§ Amendments reported (according to Order).
§ Clause I:
§ Increase in area of land which may be acquired for purposes of s. 1 of 6 & 7 Geo 5, c. 38.
§ 1. Subject to the provisions of this section, subsection (3) of section one of the Small Holding Colonies Act, 1916 (hereinafter referred to as "the principal Act"), which limits the area of the land which may be acquired by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries for the purposes of that section, shall have effect as if forty-five thousand acres were therein substituted for four thousand five hundred acres, twenty thousand acres for two thousand acres, and sixty thousand acres for six thousand acres, provided that for the purposes of the acquisition, equipment, and settlement of the area hereby authorised to be acquired by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, the Board may, with the consent of the county councils, employ the county councils as their agents, and vest in them all the powers hereby or by the principal Act conferred upon them, in addition to those vested in such councils by virtue of the Small Holdings Act, 1908, and paragraph (c) of section eleven of the principal Act, which limits the area of the land which may be acquired by the Board of Agriculture for Scotland for the purposes of the said section one, shall have effect as if twenty thousand acres were therein substituted for two thousand acres:
§ Provided that where land which is to be acquired for the purposes of the said section one could not, if this Act had not been passed, have 750 been acquired for that purpose without making the total area of the land for the time being so acquired exceed the amount authorised to be so acquired, the land shall not be acquired otherwise than by taking the same on lease, or by purchasing it on the terms that payment shall be made therefor by way of a rentcharge or other annual payment, or by taking the same in feu:
§ Provided also that no portion of the additional land authorised by this Act to be acquired shall be so acquired except after consultation with the council of the county in which the land proposed to be acquired is situate.
§ THE EARL OF LICHFIELD had an Amendment on the Paper to omit from Clause 1 the words "provided that for the purposes of the acquisition, equipment, and settlement of the area hereby authorised to be acquired by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, the Board may, with the consent of the county councils, employ the county councils as their agents and vest in them all the powers hereby or by the principal Act conferred upon them in addition to those vested in such councils by virtue of the Small Holdings Act, 1908."
§
The noble Earl said: I put down this Amendment for striking out these words in the hope of finding that the Government would accept the position as it was left in Committee, and therefore that all we should have to do to-day would be to select the best wording possible so as to make the Bill as effective as it can be made. That was why I set down the Amendment to strike out Lord Strachie's words and to substitute after Clause 1, as a new clause, the words—
.—(1) The Board of Agriculture and Fisheries may, with respect to any land acquired by them under this Act or the principal Act or under Part I of the Development and Roads Improvement Act, 1909, whether acquired before or after the passing of this Act, delegate to the council of the county in which the land so acquired is situate with the consent of that county council all or any of the powers conferred upon the Board by section four of the principal Act.
Those of your Lordships who were present at the Committee stage of this Bill will remember that Lord Strachie's Amendment came first, and that my Amendment was down after his, and that Lord Clinton had another Amendment in which he proposed to set up a body of persons in a particular county of whom at least a majority should be members of the county council. We then said that such a proposal would not be acceptable to the county councils. They thought that there were quite enough
751
independent bodies already, and their point in seeking to help under this Bill, was that they might make use of the machinery of their small holdings committee—of the staff and of the knowledge and efficiency gained through many years of working. They thought that by that means to help to make this Bill, when put into operation, as great a success as possible. I stated on the Committee stage that the county councils did not consider that the appointing of such a body as was then proposed would be at all a desirable thing, and would not meet their wishes. Therefore we had to divide on Lord Strachie's Amendment, which the Government refused to accept. We carried Lord Strachie's Amendment, and the words were inserted in the Bill.
§
I have put words down so that your Lordships might to-day, if there had been no opposition, select which of the two wordings you thought most suitable. My own friends considered in the Committee stage that the words I have just read out would on the whole be the best, but the situation is now entirely changed, because we have also down a Government Amendment to strike out the very clause that I am proposing with the intention of putting in an Amendment, which is as follows—
The Board of Agriculture and Fisheries may, with respect to any land acquired by them under this Act or the principal Act, delegate any of the powers conferred upon the Board by this Act or the principal Act to any body of persons constituted by the Board for this purpose or with the consent of the council to the council of the county in which the land so acquired is situate.
There you have that body of persons to whom the county councils object. Such being the case, I certainly shall not run the risk of losing Lord Strachie's wording by asking you to strike it out when there is a possibility of my not being able to carry my clause and of the Government being able to obtain the Amendment which they have put down.
§
It is very desirable to come to some agreement which will be satisfactory to all parties, and which will help to make this Bill work smoothly and successfully. May I make the following suggestion to my noble friend Lord Clinton? As far as the county councils are concerned I think they would be satisfied if the noble Lord would consent to make some modification in his own clause to this effect. He proposes that
The Board of Agriculture and Fisheries may, with respect to any land acquired by them under this Act or the principal Act, delegate any—
752
Then insert "or all"—
of the powers conferred upon the Board by this Act or the principal Act.
Then strike out the following words—
to any body of persons constituted by the Board for this purpose or.
If on consideration we could come to some agreement about those two words being added and the other words being struck out, then I can assure Lord Clinton that, as far as all his other Amendments on the first page of the Amendment Paper are concerned, the county councils would be pleased to accept them. That is a definite suggestion which I ask him to consider.
§ Surely it would be better, if possible, to come to some compromise of that sort in order that we might accept the Government Amendments and not have to vote again on exactly the same words that we voted on in Committee, because that would be the result if we go on and he moves the omission of the words that Lord Strachie introduced in Committee, and on which we got a majority. I shall not, therefore, move the Amendment standing in my name, and I hope my noble friend will be good enough to consider the proposal I have made.
§ LORD CLINTONI am, of course, very glad to consider any proposal put forward by the county councils which will in some way meet the object we have in view. I do not consider that what the noble Earl has put forward now is in any way a compromise, because it does away entirely with the principle for which I was fighting. The noble Earl no doubt recollects what that principle is. I have no objection to placing in the hands of a body composed as to the majority of county councillors the powers of the Board under this Act. We were anxious to get the assistance of the county councils in all these matters, and the reasons why I was not prepared to grant the powers to the county councils alone, without the addition of other members, were two. First, that the whole of the finance was national funds under the charge of the Board, and we did not consider that it would have been right to hand over those funds directly to another body. Furthermore, it seems to be a wrong principle that any body should be charged with the administration of work involving national expenditure without having any responsibility for the funds. That was the first reason. The next reason was, I think, a 753 good one, although totally different. These colonies will probably not be set up in every county; there is no reason why they should be. There will then be certain counties in which there will be people resident who are anxious to get a footing in these colonies, but who will have very little chance of doing so if they were administered entirely by the county councils, because the county council would naturally, one knows quite well, favour the people who come from their own county. It is their duty, and they would do it. In addition, there will be people from the great cities, say from London, who have practically no county to go to at all, no county that they belong to. They would have very little chance of getting a footing in any of these colonies.
For these two reasons—first of all of finance, and, secondly, to safeguard the interests of those men who are not attached to any county which has a colony—we thought fit to claim that if the powers of the Board were delegated to any body it should be a mixed body, partly representing the county council and partly representing the Board. That was not accepted by your Lordships. But now on Report, as you already have a clause giving power to the Board to appoint county councils to manage these affairs, it seemed right that I should also put in a power to the Board to appoint a committee to manage their affairs. I would rather have the joint committee, but your Lordships would not have it, and unless the noble Earl is willing to accept something of the kind that I have suggested I am afraid I cannot regard anything he has said as a compromise.
§ LORD STRACHIEI do not know whether I shall be in order, because, as far as I can make out, there is no Amendment before the House at present, the noble Earl not having moved.
§ LORD CLINTONI understood that the noble Earl had moved his Amendment. I will then move my own Amendment, Which is to leave out the words beginning with "provided" in line 13.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 13, leave out ("provided that for the purposes of the acquisition, equipment, and settlement of the area hereby authorised to be acquired by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, the Board may, with the consent of the county councils, employ the county councils as their agents and vest in them all the powers
754
hereby or by the principal Act conferred upon them in addition to those vested in such councils by virtue of the Small Holdings Act, 1908").—(Lord Clinton.)
§ LORD STRACHIEThe noble Lord in charge of the Bill has not given any other reasons than he gave on a previous occasion, when he objected to the Amendment which was afterwards put into the Bill and which he now proposes to leave out. He said his principal objection was to a body like the county council managing money that was State money and had been voted by Parliament. I should have thought there were many cases where the county councils administer money which is State money voted by Parliament. But I was not aware that there was going to be a large amount of money in this particular case, because the Board has no power to buy land. It will only be the money they spend on equipment, so it is not a very large amount. There might have been something in the noble Lord's argument if he was going to buy a million acres of land, as Sir Richard Winfrey looks forward to buying in the future. Now, however, it is only a small matter of equipment, and he is apparently afraid that the county councils are bodies which are not to be trusted with that amount of Government money.
Surely the noble Lord knows that county councils are continually entrusted by Parliament with very large sums of money to deal with on behalf of the Government. There are many cases where the Government say that if the county council will provide 50 per cent. of some expenditure they will provide the other 50 per cent. I think this was the case with the mental deficiency, or at any rate the tuberculosis, control in counties. They allowed the county councils to have the management of this; and I should be sorry to think that, in the opinion of the noble Lord, the county councils have not administered that money to the satisfaction of the ratepayers and of the taxpayers at large as a general rule. So that I cannot see any objection with regard to finance. But supposing there is an objection in regard to finance, the noble Lord and the Board of Agriculture have the matter entirely in their own hands. This Amendment is not mandatory; it is simply permissive. If the Board of Agriculture think the county council is the best body to administer the Small Holding Colonies Act, they will hand it over to that body; but 755 if they do not think so, they will hold the administration in their own hands. Therefore I cannot see why the noble Lord is afraid of this provision.
Lord Clinton then said, with regard to people living in a great city like London, that he thought the county councils would not treat them in the same way that they would treat those in their own rural areas. But there again, if a county council were included to mismanage the powers given to them by the Board of Agriculture, all the Board has to do is to say, "We will not give yon these powers unless you make provision for men living in big cities; or make provision that in all cases people from these cities may come in on equal terms with the people living in the county itself."
May I say that only to-day, at a meeting of the Small Holdings Committee of the County Councils Association held in London, that Committee unanimously affirmed their desire that there should be a permissive power, and a permissive power only, for the Board of Agriculture to delegate powers with regard to small holdings to the county councils. They had before them the noble Lord's Amendment constituting another body besides the county councils for the management of small holdings. This important and representative body unanimously condemned that Amendment, and strongly objected to another body being set up in the place of the Board of Agriculture; in fact, they took greater objection to it than they did to the previous Amendment of the noble Lord, because that previous Amendment certainly had the saving grace that the body to be set up was to have on it a majority of county councillors but this new Amendment goes one worse, and, as far as the county councils are concerned, there is to be no member of the county council on this body.
§ LORD CLINTONWhy?
§ LORD STRACHIEIt will be only the will of the Board of Agriculture of the day and not a statutory right, which was what the noble Lord proposed to give before. I am sorry that Lord Clinton will not accept the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Lichfield, who approved the noble Lord's Amendment, but striking out "any body of persons constituted by the Board for this purpose," leaving it in the hands of the county council. If the noble 756 Lord opposite persists in refusing the compromise suggested by the noble Earl—with which compromise I agree—I can see no alternative to resisting Lord Clinton's Amendment.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORDMy Lords, I cannot help feeling that Lord Strachie is under a misapprehension, as I think is also my noble friend Lord Lichfield. Lord Strachie said that the noble Earl was proposing a compromise. That really is not so. Lord Lichfield is proposing that the whole responsibility shall be put in the hands of the county council. That is anything but a compromise; it is absorbing everything—quite the contrary. Lord Clinton really has proposed a compromise, and I submit with great respect that this is probably the best way of proceeding. Lord Clinton has said that he is quite prepared that there shall be a majority of county councillors. Lord Lichfield says, No, they must be all county councillors, and, above all, county councillors of the county in which the colony happens to be situate.
THE EARL OF LICHFIELDI was alluding to the independent body that was to be set up, not to the delegation to the county councils.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORDI really think that both were offered. Now, Lord Lichfield at the present moment says that every one upon that committee must be a member of the county council of the county in which the colony happens to be situate. Neither Lord Lichfield nor Lord Strachie has met the question about finance. This is not finance to provide small holdings; small holdings are the duty of the county council. This is State money to provide finance for colonies of soldiers irrespective of their county residence; and I do not think that one can reasonably ask the Treasury to consent to a great grant of State money being handed over, as far as administration is concerned, to county councils which have no responsibility whatever for the administration of that money.
Lord Strachie mentioned cases, with which we are all familiar, where State money is handed over to be dealt with by municipal authorities or by county councils. He mentioned one special case 757 where 50 per cent. is handed over by the Treasury if the local authority finds another 50 per cent. Education is another case in point. But in this and in all similar cases the money handed over by the Treasury is supplemented by money found by the ratepayers, administered by county councillors who are responsible to those ratepayers for the ratepayers' money. Here no such responsibility exists. Moreover, in the case of education, if the Education Department consider that the local authority is not using the proportion of the State grant properly, the money is withdrawn; but that could not be done in the case of a soldiers' colony. You cannot close up a soldiers' colony because the county council manages the fund carelessly. Tins being State money, it requires State control in its administration. It is for a local purpose, it is true, but it is for a local purpose to which local rates do not contribute.
Now, Lord Strachie put words into my noble friend Lord Clinton's mouth which he neither used nor implied—namely, that this is done because the Government, or the Board of Agriculture, distrust the county councils. I do not think that this is a fair comment to make. It is not that the Government or any Department of the Government distrust the county councils. Far from it. But, as a colony will probably not be situated in every county, you are going to have whole county councils which will have no voice whatever in the control of these colonies. Lord Clinton proposes a scheme by which county councils, as such, would have control; and aggregate committees, I think, must admittedly be necessary for looking after these colonies. It is also necessary that all views and all interests should be recognised. Now, what chance has the Londoner to get places in a Lincolnshire or in a Lancashire colony? I should think very small.
THE EARL OF LICHFIELDThe proposals are that all or any of the powers be delegated. Under those words surely the Board of Agriculture can make any arrangement they like with any individual county more or less as to finance. With regard to having a certain number of settlers in the particular county, surely the wording leaves it entirely in the hands of the Board of Agriculture to reserve their rights and to make any arrangement they like with the 758 county council. It is entirely in the hands of the Board of Agriculture to do so.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORDMy noble friend has not the smallest objection to the words "or all" being inserted, but Lord Lichfield says you must come to an agreemen with the county councils before—you must impose terms and say to the Lancashire County Council, "You have to appoint so many people from London or Birmingham."
THE EARL OF CRAWFORDYes, as settlers. That is what Lord Strachie says—"We will not give you powers unless you deal with the townsmen." I do not think that this is the way in which we ought to approach county councils in the matter, and I believe that if you set up a joint committee it would not be necessary to impose these terms in advance. With one committee meeting together, representing two or three or four great county councils, with a majority of county councillors and two or three persons representing soldiers and sailors and the Department which is answerable for the finance, I believe these problems will solve themselves. I greatly hope, therefore, that the Amendment of Lord Clinton may be adopted. I am sure that in working it would prove to be the most profitable way. I see all kinds of objections to saying now, "We will give control or part control of such a colony to such and such a county, subject to a variety of conditions safeguarding this interest or that." If you set up a committee, with good will I believe it will solve the problem far better than by placing it under restrictions and regulations which I believe would be irksome to all parties.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWEMy Lords, the noble Earl opposite has just complained that neither Lord Lichfield nor Lord Strachie was prepared to engage in any form of compromise. Let us see for a moment what the Government compromise is. The Government on the last occasion, when the Bill was in Committee, made a certain proposition—namely, that these joint committees should be set up containing a majority of county councillors, but containing also a number of outside elements. That your Lordships would not 759 have. The proposal was defeated, and has apparently gone by the board.
Then His Majesty's Government come down with a different proposal, merely suggesting that His Majesty's Government should have it in their power, without informing any one and without consulting the county councils at all, to create fresh bodies, with no promise that any county councillors should be on them, in order to administer this Act. That alternative is placed first as being presumably the one which it might be supposed the Board of Agriculture would prefer; and then the noble Earl who has just spoken speaks of this as a compromise. My Lords, it is a definite hardening of the Government's attitude, not merely asking us to reverse the decision that was taken on the last occasion, but asking us to adopt a new plan more hostile to the county councils than that which was rejected. In the meantime the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, has argued as though the provision which was rejected was the one on which we were arguing. It is not. What we are arguing about is the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton, that this clause or part of it should he omitted with a view of inserting the words in his Amendment on the Paper. Therefore I cannot see that His Majesty's Government are offering anything at all in the way of a compromise, but rather the contrary.
My Lords, why is it that the Board will not accept the county councils to act for them in this matter? There is the preliminary safeguard which my noble friend Lord Lichfield mentioned, that in the first instance they need not delegate all these powers to a county council, but can reserve any they please and make any condition they like. But it is not to he supposed that after having made such preliminary arrangements as then choose they will then lose sight of the whole matter. It is quite competent for them to ask for yearly or half-yearly Reports of what has been done, and if they do not approve of the way in which a particular county council is conducting a particular colony—supposing, for instance, it is confining the accommodation to inhabitants of the county and debarring any outsider and that this is disapproved of by the Board—the Board can resume its own powers at any time or make any remonstrance it chooses, and insist that a certain number of places shall be set apart for men from outside.
760 I really think the Government would be wise in this matter to show confidence in the county councils. The noble Earl resented the imputation that their action tends to show distrust of those bodies, but I cannot help thinking that their action will be so regarded; and it is very undesirable, particularly at a time when owing to national exigencies a number of other agricultural bodies have been set up which are in no way representative, which have performed a great deal of most useful public work, but whose operations are only accepted because we are living in war time—accepted with the concurrence of the public—that any action should be taken which appears to indicate a desire to remove local management from the ambit of the small holdings committees of the county councils. I really cannot think that there is much in the financial argument which has been used. The Board, as I pointed out, are in no sense parting with any of their powers, but are merely entrusting them for a purpose to the local body, and I most sincerely think that His Majesty's Government and the Board will be wise in using the county councils and their very competent small holdings committees for this particular purpose.
§ EARL BEAUCHAMPMy Lords, I should not venture to intervene were it not that I am able to introduce something quite fresh into the debate. I was present on Monday morning at a meeting of the Gloucestershire County Council, in which the general policy of the Government in regard to small holdings was discussed, with special reference to this Bill. We had the advantage of a speech from the gentleman who was put in charge of that portion of the original Act which they were trying to put into operation in the course of last year. He, with everybody else who spoke, condemned the policy of the Government as declared in this Bill. Unanimously a resolution was passed on the subject, and it was directed that copies of their resolution condemning this Bill should be sent to every member of your Lordships' House. Unfortunately, the difficulties of paper and post have made it impossible to reach your Lordships yet. I am glad to be able, on behalf of that county council, to convey to your Lordships' House their unanimous disapproval of this particular Bill.
761 In these circumstances, I venture to hope that your Lordships will adhere to the decision to which you came last week. We have discussed the matter thoroughly, and last week your Lordships decided rather to adopt the policy of the noble Earl behind me, Lord Lichfield, and of the noble Lord, Lord Strachie, than the policy of His Majesty's Government. I can imagine—and I am sure my noble friend who has just spoken will share with me the opinion—that if a few years ago His Majesty's then Government had introduced on the Report stage of a measure an Amendment directly contrary to an Amendment which had been agreed to by your Lordships in the Committee stage, the noble Earl the Lord Privy Seal and the noble Lord who is in charge of this Bill would have been amongst the very first to denounce us for treating the House with a considerable want of respect. We learnt a good deal at that time, and I am happy to pass on to your Lordships this afternoon something of the experience which I then gained.
I think it is scarcely treating your Lordships with proper respect to try to reverse so completely on Report an Amendment deliberately introduced by your Lordships 011 the Committee stage. Only one thing further do I wish to say, and that is with regard to the difficulties which the noble Earl the Lord Privy Seal anticipates in regard to getting men not from that particular county on to the colony in some other county. I am quite sure that we should all wish to help the noble Lord in charge of the Bill if he wished to introduce on Third Reading any Amendment to facilitate their getting their share of the colonies when they are established. There is no member of your Lordships' House who would not be glad to see such an Amendment introduced by the Government, and I am sure that no obstacle would be put in the way of the noble Earl who speaks on behalf of the County Councils Association. On the whole, therefore, I hope your Lordships will decide this afternoon to stick to the Amendment which you introduced last week.
§ LORD CLINTONMy Lords, with the leave of the House I may say that I do not wish to press this Amendment, as the opinion of the House is apparently against it. I regret it cannot be accepted, because the Government wish to make use of the county councils if possible, but owing to the 762 extreme way in which it is put. I am afraid it will be very difficult for them to do so. I beg leave, therefore, to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ VISCOUNT GALWAY moved to delete the words "or by purchasing it on the terms that payment shall be made therefor by way of a rentcharge or other annual payment." The noble Viscount said: I have put this Amendment down for your Lordships' consideration because there was no Amendment on this point in Committee, and it was only cursorily alluded to at that time. To my mind the proposal in the Bill involves quite a new principle, and that is that the Government should be allowed to acquire land not merely by lease or purchase but by having a rentcharge. I do not think it was sufficiently thought out by your Lordships' House when the Bill passed through Committee, nor did we sufficiently consider the dangers which go with this new principle. Practically it means, if this is done, that a landowner will have parted with the freehold of his land. Supposing there is a mortgage on it, he will not be able to realise; or supposing there is a charge for the younger children, or a jointure, there will be difficulty in realising the capital. You will not be able to sell the land at a future time to meet any charge that might be incurred. I am aware that I may be told that this can be done only by the voluntary consent of the landowner. I think that was the very brief reference made by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton. That does not seem to me to be any reason why, because it happens that the Treasury are not inclined to find the money for purchase, you should introduce a new and dangerous system whereby the Government may become possessed of land in the country in this way. It seems to me that in view of the short time which we hope the war will last, when the Treasury will be able to find more money for the purchase of land or its lease, they might allow the county councils to borrow money from other sources. However that may be, this seems to me to be a dangerous principle to introduce, and I hope your Lordships will agree with me in omitting these words, so that it will be impossible for the Government to acquire land "by rentcharge or other annual payment." I hope your Lordships will carefully consider the difficult position in which it would put some landowners. There is also another thing 763 to be thought of. There may be a certain number of landowners who say that it does not matter and that they will get an annual income. They might not see that they would be prejudiced thereby from putting any further charge on the land to meet any necessary charges. If these words are omitted there is nothing whatever to prevent the Government continuing to go on getting these colonies on lease until the time when they can purchase them. Therefore, I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 2, leave out from ("lease") to the second ("or") in line 4.—(Viscount Galway.)
§ LORD CLINTONThe noble Viscount has anticipated the first objection to this Amendment in that the Bill is a voluntary one, under which no landowner need take advantage of any of the terms laid down. It is perfectly obvious that if land is to be purchased everybody would prefer to have payment in cash. I think I have already stated—and I will not trouble your Lordships again on the point—why at the present moment cash cannot be paid. How is the noble Viscount really conferring any advantage upon owners by declining to allow these words to remain in the Bill? if land is leased by the Board and a colony placed upon it, nobody can occupy it as a farm because the colony is still there. If, however, it is taken by way of rentcharge your "rentcharge" then becomes as saleable as your land was before. The rentcharge for perpetuity guaranteed by the Crown will be as saleable as any land, and it seems to me that you are taking away from the owner the possibility of acquiring a certain rent by way of rentcharge, and, in the event of his wish to sell, of being able to dispose of that rentcharge in the market. I think on the whole, although I admit that no one likes the system of rentcharge in place of purchase, it would he a misfortune for owners themselves if the alternative was not given.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWEI am not quite clear as to why it is necessary to place this provision in the Bill. The effect of the clause as it stands is to forbid the Treasury to advance cash for payment, as I understand. I should have thought it would be always within the option of the Department to pay or not to pay, and it seems to me scarcely necessary 764 that His Majesty's Government should place this restriction upon itself as a permanency, rather than leave it to the Administration of the day to act as may be considered best in the interests of the finances of the country. I can conceive a case where a large purchase might be made, or might be desired, and the landowner might state that he was willing to sell but that he was not able to do so unless a particular charge was paid off. The Government then might think it worth while to pay off that particular charge in cash, and allow the balance to remain on rentcharge. I can conceive a great number of different methods which it might be convenient for His Majesty's Government to use, and I do not understand why they are so desirous of completely binding their own hands as they do by this clause. I can only assume that it has been inserted at the instance of the Treasury, who might find themselves over-persuaded by the Board of Agriculture in a particular instance. I am not afraid that any hardship will be inflicted on individuals because the whole thing is voluntary; there is no compulsion in the matter; but I am afraid there may be cases in which highly suitable and desirable blocks of land may be unobtainable owing to the existence of this extremely rigid provision.
§ VISCOUNT CHAPLINI entirely agree with the noble Lord opposite, and also with the noble Marquess who has just sat down. I raised this question myself on the Second Reading, but got no satisfactory reply whatever from the Government. I pointed out then that I thought the way the Bill was drafted would stand in the way of the Government themselves because there are undoubtedly cases, a large number of cases, of mortgaged estates at the present time. I would remind noble Lords opposite that in these days mortgages on land are being called in constantly because people are all anxious, naturally, to get the 6 per cent. interest which is available now. To deprive yourself of the power of purchase because the Treasury are determined not to agree to it appears to me to be no reason whatever. This is a matter of policy, and it is not the business of the Treasury to lay down policy. That is the business of the Cabinet and of the Cabinet alone. The business of the Treasury is to find the money for the policy which the Cabinet lays down. I want to know why the Government think 765 it necessary to abjure purchase altogether. If want to acquire land and make the colonies a success, I have always held the opinion that the best way is to do it by purchase, and then make the small-holders the owners on the easiest possible terms. Then you may make a great success of your colonisation policy. I am perfectly certain that the tenants, if they are soldiers who have come back from the war, will not care to be tenants of local bodies, but that they would infinitely prefer to have the land themselves for their own.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORI put the Question in the usual form—"That the words proposed to be left out stand part." Those who wished the words to remain in said "Content.," and those who wished them to go out said "Not-Content." And I said the "Not-Contents" have it.
§ LORD SALTOUN moved to omit the words "or by taking the same in feu." The noble Lord said: In moving this Amendment I should like to draw attention to what was said by Lord Clinton in answer to the noble Viscount opposite, that a feu consisted of 999 years. I must differ from my noble friend on that. A feu is in perpetuity. I wish to make that perfectly clear. The word "feu" has of late years in your Lordships' House been used in a very casual sort of way, and I should like to explain to you in the first place what a lease is, and what a feu is. A lease is a right of occupation in certain land in return for a sum of rent, and in the document everything that is leased is specified. Now a feu is an entirely different thing. A feu is an absolute conveyance of land in return for an annual payment, and the "feuar" can sell or convey his feu to any one else. In contrast with a lease, which is a right of limited occupation, a feu carries all proprietorial rights in the land and everything else, even minerals and anything there may be. You will see, therefore, that it is a great deal larger than any lease that can be arranged. The Bill is to apply to both countries, and I maintain that the way land should be taken should be identical in both cases. I think that is only fair. The feu is a popular form of tenancy, and in case a house is built on the land it is good security for the money.
766
§
Amendment moved—
Page 2, lines 4 and 5, leave out ("or by taking the same in fen").—(Lord Saltoun.)
§ LORD STANMOREAs the noble Lord in charge of the Bill pointed out in the Committee stage, the feuing can only be done by agreement. The owners of the land have complete control as to what land is taken. It seems to me in every way desirable that the words should be left in, so as to admit of no doubt that the land may be felted.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWEI think that your Lordships will see that this Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, is in fact consequential upon that which your Lordships have adopted, possibly owing to some lack of observation as to what was happening on the part of His Majesty's Government. But I confess that if it is the deliberate intention of the House, as it seems to be, to maintain the Amendment which was moved by my noble friend Lord Galway, it seems almost necessary and common sense to adopt that which my noble friend opposite has just moved. I am bound to say, if I might give advice to His Majesty's Government, that if I was in their place I should move in Third Reading to omit this provision altogether. It appears to me to serve no useful purpose, and I do not think that His Majesty's Government will desire to be bound to acquire only on lease all the extra land which is to be obtained under this Bill. If the provision were struck out altogether, then His Majesty's Government and the Board could deal freely and make such bargains as were possible.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORDI am very much obliged for the observation of the noble Marquess, and I will take the most careful note of his suggestion. Meanwhile I should like to retain the feu. This is not a consequential Amendment, because the feu does not apply to England, and the earlier words do not apply to Scotland. It is true that this is analogous to the previous words.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORDAt the instance of my noble friend Lord Galway, what I look upon as a very valuable right 767 of English landlords has been taken away. He has excluded the English landlord from getting what I regard as a very valuable right, and I am sorry, because I am an English landlord. But I am also a Scottish landlord, and having lost the rentcharge in England, I desire, if possible, to retain the power of feuing in Scotland. I think that it is a great pity that these limitations both on the power of the Government to acquire and upon the rights of the landlords to sell should be imposed. I hope at any rate that these words about feuing may be loft as regards Scotland.
§ THE EARL OF SELBORNEI am sorry to say that I was out of the House when my noble friend Lord Galway's Amendment was moved. Had I been here I would certainly have asked him not to press his Amendment, because I want the House to understand that there is no compulsory power in this Bill—absolutely none—and the whole question is whether the landowner should, if he prefers it, be paid in a certain way. That is the only question, and I cannot think it is really serving the interests of the landowner to diminish the choice. I feel this so strongly as a landowner that I hope the Government will give notice of words which will remedy the mischief that has been done to the agricultural landowner by the acceptance of my noble friend's amendment, and that we may have the question debated again after the Third Reading stage and before the stage of passing comes. I am not a Scottish landowner, and I have no right to speak with authority in the presence of many of my friends who are, but I cannot see what, advantage it is to the Scottish landowner to have this choice, which cannot be imposed upon him except by his own free will, withdrawn from him.
LORD SALTOUNThis Bill has been through the House of Commons, where there are about seventy or eighty Scottish Members, and not one proposed that the feu should be put in. In your Lordships' House I think that I myself and two or three others present are the only Scottish Peers, and there are very few who know anything about the feu. Nine out of ten of our Scottish Peers are away serving their country in various ways, and are not able to be here to support me. I think that every argument that has been used on behalf of the Amendment of my noble 768 friend Lord Galway is doubly strong in regard to feu, and I intend to hold by my Amendment.
§ LORD STUART OF WORTLEYI am sure that the noble Lord opposite is under a misapprehension, and I am afraid in time that Lord Galway will find he also has been under a misapprehension. This Bill as it stands gives the landowner no cash, and now under Lord Galway's Amendment no rentcharge. The result is that the only thing he can get under the Bill, as he has amended it, will be a lease. What will he have to sell or raise money upon? He will have a terminable rent—a Government rent, it is true—and a more or less distant reversion. It would be much better for him to have the alternative of rentcharge. Now Lord Saltoun proposes to deprive the Scottish landowner of that valuable alternative of putting into the market a perpetual feu duty. I cannot believe that he really wishes the Scottish landowner to have no alternative except to offer the reversion of a lease to raise money upon or to sell. Personally if I were a Scottish landowner I certainly should not wish this Amendment to pass.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCHThere may be a difference of opinion on that. On the whole I think it would be better to leave the Bill as it is. I cannot speak for very many. At first I was inclined to agree with my noble friend Lord Saltoun. I think there are a good many Scottish proprietors who would certainly like to have the option. I do not know which is best, the ordinary rentcharge or the feu. The Inland Revenue, I believe, value the rental of unfeued land at a higher rate than felled land, but I think that feu duty is an excellent security, and it also does away with what I think is a great danger—that the land may be leased for a short time and then thrown back on the owner's hands in a very bad state.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWEPerhaps, by leave of the House, I might give notice that on the Third Reading I shall propose that the whole of this proviso be omitted.
§ On Question, Amendment negatived.
§ LORD CLINTON moved to amend the proviso at the end of the clause, after to be acquired,"by inserting" by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is drafting.
769
§
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 7, after the first ("acquired") insert ("by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries").—(Lord Clinton.)
THE DUKE OF RUCCLEUCHI am afraid I cannot agree that this is a drafting Amendment. It entirely takes away powers from Scotland. I think it is just as important that the county councils of Scotland should have a say as the county councils of England. In fact, the case happened the other day in my own county of Dumfriesshire.
§ LORD CLINTONWe will have that put right on the Third Reading. There is no adaptation clause for Scotland, and obviously that ought to go in.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD CLINTON moved, after "consultation" in the proviso, to insert "where such consultation is practicable." The noble Lord said: In discussing this provision on the Committee stage I think I told my noble friend that, while I accepted his Amendment, it would probably be necessary at this stage to make some alterations in it, and the first is the insertion of "where such consultation is practicable." There are some instances where it is necessary to carry through a sale at very short notice, or where it is necessary to carry it through with secrecy, and I do not wish the Board to be hound down to refuse an offer of a sale because it has not had time to consult the county council. There is no objection to consulting the county council; in fact, there is a great advantage in doing so, because there is no desire, of course, to compete with them in land which they may require for a similar purpose.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 8, after ("consultation") insert ("where such consultation is practicable").—(Lord Clinton.)
THE EARL OF LICHFIELDThis sub-clause was inserted in Committee at my instance, and, as my noble friend has just observed, he stated then that in accepting it he would have to move some Amendments of this nature. I thought at first that these words "where such consultation is practicable" would not be interpreted in quite the same way that my noble friend now suggests that they should be. I think he said that in the case of an offer of land the Board might have to accept it in a great 770 hurry and that then they would consider it not practicable to consult the county council. Of course, the whole object of the Amendment that I introduced was to guard against such a transaction, because with the knowledge that the county councils have of the land in their counties it surely is desirable that they should be first consulted so as to find out what they have to say about it. But under the words that my noble friend has just proposed the Board of Agriculture practically need not, if they like, consult the county councils at all. They may say, "Oh well, it was not practicable; we did not want to divulge; it was a matter that had to be kept private, and we were unable to consult them." I must say I am disappointed to hear that this is the interpretation that the noble Lord puts upon it. I thought it was much more limited, that it was merely to make the wheels run smoothly; and anything that will help to make the Bill run smoothly, of course, the county councils are as anxious as any one else to agree to.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYI rather share with my noble friend who has just sat down the feeling that the words in this Amendment are dangerously wide. It is quite clear that the Board of Agriculture might ignore the county council altogether. I do not mean to say that there would be any malice on the part of the Board, but, of course, all of us have a very different opinion as to the precise value of the word "practicable." In some people's minds a thing might be deemed to be impracticable which is only a very little difficult, and in the opinion of others it might have a much more restricted meaning. I listened to the speech of my noble friend Lord Clinton, and it seems to me that if he desires to prevent loss of time because the county council itself cannot be consulted, he could easily frame words authorising some other body to act on behalf of the county council.
§ LORD CLINTONThat is coming in a later Amendment.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY"A committee" or "persons authorised by them" would be the sort of words which would prevent any difficulty.
§ LORD CLINTONIt is on the Paper.
§ THE EARL OF SELBORNE"Or with a committee of that council"—it is on the Paper.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYIf that is so, then it seems to be sufficient, and I do not understand why the noble Lord wishes to put in the word "practicable." Doubtful words of that sort are very objectionable in an Act of Parliament. It does not follow that the present Board of Agriculture will always be there. They may change at any moment, and we might have a representative of the Board of Agriculture who would wish to interpret the word "practicable" in a manner which would sweep away the whole of the safeguard which Lord Lichfield in Committee succeeded in persuading your Lordships to insert in the Bill.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORDI hope that it is not so serious as Lord Salisbury indicates. I dare say there may be some little difficulty of interpretation—there often is when you use the word "reasonable" or "practicable" or anything of that kind in an Act of Parliament. But I think my noble friend, so far as he is concerned, and the present President of the Board of Agriculture, have every desire to take county councils into consultation, and probably their successors would take the same view. It is so much to their interest to do so. But Lord Lichfield desires to leave out this qualification altogether. The results might be very serious. We have to think not merely of the county council and of the Department; we have also to think of the man who wishes to sell the land; and if the man who wishes to sell the land knows—as, if you omit these words, he will know—that there may have to be a delay of a week, or two weeks, or a month, before any purchase could, be made or any undertaking given, and that when that consultation takes place the complete publicity will follow which is necessary, then it may be very difficult to get that man to sell the land. I think in the interests of acquiring land it is as well that this Amendment, together with the consequential Amendment "or a committee thereof," shall be put in.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYIt is not a consequential Amendment.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYYes; that is very different.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORDTo the plain man "where such consultation is practicable" represents what we all understand. It is a mandatory thing, subject to these few words.
§ THE EARL OF SELBORNEI think it would be very unfortunate if there were a difference of opinion between the Government and those who represent the county councils, where I believe there is equality of intention. Like my noble friend who has just sat down, I have some experience of the caution of Government draftsmen, and this phrase is very characteristic of their caution; they are always thinking of possible difficulties, which they want to avoid in advance. I honestly do not think that these words are worth the suspicion they will engender, and I think that the whole purpose of the Government may be surmounted by a little change of the words they propose to put in presently. They propose to insert the words "or with a committee of that council," and my noble friend does not object to that, I think.
§ THE EARL OF SELBORNESo that the words would run "after consultation with the council of the county in which the land proposed to be acquired is situate, or with a committee of that council." Now the council meets only once a quarter, which is obviously inconvenient. The committee probably meets at least once a month; but my noble friend Lord Crawford suggests that even this period may be inconveniently long on certain occasions which he could foresee. What really would satisfy the whole needs of the case would be if the communication were made to the chairman of the small holdings committee or to the chairman of the county council. That is the sense in which, I think, my noble friend (Lord Lichfield) means the county council or the committee of the county council. My noble friend does not contradict me. Therefore, if it would remove my noble friend's objection, speaking for myself—and I do not think I shall be repudiated by my noble friends opposite—I would accept words to this effect, "the chairman of the county council or the chairman of the small holdings committee of the county council."
§ LORD CLINTONConsultation with the chairman of the county council?
§ THE EARL OF SELBORNEYes, or of the small holdings committees; whichever you prefer. There could then be no possible delay, because all that the Board of Agriculture would have to do would be to communicate privately with this gentleman, who is, of course, one of the most trusted men in the county, and who would on the proper occasion consult his colleagues, but whose discretion could be completely relied upon.
§ LORD CLINTONI have no objection to the suggestion of the noble Earl, which I think meets my case. He and other noble Lords opposite have been arguing this almost all the time on the question of delay, and have thought that "a committee of the council" would meet the point I have raised. As a matter of fact, it really would not meet it. Although there is importance in acting promptly, there is frequently an almost greater importance in carrying out the wishes of the vendor in keeping the matter absolutely private and secret. That is one reason why sometimes it is not possible to go before a committee. But if, instead of "where practicable" with the committee, words "with the chairman of the council" were inserted, what I think should be safeguarded would certainly be safeguarded.
§ THE EARL OF SELBORNEIf my noble friend does not press the Amendment, I will move to insert after "consultation with the council of the county" the words "or with the chairman of the county council."
§ LORD CLINTONAs a matter of fact, I believe it is out of order to move an Amendment on Report without notice.
§ THE EARL OF SELBORNEYes, that is so; you must give notice.
§ LORD CLINTONBut perhaps it would be useful to discuss it.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYNo, it is not necessary to give notice; it is only on Third Reading that you require to do so.
§ LORD CLINTONWhat were the actual words suggested by the noble Earl? Would the words "or, if not practicable, with the 774 chairman of the council "suit the noble Earl?
§ THE EARL OF SELBORNEWould my noble friend (Lord Lichfield) be content if we put after "consultation" the words "with the chairman of the county council"?
§ THE EARL OF SELBORNEThen I will put it in this form, after "with" insert "the chairman of."
§ THE EARL OF SELBORNEYes.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§
Amendment moved.
Page 2, line 8, after the word ("with") insert ("the chairman of").—(The Earl of Selborne.)
§ LORD STRACHIEI think I ought to say on this, though I was not in the House when the Amendment was moved by Lord Clinton, that this morning at a meeting of the Small Holdings Committee of the County Councils Association they approved of the Amendment standing in the noble Lords' name "where such consultation is practicable"; and, as far as I gather, they have no wish that the chairman should be consulted.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYThe Amendment to which Lord Strachie refers has been withdrawn.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWEMy noble friend (Lord Lichfield), I know, is thoroughly well qualified to speak for the County Councils Association, and if he says that he is satisfied that county councils generally will agree to have the chairman of the council substituted for the council or the committee, as proposed in the Amendment, I am sure your Lordships will agree that this is the simplest course to take. I confess it comes to me rather as a surprise. I should have thought that 775 the words "or a committee" would have been useful, but I am not myself a member of the County Councils Association, or, indeed, of a county council at this moment I am certain, however, that my noble friend knows what it is safe to accept.
THE EARL OF LICHFIELDI have no authority whatever to speak for the county councils on this particular question as to the insertion of the chairman of the county council instead of the council. I can speak only of what I think would be likely to be satisfactory. But I cannot see that there is any possible objection to the chairman; he is the official representative of the county council, and to communicate with him is the quickest way to get the information to the council. I do not know what my noble friend Lord Strachie has to say about it, but I cannot see that there can be any objection. I should think it would be as well if the words "or the committee thereof" were also inserted so as to give an alternative. All we want is to make the Bill work as smoothly and as successfully as possible; but when the noble Lord mentioned why he wished to put in the words "where such consultation was practicable" I was bound to say, after the view he expressed, that I rather looked upon them with suspicion. I am sorry there should be difference of opinion about it.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD CLINTON moved to add, at the end of the clause, the words "or with a committee of that council."
§
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 9, at end insert ("or with a committee of that council").—(Lord Clinton.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE EARL OF SELBORNEWhen do the Government propose to put down the Third Reading?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORDIt will be put down for Tuesday. There is not very much time, and I think it is well that we should at any rate begin it on that day.
§ THE EARL OF SELBORNEAre you going to give notice of Amendments?