, but they will not come to an end unless you provide for it by Statute.
§ THE EARL OF SELBORNEThis is a very important point. I think I shall not be corrected by the noble Viscount opposite when I say that I was informed on a very high authority that the intention of the Government was to withdraw the operation of the Defence of the Realm Regulations within a year, or at the end of the war, whichever should be the shorter period, and their intention to do so was based on the feeling, which I share, that the Defence of the Realm Regulations are so drastic that they had much better be 588 replaced as soon as possible by the milder provisions of this Bill. I understood that to be the intention of the Government, but I should like the noble Viscount to confirm it.
§ VISCOUNT MILNERThe statement of the noble Earl is correct. That is the intention. Not that the Regulations would cease automatically, but it is the intention of the Government to withdraw them at the end of the year, in order that the provisions of this Bill may take their place.
LORD HARRISA certain place is going to get a good deal more paving with all these good intentions. I think it would be better to have it in the Bill.
§ LORD PARMOORI suggest these words to the noble Viscount: "The Defence of the Realm Act Regulations shall cease at the end of one year, and on their cessation the powers conferred by this Part of this Act shall come into operation." That would make it clear on the face of the Statute.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 10:
§ Protection of crops, &c., from damage by rabbits and vermin.
§ 10.—(1) The Board of Agriculture and Fisheries may in any case where they are satisfied that crops, trees or pasturage are being damaged by reason of the failure of an occupier of land to destroy sufficiently the rabbits or vermin on the land in his occupation, after giving to the occupier such opportunity of destroying the rabbits or vermin as in the opinion of the Board is reasonable, authorise any person to enter on the land and kill and take the rabbits or vermin thereon, and the Board may recover from the occupier, summarily as a civil debt, the net cost incurred by the Board in connection with the action so taken.
§ (2) Any person acting under an authority given by the Board under this section shall, if so required, produce his authority, and if any person obstructs any person so authorised in the exercise of his powers or duties under this section, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds.
§ (3) The person entitled to kill rabbits or vermin on any common land shall for the purpose of this section be deemed to be the occupier of the land.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEI move to insert "and owner" after "occupier" where it secondly occurs in subsection (1). This is a small matter, 589 but one of some importance. It is to enable the landowner to have some say if it is thought necessary for the Board to enter on the land to destroy rabbits and vermin. Some of your Lordships have had experience of allowing outlying farmers to have rabbits exterminated; in nearly every case more damage is done in the way of destruction of fences than by the rabbits themselves. As this clause stands, if the occupier does not destroy the rabbits efficiently the Board can immediately authorise some person to enter on the land. In my opinion, the Board should give the owner an opportunity of doing what the occupier has neglected to do.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 25, after (" occupier ") insert (" and owner ").—(Lord Oranmore and Browne.)
§ THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHWe agree to this.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT GALWAYI think there must be a slight error in the drafting of the clause, because the noble, and learned Lord will see that in subsection (2) the authority is to be shown to anybody who has a right to ask for it. I want the authority to be in writing.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 27, after (" authorised ") insert (" in writing ").—(Viscount Galway.)
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORThat is agreed to.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT GALWAYI move to insert "one" after "any" ["authorise any person"] in subsection (1). I should be glad if the Lord Chancellor could give me a definition of vermin. It might refer to starlings and larks, as well as to other things. Personally I think it would be better to keep to the word rabbits and leave out vermin, unless we can have a definition of what vermin means. With regard to my Amendment, a farmer does not want a lot of shooting parties entering on his land to destroy rabbits. I think it ought to be "any one person."
§
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 27, after (" any ") insert (" one ").—(Viscount Galway.)
§ THE EARL OF SELBORNEI have a suggestion to make which I venture to think is preferable—namely, that the same authority should be used in connection with Clause 10 as the Duke of Marlborough will propose in his new clause immediately—that is to say, the body to whom this duty should be entrusted should be the war agricultural committee. They are going to be the specially chosen body as the delegates of the Board of Agriculture in all these very delicate and important matters, and in my opinion it would be much better, in connection with this matter of rabbit destruction, if it were put in the hands of those committees and not in the hands of any chance person. I would ask the Government to consider that, and to bring in some words on Report.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCHI hope the Government will not accept the Amendment. The great object is to reduce this tremendous number of rabbits, and the more a person is terrified by the thought of having his land invaded for their destruction, the better it will be.
§ On Question, Amendment negatived.
§ THE EARL OF SELBORNEWill the Government answer my question about using the war agricultural committees, and bringing in words on Report to meet that?
§ VISCOUNT MILNERWe will consider it.
VISCOUNT GALWAYI now propose, in line 28, to leave out the words "or vermin," as I have had no answer from the Government on that point.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 28, omit (" or vermin ").—(Viscount Galway.)
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORI hope the House, will not accept this. The noble Viscount has moved the Amendment in the hope of getting a definition from me of what "vermin" means. Definitions are proverbially dangerous, and I should not like to give an extemporary definition of such a point. But even more dangerous would be the leaving out of these words 591 altogether. We want to extirpate all creatures that are doing damage.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWEI think that what is aimed at in the clause is the destruction done by rats. If so, I think the words ought to be left in.
§ On Question, Amendment negatived.
§ On Question, That Clause 10, as amended, stand part of the Bill—
LORD HARRISI think I ought to raise a point here in the interests of the occupiers. The whole onus is thrown upon the occupier. In my neighbourhood the offender is very often the landlord, because the rabbit burrows are in the woods.
§ THE EARL OF SELBORNEHe is the occupier for that purpose.
§ THE EARL OF SELBORNEIf the wood is not let, the landowner is the occupier.
LORD HARRISIt says in subsection (1): "where they are satisfied that crops, trees, or pasturage are being damaged." If it is meant that the neighbouring landowner can in that case be proceeded against, being the occupier of the particular wood, that is all right.
§ Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
§ THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHI move to insert, after Clause 10, the new clause standing in my name on the Paper. I do not think it requires explaining, except subsection (3), which alters the period after which this Part comes into operation by limiting it to twelve months at the latest from the passing of the Act. Under the Bill it might have lasted longer if the war had continued.
§ Amendment moved—
§ After Clause 10, insert as a new clause:
§ " General provisions applicable to Part IV.
§ ".—(1) Arbitrations under this part of this Act shall be before a single arbitrator under and in accordance with the provisions of the Second Schedule to the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1908: 592 Provided that, the arbitrator shall be nominated, in default of agreement, by the President of the Surveyors' Institution.
§ " (2) The Board may, with respect to any area consisting of one or more counties or county boroughs, authorise any body of persons constituted in the prescribed manner, to exercise on behalf of the Board, subject to such appeal to the Board as may be prescribed, any of the powers of the Board under this part of this Act, and may if they think fit prescribe the procedure and the method of authentication of any notice or other instrument issued by any such body: Provided that the regulations shall provide that the body so constituted shall in the first instance consist of or comprise the persons who immediately before this part of this Act comes into operation were acting as members of the War Agricultural Executive Committees constituted under the Defence of the Realm Regulations for the counties and county boroughs comprised in the area.
§ " (3) This part of this Act shall come into operation at the expiration of one year from the passing of this Act or at the termination of the present War whichever is the earlier.
§ " (4) In this part of the Act the expression ' prescribed ' means prescribed by regulations made by the Board."—(The Duke of Marlborough.)
§ THE EARL OF SELBORNEI would ask the noble Viscount to turn to the proviso in subsection (2) of the Duke of Marlborough's Amendment. The words there are "shall in the first instance consist of or comprise." Why" in the first instance "? That looks as if there might be an intention of changing it afterwards. Why are those words required? I move to omit them in order to raise the question.
§
Amendment moved to the Amendment—
Leave out (" in the first instance ").—(The Earl of Selborne.)
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORWill my noble friend look at the words of the proviso: "Provided that the Regulations shall provide that the body so constituted shall in the first instance consist of or comprise the persons who immediately before this part of this Act comes into operation were acting as members of the war agricultural executive committees constituted under the Defence of the Realm Regulations." It is quite clear that this is a transitory provision intended to apply to the first creation of these bodies. Afterwards, as the noble Earl pointed out, their constitution may be changed. But the provision is quite clear that in the first instance they are to comprise those members who were at the time specified on the war agricultural committees. That is the policy of the clause.
§ THE EARL OF SELBORNEWhy should not the words run: "provided that the Regulations shall provide that the bodies shall consist of or comprise the persons who immediately before this part of this Act comes into operation were acting as members of the war agricultural executive committees "
§ VISCOUNT MILNERWe cannot stereotype the Boards for ever.
§ Amendment to the Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ LORD PARMOORI have a proposal to make on subsection (3) of the noble Duke's Amendment. I suggest that it should run in this form—
The powers exerciseable by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries with a view to maintaining the food supply of the country under the Defence of the Realm Regulations shall cease to operate at the expiration of one year from the passing of this Act or at the termination of the present war whichever is the earlier, and thereupon this Part of this Act shall conic into operation.I think it is important that you should not have the concurrent powers running. I agree with what the noble Earl said, that the powers of the Bill are the far more preferable of the two.
§ VISCOUNT MILNERAt first sight, those words appear exactly to express what we want to get at. Personally I am prepared to accept them on the part of the Government, always subject to this, that it is difficult to deal with matters of this importance at first sight, and if there are objections which do not occur to me now, perhaps I may be allowed to mention them on Report.
§ LORD PARMOORI am very much obliged to the noble Viscount. In a Bill of this complexity everybody, of course, wants to arrive at the best conclusion. I certainly should not object to the course which the noble Viscount proposes.
§ THE EARL OF SELBORNEI want to make an appeal to the Government germane to this Bill. Cannot they, during the year during which the Defence of the Realm Regulations will continue to be in force, strengthen the agricultural side of the Losses Commission? That Commission under the Defence of the Realm Regulations contains only one member who has any acquaintance with agriculture. Now a whole class of 594 new cases is coming forward for compensation, many of them involving matters of great importance to landowners and farmers. Consequently I appeal to the Government to do what I ask.
§ VISCOUNT MILNERI think it has practically been done already. The Losses Commission have asked for the appointment of another member who is well acquainted with agricultural matters, and the Government are going to agree to that.
§ THE EARL OF SELBORNEThank you.
THE EARL OF NORTHBROOKI wish the noble Duke had explained rather more fully what were the reasons which led the Government to propose this subsection (3). I should also like to have heard more precisely what the object and purpose of Part IV of the Bill is. It appears to me that the Board of Agriculture have very materially shifted their ground as to the object of Part IV during the past few months. May I remind your Lordships of what the President of the Board of Agriculture said on Part IV when moving the Second Reading of the Bill on April 24? Mr. Prothero said—
I do not pretend to think that these powers are suited to any other time than that of war emergency. They are war emergency clauses. We want them for 1918. I think we do want them for 1918, and therefore they are put into the Bill. I should like the House to realise that Part IV is not really put in as a permanent provision under which we wish to cultivate the land, but it is war emergency legislation which we think is necessary during the present time.That is a very clear and concise statement of the view that was held by the President of the Board of Agriculture at that time, and I think that view of Part IV has been supported to-day by the noble Viscount, Lord Milner, who in his speech reminded us that this was a war emergency provision. In fact, he appealed to your Lordships to accept Clause 9, on which he was speaking, as a measure that was necessary as a matter of urgency during the war. And the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, at the conclusion of his speech, said that these provisions were necessary for the needs of the hour.Now we find the noble Duke moving an Amendment to the effect that this Part of the Bill shall come into operation at the expiration of one year from the passing of this Bill or at the termination of the present 595 war, whichever is the earlier. What, then, is the position with regard to Part IV? If Part IV of the Bill is really an emergency provision, it seems to me that there is no need for including it in the Bill at all, because we have now had an assurance from the Board of Agriculture that they very much prefer to rely during the present emergency on the powers they possess under the Defence of the Realm Regulations. Therefore it does not seem to me to be a matter of war emergency to have Part IV in the Bill at all.
I submit that it is unnecessary to include this Part in the Bill, because if it is not to come into force until some time after the war there will be ample opportunity for the Government to consider what the agricultural policy of the country is to be. They can then introduce legislation for that purpose, and they will have the advantage of the advice of the new Minister of Reconstruction. I am not sure whether these are to be regarded as war emergency provisions or as an instalment of a new agricultural policy. I can see only one solution of the difficulty, and perhaps I am right in so looking at it. We are asked to consider these, provisions as what I may call stopgaps—that is, they are brought in to bridge over the period which will ensue after the provisions of the Defence of the Realm Act expire and until such time as the Government may, after full consideration, introduce a new agricultural policy for the country. Then perhaps the noble Viscount will tell me why there is such a change of front with regard to these clauses.
§ VISCOUNT MILNER; This Bill contemplates a period altogether of about five years. We hope that the war will be over much before that time, but I doubt very much whether the war will be ended this year. The profound economic disturbance which the war has caused and all its consequences will have come to an end at the termination of five years. I do not think the President of the Board of Agriculture has changed his view at all. All the provisions of this Bill, taking Part I and Part IV—as I have said, they all hang together—are war emergency provisions in this sense, that they arise directly out of the war and aim at being confined to the war and to its consequences. After a year from this date the powers under the Defence of the Realm Regulations are to 596 lapse, and their place is to be taken by the provisions of Part IV, which are milder provisions, and, you may say, more suitable to the post-war period, which will, however, still remain a period of exceptional conditions for which exceptional powers are required.
THE LORD CHAIRMANI understand that the Amendment suggested by Lord Parmoor is to be substituted for subsection (3) of the noble Duke's proposed new clause. The question is, that subsection (3) of the proposed new clause stand part.
§ On Question, subsection (3) negatived.
THE LORD CHAIRMANThe question now is that the following be inserted as subsection (3) of the proposed new clause: "The powers exercisable by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries with a view to maintaining the food supply of the country under the Defence of the Realm Regulations shall cease to operate at the expiration of one year from the passing of this Act or at the termination of the present war, whichever is the earlier, and thereupon this Part of this Act shall come into operation."
§ On Question, new subsection (3) agreed to.
§ THE EARL OF ANCASTERI think I shall now be in order in moving a proviso to be inserted at the end of the new subsection (3) dealing with the question of compensation. The point raised is a very important one, because I have no doubt that it is during the next six or twelve months, during which the Defence of the Realm Regulations remain in force, that most of these directions will be given and when people will be called upon to make very great sacrifices and to execute acts of husbandry in order to increase the total food supply of the nation. As the provision stands at present, as I understand the Bill, any person who claims compensation will still have to go before the Defence of the Realm (Losses) Commission. I raised this point at a war agricultural executive committee meeting at which there were several leading members of the Farmers Union present, amongst them Mr. Colin Campbell, and we, as a war agricultural executive committee, came to the conclusion that it was most important that if we were to 597 act in the interests of the nation ill trying to get more food grown, we should have a more satisfactory tribunal to which to tell aggrieved persons to go than the Defence of the Realm (Losses) Commission.
I think His Majesty's Government appear already to have recognised this, because only a few minutes ago, across the floor of the House, Viscount Milner told the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, that it had been decided to strengthen the agricultural side of the Losses Commission. But I do not think that is enough. At the present, moment it may happen that a man in, say, Cornwall, or in Northumberland, a farmer or landlord—I do not mean a large landlord but a small owner—may be treated in a most drastic manner, though perfectly rightly, by a war agricultural committee, by which he may suffer considerable loss and damage. In order to prove his claim for compensation that man will have to journey all the way from either Cornwall or Northumberland to London, and bring all his witnesses with him. He will probably have to pay their railway fares, which is a considerable item as fares have increased by half as much as they were previously; and he will be lucky if he can get them into the train. His own and his witnesses' expenses may run him into something like £20 or £30 in order to come up to London and appear before the Commission to prove the claim, which may be of great importance to him though it may be a small matter to His Majesty's Government. It seems to me—and I think this opinion is shared by a good many of the war agricultural executive committees—that it would be far better to allow questions of compensation to come into force at once.
I do not wish to give any offence in what I shall say, but I cannot get rid of the idea that the whole of this manœuvre as to when this Bill is to come into force is specially planned in order to do people out of compensation. I do not quite know why the Act should not come into force at once and the Defence of the Realm Regulations be abolished. This is the vital year. This is the year when you are going to order people to do a great many things which will involve, them in expense. You are going to seize their land and order them to undertake certain acts of cultivation, but His Majesty's Government, seem determined not to take any responsibility on themselves. 598 With regard to taking over farms, the war agricultural committees have been careful to call in a valuer so that there should be some statistics available. I think it was the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, who stated earlier in the evening that it would be a good thing to have a record made of the land. We have done that as far as possible. It has been laid down by the Act of 1908 that the arbitrator who is called in is the sole valuer and is to decide what compensation should be given. I think it would be more in the spirit of past legislation, and also far more in keeping with the sentiment of the country, if His Majesty's Government were to allow these claims for compensation to come before a single valuer, as they propose in their Bill, straight away, instead of postponing that Part of the Bill, and, during this most important year, forcing everybody to go before the Defence of the Realm (Losses) Commission.
§
Amendment moved to the Amendment—
At end of the new subsection (3) insert (" Provided always that any person interested in any land who suffers any less by reason of any act done, order issued, or direction given by the Board or its representative or agent under the Defence of the Realm Consolidation Act or under any regulation issued thereunder, shall be entitled to claim and be paid compensation for such loss, the amount of which shall in default of agreement be determined as in manner provided by subsections (7) and (8) of this section ").—(The Earl of Ancaster.)
§ VISCOUNT MILNERI do not think it is possible for the Government to accept this proviso, which seems to me to be alien to the purpose of the Bill. There may be something to be said for proposing that the Bill should take the place of the Defence of the Realm Regulations at once, that we should substitute this system as soon as it becomes law for those Regulations; but it seems to me impossible and illogical to provide that the Defence of the Realm Regulations should go on, but that the proceedings under them should be regulated by this Bill. You must have either one or the other.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWEAt the same time the noble Viscount does not meet the case that was put forward with great force by the noble. Earl behind me—namely, that of the man who may have an inconsiderable claim, which to him, 599 however, is an important one, and who may have to travel up to London, and bring his evidence up at great expense, in order to set out the matter before what used to be known as Mr, Duke's Commission. It does seem that, if there is going to be a great multiplication of cases lodged within the next year, it is a hardship that there should not be some local means of hearing these cases, even though they are heard under the Defence of the Realm Act.
§ VISCOUNT MILNERI am not contending for a moment that the Defence of the Realm procedure does not need improvement. It does. Only just now I called attention to the fact that we were strengthening the Commission. It is only now that a large number of cases are coming into the Duke Commission, and no doubt this procedure will have to be seriously modified in order to deal with them.
§ VISCOUNT MILNERYes, I think so.
§ Amendment to the Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ On Question, new clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 11:
§ Regulations.
§ 11.—(1) The Board of Agriculture and Fisheries shall, in addition to any special power to make regulations given to them under this Act, have power to make regulations generally for the purposes of carrying this Act into effect and in particular—
- (a) for prescribing the manner in which claims for payment under Part I of this Act are to be made, and the evidence to be required in support of any such claim; and
- (b) for requiring the Agricultural Wages Board to define the benefits or advantages not being benefits or advantages prohibited by law which may be reckoned as payment of wages in lieu of payment in cash, and the value at which they are to be so reckoned, and for enabling the Agricultural Wages Board to limit or prohibit the reckoning of benefits or advantages as payment of wages in lieu of cash, and for enabling the Agricultural Wages Board, on the application of any employer or workman, to determine any question which may arise as to the value of any such benefits or advantages, or generally as to any contract of employment so far as the application of the provisions of this Act thereto is concerned; and
- (c) for requiring the Agricultural Wages Board to define for the purposes of any differential rate for overtime the employment which is to be treated as overtime employment.
§ (2) Any regulation made under this Act shall be laid before each House of Parliament forthwith, and if an address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent twenty-eight days on which that House has sat after any such regulation is laid before it praying that the regulation may be annulled, His Majesty in Council may annul the regulation, and it shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder.
§ THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHThe two Amendments standing in my name to this clause are purely verbal.
§ Amendments moved—
§ Page 11, line 19, after (" Board ") insert (" or a district wages committee ")
§ Page 11, line 25, leave out (" the Agriculture Wages Board ") and insert (" district wages committees ").—(The Duke of Marlborough.)
§ On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE EARL OF NORTHBROOKI move to leave out subsection (2) and to insert a new subsection. I was asked to put down this Amendment by the secretary of the Central Chamber of Agriculture, which, as your Lordships know, is an influential and representative agricultural body consisting mainly of tenant farmers, and I am assured that they feel very strongly on this matter. The subsection as it stands now provides that any Regulation made under this Bill shall be laid before each House of Parliament forthwith, and if an Address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent twenty-eight days on which that House has sat after any such Regulation is laid before it, praying that the Regulation may be annulled, His Majesty in Council may annul the Regulation. It has been pointed out that the expression "His Majesty in Council" is, as a matter of fact, the Cabinet; and some agriculturists feel that the Government may not take any action on an Address presented, and that therefore they will be debarred from getting such remedy with regard to any Regulations. This they consider to be unfair. I am told that as a matter of fact in all cases where Addresses have been presented by either House of Parliament under similar clauses as this, action has always been taken and the Regulations have been 601 annulled. But the agriculturist is rather timid, and he, would much prefer that there should be no doubt about the matter. Therefore my proposal in the Amendment which I have on the Paper is that, once the Regulations have been laid, if either House resolves that they ought to be annulled, they shall after the date of that Resolution cease to have effect.
Clauses similar to this have been inserted in many Acts of Parliament. I will give your Lordships two examples. One is an agricultural Act, the Milk and Dairies Act of 1914, under which the Local Government Board have power to make Regulations affecting dairies and the sale of milk. That act contains a clause practically identical with the one which I have on the Paper. The other precedent is the Trade Boards Act. As your Lordships are aware, several of the clauses in the Bill now before the House have been drafted on the lines of sections in the Trade Boards Act, and some of the provisions of that Act are incorporated in this Bill. The words in my Amendment are taken almost textually from a section in the Trade Boards Act; and I submit to your Lordships that if that section has been found satisfactory in dealing with the regulations for the trades which come under that Act, a clause in similar terms should be found sufficient for the purposes of this Bill. I am told that if the words in my Amendment were substituted for those in the Bill it would make practically little difference. I think that is an argument in favour of my Amendment, because if my words could be substituted without making any essential change in the provision, there would be no harm done; on the other hand, you would allay a very great feeling of distrust which I can assure your Lordships, rightly or wrongly, does exist in the minds of agriculturists as to the possibility that the provisions which are here laid down are not strong enough to protect them. I trust that the Government may be willing to accept my Amendment.
§ Amendment moved—
§
Page 11, line 29, leave out subsection (2) and insert:
( ) Regulations made under this Act shall be laid as soon as possible before both Houses of Parliament, and if either House within the next subsequent twenty-eight days on which that House has sat after the regulations have been laid before that House, resolve that all or any of the regulations ought to be annulled, the regulations shall after the date of the resolution be of
602
no effect, without prejudice to the validity of anything done in the meantime thereunder or to the making of any new regulations."—(The Earl of Northbrook.)
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORI hope that the Committee will allow the clause to stand as it is in the Bill. It is in the usual form. His Majesty may annul the Regulation if an Address be passed, and I submit that there is no sufficient reason for departing from the form adopted.
THE EARL OF NORTHBROOKI ventured to quote the precedent of the Trade Boards Act, in which the clause is in precisely the form in which I have put it in my Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWEI am not surprised that my noble friend Lord Northbrook has moved this Amendment, because this particular form has on previous occasions caused some uneasiness as to whether or not it is to be regarded as mandatory. But I understand—and I hope the Lord Chancellor will confirm me that it is so—that it is not thought proper to apply the word "shall" to His Majesty in Council. Therefore the word "may" is used. The effect is precisely the same. There is no choice in the matter. If either House moves an Address, the Regulation is thereby in practice certain to be annulled.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYI am sure it would be in the interests of the House that the Government should assert what my noble friend has said to be the fact; otherwise it will throw doubt upon all these clauses. "May" as applied to the Sovereign in Council is "shall."
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORThe practice has always been that if an Address were, carried the Regulation would be annulled.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 12:
§ Powers of entry and inspection.
§ 12. Any person authorised in that behalf by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries or by any person or body of persons exercising any powers 603 of the Board on their behalf may, for the purpose of carrying this Act into effect, on the production (if so required) of his authority, enter on and inspect any land.
§ If any person prevents or obstructs the entry for the purpose of this Act upon any land of any person authorised under this section, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEI want to raise a point on this clause. Under it any person authorised by the Board of Agriculture, or by any person or body of persons exercising the powers of the Board, is empowered to enter on and inspect any land on the production of his authority. I suggest that notice should be given of these visits of inspection. Is it not a hard thing to expose the occupier to being suddenly invaded by an inspector without the slightest knowledge that the visit is imminent? It seems to me only reasonable to stipulate that in all such cases reasonable notice should be served on the occupier of such land. Perhaps the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill will consider that.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORWe will consider it.
§ Clause 12 agreed to.
§ Clause 13.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 12, after (" Board ") insert (" or any district wages committee ").—(The Duke of Marlborough.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clauses 14 and 15 agreed to.
§ Clause 16:
§ Definitions.
§ 16. For the purposes of this Act—
- (a) the expression "agriculture" includes the use of land as grazing, meadow, or pasture land, or orchard, or osier land, or woodland, or for market gardens or nursery grounds, and the expression "agricultural "shall be construed accordingly; and
- (b) the expression "cultivation" includes use for grazing, meadow, or pasture; and the expression "cultivate" has a corresponding meaning; and
- (c) the expression "workmen" includes boys, women, and girls; and
- (d) the expression "employment" means employment under a contract of service or apprenticeship, and the expressions "employ" and "employer" shall be construed accordingly; and
- (e) the expression "quarter" means, in the case of wheat, four hundred and eighty imperial pounds, and in the case of oats three hundred and twelve imperial pounds.
§ LORD DESBOROUGH moved to leave out the second "or" in paragraph (a) and to insert "but does not include the use of land as." The noble Lord said: I should like to amend the definition as it appears in this paragraph. One cannot see what osier land and woodlands have to do with Part I of the Bill. The minimum price for wheat or oats does not help woodlands in any way. We were told that the Bill hung together and was all consecutive, and that what you gave with one hand you took away with the other. But I do not understand why all these definitions should come within the expression "agriculture" in this Bill. You give a minimum price for wheat and oats, but why you should in consequence give a higher rate of wages to people engaged in forestry in Scotland I do not know. With regard to my Amendment, I am told that many of the people engaged in these highly specialised industries, such as horticulture and so on, will insist upon special rates of wages. To my mind you cannot put them into the same categories with regard to wages as are applicable to those engaged in growing wheat and oats. The people engaged in these specialised industries do not see why they should be included in a Bill of this character when they have nothing to do with the growing of wheat or oats.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 28, leave out the second (" or ") and insert (" but does not include the use of land as ").—(Lord Desborough.)
§ VISCOUNT MILNERThis is rather a difficult technical point. The object of the clause as drafted, as I understand it, is that the benefit of the provisions as to minimum wages should extend to the persons engaged on orchards, osier land, woodlands, market gardens, or nursery gardens, as well as to those who are working in the more ordinary forms of agriculture. But the provisions of Part I and Part IV are confined to land used for grazing, meadow, or pasture. This clause 605 says, in paragraph (b), "The expression ' cultivation ' includes use for grazing, meadow, or pasture; and the expression ' cultivate ' has a corresponding meaning." The word "agriculture" is used in that portion of the Bill which deals with wages.
§ LORD DESBOROUGHThat was my point. Why should the wages clauses of this Bill apply to orchards, osier land, or woodlands? I cannot see what that has to do with corn production or minimum prices.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORThe importance of the clause is with regard to Part II. I suppose there are cases where a man is sometimes employed on what would be called purely agricultural work and also in connection with woodlands, and, it may be, in connection with osier beds, and it would be very awkward if you did not bring in that part of the work in connection with fixing the wages. The only importance of this clause is that the wages provisions will apply to the men engaged in those industries.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEMay we take it that this paragraph (a) refers only to agriculture qua wages, and not to the effect of other parts of the Bill?
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORIn effect I think that is so. But we will look into it between now and to-morrow, and see whether anything further is wanted.
§ LORD DESBOROUGHI cannot see why higher wages should be given to people employed on orchards or osier land or woodlands simply because you give a minimum price to people engaged in growing corn. I fail to see the connection between the two. You introduce a Bill to increase the production of corn, and you end by giving higher wages and Wages Boards to people engaged on woodlands.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORIs it possible entirely to separate them? There are many cases of men who are engaged partly in ploughing and sowing, and so on, and partly in looking after woodlands. You cannot separate them altogether. But I will look into the point after what has been said.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCHThe argument of the Lord Chancellor might apply to every industry. You might have every industry in the country covered by the Bill where men in those industries were sometimes engaged in agricultural work. It is very unsatisfactory not even to know what the Government's own intention is regarding the operation of this Bill.
§ VISCOUNT MILNERWe have offered to give further consideration to this point between now and the Report stage.
§ LORD DESBOROUGHI should be very ready to accept that. But what the Lord Chancellor said just now might apply to every wage-earner in the country who sometimes happens to do the work of an agricultural labourer. The people you have in your woods and forests are people by themselves engaged on that work alone.
§ LORD HINDLIPI have an Amendment very much on the same lines as Lord Desborough's. It does not, however, refer to the question of the minimum wage at all. It provides that Clauses 1, 2, 3, and 9 of this Bill shall not apply to land used as osier land or woodland nor to land used for market gardens or nursery grounds. Would His Majesty's Government, when they are considering this question, consider that point also? I have not mentioned the word "orchard" because I hope that orchards will be included under Clause 9 to enable proper cultivation of the orchards to be enforced. In my part of the country a great many of the orchards are a perfect disgrace to the people who occupy them. Personally I do not want to see the orchards cut out.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause 16 agreed to.
§ Clause 17:
§ Application to Scotland and Ireland.
§ 17.—(1) This Act shall apply to Scotland wit the following modifications:—
- (a) The Board of Agriculture for Scotland shall be substituted for the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries;
- (b) Subsection (1) of the section of this Act relating to the establishment of a Wages Board shall not apply to Scotland, and in lieu thereof the provisions contained in the Second Schedule of this Act shall be deemed to be incorporated in Part II of this Act;
- (c) The Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1908, shall be substituted for the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1908: Provided that where under this Act the Board of Agriculture for Scotland is a party to an arbitration, the sheriff principal of the sheriffdom in which the land affected is situate shall, in the Second Schedule to the first-mentioned Act, be substituted for the Board;
- (d) The sheriff principal of the sheriffdom in which the land affected is situate shall be substituted for the President of the Surveyors' Institution;
- (e) The Edinburgh Gazette shall be substituted for the London Gazette;
- (f) Part III of this Act shall have effect subject to and without prejudice to the provisions of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Acts, 1880 to 1911, and in fixing the rent of a holding the Scottish Land Court shall not take into consideration the operation of Part I or Part II of this Act;
- (g) The provisions of Part IV of this Act with respect to the determination of tenancies shall not apply to land in the occupation of a landholder or a statutory small tenant under the Small Landholders (Scotland) Acts, 1886 to 1911, but the powers of entering on and taking possession of land and cultivating the land, or adapting it for cultivation, conferred by this Act may, notwithstanding anything in Part IV of this Act, be exercised in respect of land in such occupation; and
- (h) Where a tenant of shootings is, or under the operation of Part IV of this Act becomes, the only tenant of land, the owner of the land shall for the purposes of the said Part IV, if the Board of Agriculture for Scotland so by order decide, be deemed to be the occupier thereof, and the Board's power to suspend any covenant or condition of the contract of tenancy shall in such case be deemed to include a power to determine the tenancy or any such covenant or condition and to make such provisions as the Board think fit for the adjustment of the relations of landlord and tenant.
§ (2) This Act shall apply to Ireland with the following modifications:—
- (a) References to the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries shall be construed as references to the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland;
- (b) A separate Agricultural Wages Board shall be established for Ireland; and the separate Board so established shall be substituted for the Agricultural Wages Board; a reference to an adequate rate shall be substituted for the reference to the rate of at least twenty-five shillings a week, and the provisions as to the retrospective effect of a minimum rate of wages for able-bodied men shall not apply, except that the Agricultural Wages Board for Ireland in fixing a minimum rate of wages for able-bodied men may, if they think proper, direct that the rate so fixed shall operate as from such earlier date as may be specified by them, not being a date prior to the passing of this Act, and in that event the said provisions shall apply
608 as respects that rate with the substitution of a reference to the date so specified for the reference to the commencement of this Act; - (c) Where a person other than the occupier was, on the first day of September in the year in which wheat or oats were produced, entitled under a conacre agreement to the use of the land on which they were produced, that person shall be substituted for the occupier for the purpose of any payments in respect of the wheat or oats under Part I of this Act;
- (d) Questions and amounts requiring to be determined for the purposes of Part III or Part IV of this Act shall be determined by the Irish Land Commission on the application of any person interested instead of by arbitration, and the powers and jurisdiction exercisable by the Land Commission in relation to applications under the Land Law (Ireland) Acts may be exercised by the Land Commission in relation to any applications under this provision;
- (e) Part III of this Act in its application to Ireland shall have effect subject and without prejudice to the provisions of the Land Law (Ireland) Acts, and, in fixing the judicial rent of a holding after the passing of this Act, the court shall not take into consideration the operation of Part I or Part II of this Act as respects the holding or tenant. Proceedings by way of ejectment for non-payment of rent shall be, deemed to be proceedings for enforcing payment of rent within the meaning of Part III of this Act;
- (f) Part IV of this Act in its application to Ireland shall have effect subject to the following further modifications:—
- (i) the powers of entering on and taking possession of land and cultivating the land or adapting it for cultivation may be exercised whether the occupier in default is or is not a tenant; and
- (ii) the provisions with respect to the determination of tenancies shall not apply;
§ For the purpose of enforcing proper cultivation of land in Ireland the additional provisions set out in the Second Schedule to this Act shall have effect as if they were included in Part IV of this Act;
§ (g) The Dublin Gazette shall be substituted for the London Gazette.
§ LORD STANMORE moved an Amendment in paragraph (b) of subsection (1) so that its opening words would read:" (b) Subsection (1) and subsection (2) and the proviso to subsection (3) of the section of this Act relating to," etc., and to add other words at the end of paragraph (b). The noble Lord said: These are drafting Amendments designed to meet the changes which have been made in the Bill owing to the adoption by the Government of various provisions taken from the Second Schedule which applies to Scotland.
609§ Amendments moved—
§ Page 14, line 9, after (" (1) ") insert (" and subsection (2) and the proviso to subsection (3) ")
§ Page 14, line 13, at end insert (" and references in this Act to the Agricultural Wages Board and to a district wages committee shall be construed as references respectively to the central committee and the district committee constituted under the provisions of that schedule ").—(Lord Stanmore.)
§ On Question, Amendments agreed to.
§ THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN moved an Amendment in the proviso to paragraph (c) of subsection (1), to leave out the words "where under this Act the Board of Agriculture for Scotland is a party to an arbitration." The noble Earl said: The object of this Amendment is to exclude the Board of Agriculture for Scotland from all dealings with questions of rent, and to substitute for the Board of Agriculture the sheriff. There are a great many depreciatory remarks that I could make about the Board of Agriculture for Scotland. I believe it is thoroughly unpopular everywhere. I have never heard of any one in Scotland who has any confidence in it. As the Bill originally stood, the Board of Agriculture were introduced in relation to cases in which they were parties to the arbitration. That is now out of the Bill; and it would give great comfort to Scotland generally if you referred this matter to the sheriff. We have complete confidence in the sheriffs, but we have none whatever in the Board. This Amendment would remove all questions of dispute about rent under Clause 8 from the Board of Agriculture for Scotland.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 14, lines 16 and 17, leave out (" where under this Act the Board of Agriculture for Scotland is a party to an arbitration ").—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
§ LORD STANMOREI hope the noble Earl will not press this Amendment. In the Bill as it is the Board of Agriculture for Scotland are in exactly the same position as the English Board of Agriculture. Were the Government to accept the noble Earl's Amendment it would be tantamount to an admission that in their opinion the Scottish Board of Agriculture was not a lit body to nominate—
§ LORD STANMOREThe Government, of course, cannot admit that.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCHThe question is a totally different one as between the English and the Scottish Boards. The English Board is the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, whereas the Scottish Board is only a sub-department under the Office of the Secretary for Scotland. Moreover, the Scottish Board of Agriculture consists of officials in whom nobody has any confidence whatever. I do not think my noble friend Lord Camperdown is asking for very much. It is quite a common custom in Scotland for these matters to be remitted either to the sheriff, or, in some cases, to the Lord President of the Court of Session. This is the only thing for Scotland for which we have asked, and it would give great satisfaction there if the Government could see their way to change their view and accept the Amendment. I can assure your Lordships that there is enormous dissatisfaction in Scotland with this particular subsection as it now stands in the clause.
LORD SALTOUNI hope that this Amendment will be divided upon. The Board of Agriculture for Scotland, as the noble Duke has pointed out, is entirely differently constituted from the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries in England. The latter has the confidence of everybody who knows anything about it, whereas the Board in Scotland has the confidence of no one throughout the whole country.
LORD SALTOUNMoreover, what has the Scottish Board to say to this clause at all? They have nothing to say to it. Where they are not a party to the arbitration, what business have they to interfere? They have nothing to do as between the landlord and tenant. Why should they put their feet in and get a holding? It has been already pointed out that under the Defence of the Realm Act people are using these provisions for their own particular purpose, and I think that the Board of Agriculture for Scotland is very likely here trying to get a footing on the same conditions. I hope that the noble Earl will stick to his Amendment and divide upon it.
§ LORD STANMOREI would point out that this provision is nothing new, because by the Schedule to the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act the Board invariably nominates the arbitrator in ordinary arbitrations.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEDoes the clause mean that no one is to have a right to arbitration if the Board of Agriculture for Scotland refuses to be a party?
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNThe effect of the clause is this, that in any cases where the Board of Agriculture is a party it is not allowed to nominate the arbitrator; but in other cases it is. I can assure your Lordships that there is an extremely strong feeling in Scotland on this point among men of all political Parties. I should divide your Lordships upon the Amendment if it were possible, but if I must withdraw it on this occasion I will put it down again on Report and will then divide the House.
LORD SALTOUNI might add that in another place there was an Amendment moved to this effect and it was accepted by the Government, but the Secretary for Scotland found he had made a mistake, and upon this explanation the Amendment was not pressed by the mover. The effect of this was that the Amendment was not in any way discussed but just slurred over.
§ EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTONThis is clearly a point upon which noble Lords who speak with Scottish experience feel strongly, and I feel that it is not fair to have to pursue the discussion in a House so empty as this is at the moment, when noble Lords, thinking your Lordships were going to adjourn for dinner, have absented themselves. I would therefore suggest that this part of the discussion should be postponed until to-morrow and be taken upon Report.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNI accept that suggestion, and will withdraw my Amendment now and bring it up again on Report.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
612
§
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 23, at end insert (" and an agricultural executive committee and the district thereof shall, respectively, be substituted for a war agricultural executive committee constituted under the Defence of the Realm Regulations, and a county or county borough ").—(Lord Stanmore.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Amendments moved—
§ Page 15, lines 21 and 22, leave out (" a reference to an adequate rate shall be substituted for the reference to ") and insert (" the provision as to wages at ")
§ Page 15, line 26, after (" Ireland ") insert (" or a district wages committee ")
§ Page 15, line 31, leave out (" said ") and insert (" last-mentioned ").—(The Earl of Crawford.)
§ On Question, Amendments agreed to.
§ Amendments moved—
§ Page 16, lines 24 and 25, leave out (" adapting it for cultivation ") and insert (" otherwise dealing with it ")
§ Page 16, line 31, leave out (" Second ") and insert (" Third ").—(The Earl of Crawford.)
§ On Question, Amendments agreed to.
§ Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
§ Remaining clause agreed to.
§ First Schedule:
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNI move the Amendments standing in the name of my noble friend the Earl of Selborne. He proposes that the number of persons to be appointed by the Board should not exceed one quarter of the total number.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 9, after (" members ") insert (" not being more than one quarter of the whole body ").—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
§ VISCOUNT MILNERI like these words, but I do not care to accept them without consultation.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNPerhaps the noble Viscount will consult his advisers to see whether they can accept the words. 613 I know that Lord Selborne's objection to this was that the Board might nominate any number, and so he proposes that their nominees should not be more than one-fourth of the whole body.
§ VISCOUNT MILNERWe will consider it between now and Report.
§ VISCOUNT MILNERPersonally I am quite favourable to the idea, but I think I must consult the Board of Agriculture before agreeing.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHThe Amendments standing in my name are drafting Amendments.
§ Amendments moved—
§ Page 18, line 31, leave out from beginning of line to (" subject ") in line 33, and insert (" district wages committees shall consist ")
§ Page 18, line 34, after (" and ") insert (" shall be ")
§ Page 18, line 36, leave out from (" Fisheries ") to the end of line 37.
§ Page 19, line 10, leave out (" other than their power and duty to fix minimum rates of wages ")
§ Page 19, line 12, leave out (" authorise ") and leave out the first (" to ") and insert (" may ")
§ Page 19, line 13, leave out (" so delegated to the committee ") and insert (" of the committee under this Act other than the power and duty to fix minimum rates of wages ")
§ Page 19, leave out lines 14 to 23. (The Duke of Marlborough.)
§ On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE LORD CHAIRMANThere is an Amendment in the name of Lord Selborne that ought to have been printed here, but it is the same point as that in the Amendment which has just been withdrawn.
§ VISCOUNT MILNERThat Amendment will come up for consideration with the other.
§ Amendments moved—
§ Page 19, line 33, after (" Board ") insert (" or a district wages committee ")
§ Page 19, line 36, after (" Board ") insert (" or the district wages committee ")
§ Page 19, line 41, after (" Board ") insert (" or a district wages committee ")
§ Page 19, line 42, after (" Board ") insert (" or a district wages committee ").—(The Duke of Marlborough.)
614§ On Question, Amendments agreed to.
§ First Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
§ Second Schedule:
§ LORD STANMOREI move the Amendments standing in my name.
§ Amendments moved—
§ Page 21, line 3, leave out paragraph 5
§ Page 21, line 16, leave out paragraph 7
§ Page 21, line 25, leave out (" other ")
§ Page 21, line 26, after (" agree ") insert (" not being a question of fixing minimum rates of wages for time work ")
§ Page 21, line 37, after (" business ") insert (" including provision as to sub-committees ").—(Lord Stanmore.)
§ On Question, Amendments agreed to.
§ Second Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
§ Third Schedule:
§
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 20, after (" and ") insert (" subject to the provisions of the next following article of this schedule ").—(The Earl of Crawford.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORDThe next Amendment standing in my name is put down pursuant to a pledge given by the Chief Secretary in the House of Commons. It provides that a Tribunal can be set up to which questions at issue shall be referred for arbitration. It is an appeal Court.
§ Amendment moved—
§
Page 22, line 38, at end insert:
4. The Department before making any such certificate shall send a draft thereof to the occupier, and if the occupier within the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner serves a notice of objection to the draft certificate, any questions raised by the notice as to the making of the certificate or as to the particulars specified in the draft, shall be referred to a tribunal designated or constituted by or in accordance with regulations under this Act, and provision shall be made by those regulations for the hearing and determination by the tribunal of the questions so referred to them with power to postpone or stay the making of a certificate
615
or to vary the draft certificate in such manner as seems proper, and generally for regulating the procedure on any such objection.
The certificate shall not be made whilst any objection to the draft certificate is pending before the tribunal, and effect shall be given by the Department to any rulings of the tribunal, and, where the draft certificate is varied by the tribunal, the certificate if made by the Department shall be made in accordance with the draft as so varied and not otherwise."—(The Earl of Crawford.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Third Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
§ The Report of Amendments to be received to-morrow, and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 100.)