AGRICULTURE (COUNCILS, &c.) BILL.

HL Deb 15 December 1919 vol 38 cc29-80

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Lee of Fareham)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]

Clause 1:

Substitution of Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries for Board of Agriculture and Fisheries.

1.—(1) It shall be lawful for His Majesty to appoint a Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries who shall hold office during His Majesty's pleasure, and from and after the date of the first appointment any reference in any Act or document to the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, or to the President of that Board, shall be construed as a reference to the Minister.

(2) For the purpose of acquiring and holding land the Minister for the time being shall be a corporation sole by the name of the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, and all land transferred to the Minister by this Act or otherwise vested in the Minister shall (except where and to such extent as the land is held on other trusts) be held in trust for His Majesty for the purposes of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries.

(3) Upon and by virtue of the appointment of any person to be Minister the benefit of all deeds, contracts, bonds, securities, or things in action vested in his predecessor at the time of his predecessor ceasing to hold office shall be transferred to and vested in and enure for the benefit of the person so appointed, in the same manner as if he had been contracted with instead of his predecessor, and if his name had been inserted in all such deeds, contracts, bonds, or securities instead of the name of his predecessor. For the purposes of this provision the Board shall be deemed to be the predecessor of the person first appointed to be the Minister.

(4) Section one of the Board of Agriculture Act, 1889, is hereby repealed.

(5) The Board of Agriculture and Fisheries Acts, 1889 to 1909, as amended by this section, may be cited as the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries Acts, 1889 to 1919.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM moved, at the end of subsection (1), to insert "or the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, as the context may require." The noble Lord said: This is a drafting Amendment, which is necessary because the expression Board covers both the head of the Department and the Department itself. Therefore, in the new Act, Minister and Ministry will have to be substituted for it.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 12, at end insert ("or the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, as the context may require").—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM moved, in subsection (2), after "land" where that word first occurs, to insert "or other property." The noble Lord said: This is necessary because the Board holds large quantities of stocks and securities on behalf of colleges and so forth, and the Amendment is intended to cover these as well as land. It is a drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 13, after ("land") insert (`"or other property").—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

The same observations apply to my next Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 15, leave out ("land") and insert ("property").—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD BLEDISLOE

I had intended to move the omission of the words, "by this Act," which appear in subsection (2), but I understand that some property is deemed to pass by the Bill, and in these circumstances I do not move.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

My next Amendment is consequential.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 17, leave out ("land") and insert ("property").—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD BLEDISLOE

My Amendment which follows is purely drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 3, after ("and") insert ("as").—(Lord Bledisloe.)

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I accept.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM moved to leave out subsection (5). The noble Lord said: This subsection is no longer necessary, because it is covered by Clause 10 of the Bill.

Amendment moved— Page 2, lines 10 to 12, leave out subsection (5).—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

LORD BLEDISLOE moved, in the heading to Part II, before "Committees," to insert "Advisory." The noble Lord said: I desire to amend the title to Part II. Your Lordships will notice that Part III is headed "County Agricultural Committees," and I suggest that the word "Advisory" should appear before "Committees" in the title to Part II, to make it clear that they are not the same Committees as in Part III.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 14, after ("and") insert ("Advisory").—(Lord Bledisloe.)

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I accept that.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2:

Constitution of councils and committees.

2.—(1) For the purpose of assisting the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries (in this Act referred to as the Board) in executing their powers and duties there shall be established—

1. (a) a Council of Agriculture for England;
2. (b) a Council of Agriculture for Wales;
3. (c) an Agricultural Advisory Committee for England and Wales.

(2) The Council of Agriculture for England and the Council of Agriculture for Wales may from time to time by agreement act together as one Council.

(3) The various councils and committees above referred to shall be constituted as provided by the First Schedule to this Act.

LORD BLEDISLOE

I had intended to move in subsection (1) the substitution of "Minister" for "Board," but as I understand that the Board will continue to exist until the first appointment is made, there seems to me to be no sufficient reason for my moving it. Therefore I do not move.

VISCOUNT CHAPLIN moved, in subsection (1) (c), before "Wales," to insert "an advisory committee for." The noble Viscount said: The object of this Amendment is to have a separate Advisory Committee for Wales, and I move it because the methods and the practice of agriculture are very different as a general rule in Wales from what they are in England. I cannot believe for a moment that in Wales they would like to have English members interfering with their proceedings, and I am quite sure that English members on an Advisory Committee would not at all approve of Welsh members interfering with them. I cannot understand why there should be any difficulty in having a separate Advisory Committee for Wales.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 20, after ("and'') insert ("an Advisory Committee for").—(Viscount Chaplin.)

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I hope the noble Viscount will not press this Amendment. After all, the Board of Agriculture is responsible for both England and Wales. I know it has been held in the past that it has not been in the interests of agriculture that Scotland and Ireland should not be under one Board and it is undesirable in matters of agriculture to introduce what would be racial differences. I think the noble Viscount is misinformed with regard to the attitude of Welsh interests in this matter. As a matter of fact the Welsh members in the House of Commons, who I presume are in a position to speak for their constituents, were strongly in favour of one Advisory Committee for England and Wales. That opinion should carry weight, and I cannot believe that English agriculturists would object to what is after all but a very small minority representation of Wales on the Committee which is to advise the Minister.

VISCOUNT CHAPLIN

I am afraid I must press my Amendment. The noble Lord says he does not think it desirable we should create any racial differences, or do anything to create racial differences. They are not racial differences, they are practical difficulties. I fancy I know as much of the feelings of English farmers as the noble Lord himself, and I am certain that if you were to ask English farmers if they desired to have Welsh gentlemen on this Committee for the purpose of deciding points of great interest to England they would think that the company of Welshmen under such circumstances was entirely superfluous. I do not see ally reason for objecting to the Amendment.

LORD ERNLE

I should also like to express the hope that the noble Viscount will not press the Amendment. What we have to aim at is the general improvement in agriculture in England and Wales and one of the means by which we may hope to introduce better methods of agriculture to the backward parts of Wales is by bringing Welsh farmers into closer contact with their more skilful and experienced brothers in England. That was the object which the framers of this Bill had in combining the Agricultural Advisory Committee for the two countries. I quite agree with the noble Viscount that there is no question of racial antagonism. It is not that. It is the improvement of agriculture for the whole of England and Wales.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

As this part of the Bill is framed on the recommendation of the Report of the Agricultural Sub-Committee, over which I had the honour to preside, and follows exactly the recommendation of that Committee, I hope the noble Viscount will allow me to explain to him the reason why we recommended that the Councils for England and Wales should be separate but that the Advisory Committee should be united. The Councils were in our Report intended to be agricultural parliaments. They would not be in permanent session but occasionally meeting for a general discussion of agricultural affairs, and we thought that in the case of these Councils the arguments in favour of separating Wales from England were greater than the arguments in favour of uniting them. When we came to the Advisory Committee the opposite argument prevailed with us. This Committee is meant to sit permanently. It will be at the Minister's elbow in order that he may consult it at any time. The President of the Board of Agriculture has reminded us that he is responsible for agriculture in England and Wales, and we thought it would be an unnecessary complication, and would lead to delay, if on every matter on which he required advice affecting England and Wales—there must be many such matters—he would have to consult two separate committees. Therefore it seemed to us that the argument of practical convenience was on the side of having a single committee. If on this Committee Welsh opinion was in the least likely to override English opinion I should indeed share the jealousy of the noble Viscount but as it is constituted I can scarcely think there is any danger of that.

VISCOUNT CHAPLIN

I was not aware that this subject had been considered by the Committee over which the noble Earl presided and that after considering the whole question they came to the conclusions he has just announced. In these circumstances I should hardly be justified in pressing the Amendment to a Division, but I do not like it, and if any ill comes out of it it is the responsibility of the noble Lord opposite, of the late Minister for Agriculture and of the Earl of Selborne, a former Minister for Agriculture.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

VISCOUNT CHAPLIN moved to leave out subsection (2). The noble Viscount said: I object to this subsection for precisely the same reasons as I gave on the last Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 2, lines 22 to 24, leave out subsection (2).—(Viscount Chaplin.)

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

The noble Viscount will observe that this is not a statutory obligation. It is only when they agree that it would be desirable, in the interests of agriculture generally in England and Wales, to meet together that they should be permitted to do so.

VISCOUNT CHAPLIN

Where are they to meet?

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

Presumably in London. It is only in the somewhat rare cases where it is obviously a matter that concerns the agriculture of both countries so nearly that it is desirable if they so wish to meet together for the purpose of consultation. I hope my noble friend will not deny them that power, which I think will be very rarely exercised.

VISCOUNT CHAPLIN

I think it is probable that there will be great inconvenience. If the meetings are ever held in London, I don't think we shall be troubled with a great number of Welsh members.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Clause 4

Duties and powers of Agricultural Advisory Committee.

4. The Agricultural Advisory Committee shall advise the Board with respect to all matters and questions submitted to them in relation to the exercise by the Board of any powers or duties which do not relate to the industry of fishing, and shall be at liberty to make recommendations to the Board in relation to other matters affecting agriculture or other rural industries.

VISCOUNT CHAPLIN moved, after the word "Committee" to insert the words "when requested." The noble Viscount said: This is a very simple Amendment. The Clause would then read: "The Agricultural Advisory Committee, when requested, shall advise the Board with respect to all matters and questions submitted to them," etc. I venture to think myself, having served as the Minister of Agriculture, that I should be very sorry to have an advisory committee upon whom it was made an obligation to advise me upon all sorts and kinds of matters whatsoever. I have therefore suggested that that should be done "when requested" by the Minister. As the clause now stands this Committee will have to advise the Minister upon every- thing connected with agriculture or affecting it in any way, and I cannot conceive under those circumstances what is the use of a Minister of Agriculture at all. He ought to be the guiding and shining light for the prosperity of agriculture and everything connected with it. It is quite right that he should take advice upon matters of difficulty, when he wants it, but I cannot conceive that we ought to put a clause into an Act of Parliament which is obligatory and which says that the Committee shall advise the Minister upon every single question under the sun connected with agriculture.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 32, after ("Committee") insert ("when requested").—(Viscount Chaplin.)

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I think the general intention of the framers of the clause was very much in the sense that the noble Viscount has suggested—namely, that the Committee should advise upon matters that were referred to them; and so far as I am concerned I do not object to the Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT CHAPLIN moved, at the end of the Clause, to leave out "or other rural industries." The noble Viscount said: I want to know what those other industries are. There are a number of rural industries which have nothing on earth to do with agriculture in any kind of way, that I am aware of. Take the county of Northamptonshire. There is a flourishing and prosperous boot-making industry in almost every parish in the county. What particular industries are referred to in this Bill? I presume it is not intended to include shoemaking. I have a small residence in the county of Northamptonshire, and I travel over great parts of the county at times in the winter, and I never was so struck by anything as the enormous quantities of boots and shoes manufactured in every parish in the county. Are these words in the Clause intended to apply to that industry? Surely they must be. It is a rural industry, and there may be many others of which I am not aware, and my reason for moving this Amendment is to ascertain what is really intended.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 37, leave out ("or other rural industries").—(Viscount Chaplin.)

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I think my noble friend's objection really comes to this. He thinks the words "or other rural industries" are too wide. Of course it is obviously not the intention of the Bill, or of any one, that these Committees should concern themselves with bootmaking, or it might be in my own county, with chair-making. What were intended to be covered were the minor rural industries allied to agriculture.

VISCOUNT CHAPLIN

Will you make that clearer in the Bill?

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

Perhaps it might meet the point if we inserted some such words as "other rural industries allied to agriculture," or words to that effect. I should like, however, to have a moment in which to consider the exact words, and I will introduce something on the Report stage if that; will meet my noble friend.

THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK

I hope that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill will consider this matter before Report.

LORD, LEE OF FAREHAM

I have undertaken to do so.

THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK

I would ask the noble Lord to consider what constitutes a rural industry, because the same industry carried on in a town and in a rural district might be considered in one case an urban industry and in the other a rural industry. Therefore it should be considered how the word "rural" governs the word industry.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I hope I have made it clear that I agree the words of the Clause are somewhat ambiguous as they stand, but because there is some difficulty in drafting an Amendment I ask to be given time. I have undertaken to introduce words, but I should like time to consider them.

LORD BLEDISLOE

I trust that the noble Lord will not introduce the words which he indicated just now, "allied to agriculture," because they would exclude all woodland industries.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

Perhaps the noble Lord will undertake to make, privately to me, suggestions which would help me.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 5:

Supplementary provisions as to councils and committees.

5.—(1) The Board may make general regulations for regulating the proceedings for the appointment of the members of each council and committee established by this Part of this Act, and the number of meetings and the proceedings and quorum of each council and committee, and the appointing body, council, or committee shall act in accordance with those regulations.

(2) The President of the Board, or, in his absence, a secretary of the Board, shall be entitled to attend any meeting of a council or committee established by this Part of this Act and act as an ex-officio member and chairman of the meeting and have a casting vote, but, save as aforesaid, shall not vote at any meeting of the council or committee.

(3) The Board may require any of their officers to act as secretary or other officer of a council or committee established by this Part of this Act.

(4) Any regulation made under this Act shall be laid before both Houses 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 henceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done there-under.

(5) The expenses of any council or committee established by this Part of this Act shall, to such extent as may be sanctioned by the Board, with the consent of the Treasury, be defrayed by the Board out of moneys provided by Parliament; and such expenses may include such sums as the Board think reasonable for the travelling and subsistence expenses of the members of the council or committee.

LORD BLEDISLOE moved, in subsection (1), after "meetings," to insert "and the mode of convening them." The noble Lord said: I have looked carefully through the Bill, and cannot find what provision is made for calling these meetings of the councils and advisory committee together, and I therefore suggest this Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 4, after (`"meetings") insert ("and the mode of convening them ").—(Lord Bledisloe.)

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I accept the Amendment.

On Question Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE moved, in subsection (2), before "Secretary of the Board" to insert "the Parliamentary." The noble Earl said: I put down two Amendments to sub-clause (2) and I should like to explain what was in my mind. I quite agree that if the President attends the meetings, as I hope he often will, that if he wishes to do so he should be able to take the Chair, though I think it is quite right not to make it compulsory on to do so. I think also that the same should be true of the Parliamentary Secretary. Therefore I have moved to insert the words "the Parliamentary Secretary." I have no objection whatever to have a Secretary of the Board attending; on the contrary, I think it might be a great advantage that he should do so but I do not think he ought to take the Chair in the absence of the Minister or his Parliamentary Secretary. The body itself should be able to elect a vice-chairman to occupy the chair when neither of the Parliamentary chiefs is present.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 7, leave out ("a") and insert ("the parliamentary").—(The Earl of Selborne.)

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

This Amendment is also, I think, put down by my noble friend Lord Strachie, and I am prepared to accept it. I quite agree with the observation of Lord Selborne that it is desirable if the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary is present that he should have the power to take the chair. Frequently it will occur that it will be the Minister who will wish to have the advice of the committees upon some specific point, and in those circumstances it would be obviously desirable that he should be in the chair and should be able in that contingency to lead the discussion. I am quite prepared to accept this Amendment and agree that it will have the effect of excluding the permanent official of the Board from taking the chair.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK had an Amendment on the Paper, in subsection (2), to leave out from "Act" to the end of the subsection. The noble Earl said: The Amendment that stands in my name on the Paper is rather more drastic than the other Amendments dealing with this subsection, because I propose to leave out practically the last three lines of the sub- section. Perhaps the most important point in my Amendment is met by the Amendment of which the noble Lord in charge of the Bill has given notice, which takes out the words that give a casting vote to the President of the Board or the Parliamentary Secretary should be occupy the chair. The question as to whether the President or the Secretary should be the chairman of the committee is dealt with by the Amendment that appears on the Paper under the name of my noble friend Lord Bledisloe; therefore it will be perhaps more convenient, if the noble Chairman thinks so, that I should now merely move to omit the words "an ex-officio and"; that will leave Lord Bledisloe the opportunity to move his Amendment with regard to the Chairman. I will now propose merely to leave out the words "an ex-officio member and."

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

That, I think, would be the more convenient course, and if the noble Lord's Amendment is carried the rest can follow as consequential.

THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK moved in subsection (2), after the words "this Act," to leave out "and act as an ex-officio member.'' The noble Earl said: I should like very briefly to explain why I consider it undesirable that either the President or the Parliamentary Secretary should act as ex-officio members either of the Council or of the Advisory Committee. I personally see no objection whatever to the proposal in the subsection that the President and the Secretary should have the right of attending the meetings of the Council or of the local Advisory Committee. I feel certain that their presence would be welcomed by members of those Committees, and that on very many occasions their advice and the information that they may be able to give would be most helpful to the Council or to the Committee. I have for very many years strongly supported the proposal for the formation of a Council or Committee or some body which would reflect the opinions of the best agriculturists and would be in a position to advise the Board on important matters when such assistance is required, but if that Committee or body is to be of any use two conditions should prevail. One is that the Committee must be thoroughly representative and have the confidence of the best agricultural opinion in the country. The second is that it must be independent of the Board of Agriculture. If the opinion prevails that the Advisory Committee is too much under the influence or the control of the Board, the committee will not carry the agricultural opinion of country behind them.

I ask your Lordships to consider for a moment what the constitution of this Advisory Committee will be. Except for the purpose of dealing with the Diseases of Animals Act, when two members appointed by the Ministry will be added to the Committee, there will be twelve members of this Committee, and of those six will be persons who have been nominated by the Board. Two will have been directly nominated by the Board to the Advisory Committee, and the Council will nominate four out of the number of persons who have previously been nominated to the Council by the Board. Therefore on your Agricultural Advisory Committee you will have six representatives, or one half, who are nominees of the Board of Agriculture. If you are going to add another member to that Committee as an ex-officio member in the person of the President of the Board or the Secretary of the Board, although by this subsection he will not be entitled to vote, I myself feel that the usefulness of the Committee as an advisory body to the President of the Board will be very much weakened.

I should have imagined that what the President of the Board would wish to have would be an absolutely independent expression of opinion from persons who are entirely free from any control of the Department. I fear very much that in the event of the President or his Parliamentary Secretary presiding at the meetings of the Advisory Committee it will very greatly weaken the confidence that agriculturists throughout the country will have in the decisions of that Committee, and that, rightly or wrongly—possibly wrongly—they will think that the Committee have, in coming to its conclusions, been unduly influenced or controlled by the Department.

It is on those grounds that, in the best interests of the Minister of Agriculture and of the Department, I think it very desirable that though the Minister or the Secretary might attend, they should not hold the position of being members or ex-officio members of the Committee. The noble Lord the President of the Board of Agriculture may say that I am needlessly alarmed, and that all the four persons nominated by the Board or from whom the selection may be made will be persons who have had a practical experience of agriculture. I have perfect confidence that while the noble Lord remains at the head of the Board this will be the case. But this is not a temporary Act, but probably will be in force for many years.

Amendment moved— Clause 5, page 3, line 10, after the word ("Act") delete the words ("and act as an ex-officio member").—(The Earl of Northbrook.)

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I think a real distinction should be recognised between the Council and the Advisory Committee. As Lord Selborne, I think, said, the Council is an agricultural parliament; the Committee is a body appointed to advise the Minister and will be constantly available to give him advice (in accordance with the Amendment, which has been accepted, moved by Lord Chaplin) when it is requested to do so. I hope it may meet the views of your Lordships that a different procedure should rule in the two cases. Perhaps it might be better if the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary was neither an ex officio member nor chairman of the Agricultural Council, which is, if you like, a free parliament; and that, if it is your Lordships' wish, I should agree that it should not apply to the Council. But with regard to tine Advisory Committee, this is a body which will meet frequently and which the Minister will wish frequently to consult. I do not know how much importance is attached to the phrase that he should be an ex officio member, but I do attach importance to the provision that he should have the right to take charge of the Advisory Committee when he feels it desirable to do so, and I hope your Lordships will not deny him that right.

As will be seen from the Amendment, which I have put on the Paper, I think there is a real objection to voting. After all, an Advisory Committee is a Committee to give advice. It is not a Parliamentary body divided into two sets where a vote will be taken. It is not obligatory upon the Minister even to accept the advice of the Committee if it is given. In those circumstances I think the voting provision is altogether superfluous, and I have suggested that it should be eliminated. I am, however, very disinclined to agree to give up the right of the discretion of the Minister, or the Parliamentary Secretary in his absence, to take the chair in the Advisory Committee, and I hope that that point will not be pressed by your Lordships.

LORD BLEDISLOE

I hope the noble Lord will not object if I express a some, what different view from that which he has put before the House, because I, for my part, regard this Advisory Committee as far the most important part of the Bill, and their advice, if they are allowed to give it with absolute freedom, is calculated to assist the President of the Board and his officials in the very difficult work which they have nowadays to do. I am anxious to see the Advisory Committee a really live body which will give its genuine opinion and advice to the Minister unrestrained, or at any rate without any appearance of being restrained, by the Minister or his officials, and certainly without any appearance of Ministerial pressure.

As the noble Lord knows, I have the honour to-day of presiding over two bodies one of which is certainly of a somewhat similar character to this: the two bodies being the Central Agricultural Advisory Council and the Federation of County Agricultural Executive Committees. The noble Lord knows that whenever he or his representative in the House of Commons attends a meeting of either of those two important bodies, they are always most warmly welcomed by farmers from every part of the kingdom, who listen with very great respect to everything they say. But I cannot quite contemplate the same conditions operating here, should the Minister who presides over the meeting he in fact a member of the body which is giving him advice, because he will be in effect advising himself, which on the face of it is perhaps rather absurd.

The noble Earl has pointed out that, subject only to the appointees from Scotland, there will in fact be only six persons nominated by the Board and six persons appointed from outside on the Advisory Committee. Immediately an extra member comes in, in the person of the Minister or his Parliamentary Secretary, there will, in case of a Division, he seven members representing the views of the Board directly or indirectly, and six only representing the independent opinion of the farming community. As the noble Lord himself says, after all it does not matter much what the advice is so long as it is the genuine advice of the agricultural community, bearing in mind that he need not take the advice if they give it. But it still remains open to him, and it is not trenching in any way upon his Ministerial responsibility, to listen to what the Advisory Committee appointed mainly by the agricultural community says. He can either take or dispense with the advice as he may think fit. I do not want to press that point unduly. My fear is that if the Minister is Chairman as of right (not in his discretion, on certain occasions, but of right) he may in fact dominate the Committee.

LORD STRACHIE

I think Lord North-brook's Amendment is better, in the sense that it goes further; but I was sorry to hear the President of the Board of Agriculture say just now that he thought it desirable that the President of the Board or the Parliamentary Secretary should be ex-officio a member and also Chairman of the Advisory Committee.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I did not quite say that.

LORD STRACHIE

Anyhow, I do not think he barred the idea of his being Chairman of the Advisory Committee, and if he is attending there as a member it will be very natural at once to make him Chairman. It has already been pointed out to your Lordships that from the mere fact that he will nominate half the members of this Advisory Committee and will himself make the seventh, his influence will be very great indeed. Still, I cannot help thinking it is a mistake that you should have him or his Parliamentary Secretary as Chairman, because not only does this Committee debate questions which are properly referred to them, but as provided by Clause 4 they "shall be at liberty to make recommendations to the Board in relation to other matters affecting agriculture or other rural industries." I thought that was the most satisfactory part of the clause, and the idea of that, I take it, was that this advisory body should be independent to a large extent, and if they thought that the President of the Board of Agriculture or his Parliamentary Secretary was not carrying out the views of farmers generally, or was attempting to do things that he should not do, they would have the right to say so; and therefore I think we ought to have a more independent body.

LORD ERNLE

I think on this question there may be a perfectly legitimate difference of opinion. My own view is very strongly in favour of the President of the Board of Agriculture being Chairman of the Advisory Committee. When he asks the advice of the Advisory Committee he probably, indeed certainly, will have in his mind a large number of points to which he wishes to call their attention. If, after calling their attention as Chairman, he likes to go out, he is quite at liberty to do so, but I submit that he ought, without any doubt, to be Chairman of the Advisory Committee. And it seems to me there is another point. You want the President to use this Advisory Committee, and I think that people rather misrepresent—quite accidentally, of course—the actual powers and working of the Advisory Committee. Supposing the President of the Board asks the advice of the Committee on any point, and supposing their advice is contrary to his subsequent action, that point can be elicited by a Question in the House of Commons, and when the President's action is reviewed the fact that his Advisory Committee gave him contrary advice will be of some importance.

On the other hand, he may not call in his Advisory Committee at all, and in that case the fact that he did not can also be elicited by Question and Answer in the House of Commons. That arrangement is a very delicate one. If it is properly handled, if there is perfect give-and-take between the President and his Advisory Committee, if they are his skilful, practiced friends, who are called in to advise him on specific points he will use their advice, and, if he uses it, it will be of immense value, I believe, in the future development of agriculture. It will be a more or less permanent body of men who will provide for a more or less continuous agricultural policy. If you do not make him Chairman, if you treat it as a hostile body or as a body which may be hostile, he will not use it and you will lose that great advantage. I am therefore entirely in favour of the President being the Chairman of his Agricultural Advisory Committee. I do not think that he ought to be Chairman of the Agricultural Council, which is the more Parliamentary body. The Advisory Committee is, as it were, his Cabinet, and I think it would be absurd if the Prime Minister was not Chairman of his Cabinet.

VISCOUNT CHAPLIN

I confess my view is very much that of the noble Lord who has just sat down. We have now agreed that the President, or his understudy the Parliamentary Secretary, is to be Chairman of this body. If I have heard aright that is the understanding we have come to now. That he should have no voice in the ultimate decision does appear to me to place him in a rather undignified position. I am not in favour of this immense number of advisory committees, and I have had a very curious experience on one. My noble friend sitting beside me (the Earl of Selborne) was once good enough to ask me to sit on an advisory committee on a question affecting the horses in this country, and I accepted. I believe they ultimately made their recommendations to him, but If found out that when this was a much larger Advisory Committee (although it was only allowed to come to my knowledge quite late in the proceedings) they had made, long before I belonged to this body, one of the most preposterous mistakes that ever was heard of in connection with horse breeding. I think I am right to sound a note of warning on the subject of advisory committees. The Prime Minister at that time had given £40,000 a year for the improvement of the breed of horses in England—the first time that anything on a substantial scale had been done. What were their first proceedings? It was an immense committee in the first instance, but it gradually became smaller. I discovered that the first thing they did was to spend £40,000 on the purchase of brood mares and so ill-managed was the whole thing by the Advisory Committee, by the advice they gave, that what do you think the produce in foals was? In the course of four years rather less than the original number of brood mares. And to such a pitch had the thing come that even the Treasury (which, I suppose, does not know very much about horses) declined to allow the thing to continue unless a complete change was made. Knowing all this from my own personal experience I do not think it is out of place to say that I am not in favour of too many committees of this kind, and unless they are very carefully managed—better than they have sometimes been in former days—I do not think we shall be doing a wise thing in substantially altering the clause before us.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

I quite agree that this is an arguable point, but on the whole I think that the course proposed by the noble Lord opposite is the right one. It is to some extent a matter of machinery. Discussions may take place between the Minister and his Advisory Committee whether he sits as Chairman at the head of the table, or whether they state their views rather in the form of a deputation, and he answers them from his chair. But of the two courses I am certain that the former would conduce more to free and uniform discussion between the different parties. I can speak with a certain amount of authority on this particular point, because I have been for five years at the India Office. There the Secretary of State presides over what for practical purposes (although it has certain statutory functions of a different kind) is an advisory committee, namely the Council of India, and I have never found there—and I do not think any other Secretary for India has found—that the mere fact that the Parliamentary head presides over the Council causes any sacrifice of independence or prevents the free statement of views. For the purposes of regular communication, therefore, which I am sure ought to take place—and I quite agree with what Lord Bledisloe said that in some respects the constitution of this Council is as important as anything in the Bill—I think it will be all to the good that the President of the Board should preside over the Advisory Committee.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

I think the real question of importance here is how this Advisory Committee is going to be composed. My noble friend Lord Northbrook's suspicion of this subsection is really largely influenced by the fact, as the Schedule is at present drawn, that this Advisory Committee is, to the extent of 50 per cent., going to consist of nominees of the Minister. I must say that my attention had not been drawn to that in the way in which it is now drawn by Lord Northbrook, and when we come to the Schedule we ought to have a good deal to say about that. If the Advisory Committee is properly composed I should not share his jealousy of the Minister presiding. I think that the analogy Lord Crewe has mentioned is the true one; and considering the relations which must subsist between this committee and the Minister, and the fact that the Minister will never be absolved of any responsibility by the Committee—the Minister will remain solely responsible for the policy pursued and will be able to accept or reject the advice of the Committee—I think the position might be rather difficult if he did not preside. But from what my noble friend the President of the Board has said, it is clear that the words of this subsection cannot stand as they are at present. He has agreed to make a distinction between the Council and the Committee. That will mean a re-drafting of the subsection. What I would suggest is that we allow these words to stand at present, on the understanding that my noble friend brings up on Report fresh words making a differentiation between the Council and the Committee, and also, I trust, providing for the election of a vice-chairman in either case. Then we shall know how the Committee is going to be composed, and we shall be able to come to a better judgment than at present whether the Minister shall be chairman or not.

THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK

I understood that, with the approval of the Lord Chairman, I restricted my Amendment merely to moving to omit the words "an ex-officio member and" Perhaps I have misunderstood the Lord Chairman.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

I was suggesting to your Lordships that you should follow the usual course. When an Amendment, which if carried would cut out the rights of noble Lords' Amendments later, comes on, it is the custom to put only a few words so that it cannot be argued, if the noble Lord's Amendment is defeated, that we had already passed the place where their Amendments come on. What I meant to suggest was merely that the noble Lord should move the whole of his Amendment but that technically I should put only those few words.

THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK

I am afraid that I misunderstood.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

I am sorry if I deceived the noble Lord.

THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK

It is no doubt my fault. I understood that I was moving only the omission of the words "an ex-officio member and," therefore I refrained from making mention of the important question whether the President or the Secretary should act as chairman of the committee, being under the impression—which, I suppose, was a wrong impression —that by restricting myself to those words I should leave my noble friend Lord Bledisloe free to move his Amendment.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

Lord Bledisloe is quite free to move.

THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK

I will not pursue that point. I only wish to say that I am sorry to find myself in disagreement, as to the relative position of the Council and of the Advisory Committee, with the views expressed by the noble Lord the President of the Board. Personally, I do not think it is really of very great importance whether the President of the Board or the. Secretary is called an ex-officio member of the Council of Agriculture or not, or, indeed, whether he presides over the meetings of the Council. That Council has been described as au Agricultural Parliament, but with all deference to that opinion I hardly feel entitled to give it such a high designation. It is going to be a very large body. It will be composed of ninety members: its duties are clearly defined in this Bill; it is to meet twice a year to discuss not only agricultural matters but questions affecting the disputed point of what are rural industries. These gentlemen, I suppose, will meet every six months; they will have a general "blow off" (if I may use the expression) on agricultural affairs in general. It is true that they may make, if they choose, recommendations to the Board, or pass resolutions to send to the Board, but personally, with all respect to the constitution of that Council, I very much doubt whether those recommendations will carry much more weight with the general agricultural public than resolutions passed at present by the Central Chamber of Agriculture or by the Federation of Agricultural Executive Committees. However, I attach the greatest importance to the constitution of the Agricultural Advisory Committee. That is really the more important body of the two; and I feel that it would be very unfortunate if you were first of all to have half of your Advisory Committee nominees of the Board and, on the top of that, have an official of the Board presiding at their meetings. I cannot help thinking that if you had this the Minister would not be in the position to get what I suppose he desires—namely, the best independent advice possible on agricultural matters; and I feel confident that any decision come to by such a Committee would not have the confidence of the best agriculturists in this country, to which, I understand, the noble Lord does attach some importance.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I trust that your Lordships will accept the advice given by Lord Selborne. I think it is obvious that this clause must be redrafted, and to attempt to tinker with it in the meantime with further Amendments would merely delay your Lordships. I want to be clear about this, that I attach importance to leaving it to the President, or, in his absence, to the Parliamentary Secretary, to take the chair at the Advisory Committee. I propose to include that power in the new clause for this reason—that I am sincerely anxious that the relation between the Minister and this Advisory Committee shall be close and continuous; that there shall not be the possibility of them operating (so to speak) in water-tight compartments; because I am sure that, if the President is merely to be asked in to sit on one side and to listen to the debates of the Advisory Committee, the inevitable result will be that his attendances will be very infrequent, and that the touch between the Minister and the Advisory Committee, which is so absolutely necessary if it is going to be an effective body, will be lost. Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to have the clause re-drafted to bring up again on Report and in the meantime withdraw the Amendments which are down on the Paper.

LORD BLEDISLOE

I, for my part, would like to adopt the course of business which has been suggested. It is very difficult to debate this question further until we know the form of the re-drafted clause.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

And how the Committee is composed.

LORD BLEDISLOE

Yes. In the light of what happens on the Schedule we shall be better able to debate this question. May I say, in passing, that it is rather hard to face the heavy artillery of no less than four present and pass Presidents of the Board of Agriculture? What I suggest to the noble Lord in charge of the Bill is that if he thinks it desirable—as apparently he does—that the Minister in either House should preside, he should do so ex-officio, to mark his Office as President or Parliamentary Secretary. In that case he, need not be, and in my humble judgment he ought not to be, an ordinary member of the Advisory Committee. If he is he will be in a sense advising himself. There is no reason why, if he is present, he should not, by reason of his office as President or Parliamentary Secretary, take the Chair and listen to the advice.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

That is really what I meant to imply. I do not desire either that the President should be an ex-officio member or that he should vote, but merely that he should preside when he attends the Advisory Committee.

THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK

On that understanding I beg to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD STRACHIE moved to leave out subsection (4) and to insert the following new subsection— (4) Before any regulation is made under this Act, the draft thereof shall be laid before each House of Parliament for a period of not less than thirty sitting days during the Session of Parliament, and if either House before the expiration of that period presents an Address to His Majesty against the draft or any part thereof, no further proceedings shall be taken thereon, but without prejudice to the making of a new regulation.

The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to make it compulsory upon the Government to accept any Motion which is passed in either House against any regulations that are made under this Bill. It seems to me that the regulations may be very wide and far-reaching. For instance, in Clause 5, the Board may make general regulations for regulating the proceedings for the appointment of members of the Council. The noble Earl, Lord Selborne, said just now that it depended upon the Schedule of the Bill. The Board of Agriculture have power, if they think fit, by regulation to alter the whole of that under the provisions of the Bill as it now stands, because it only says that his Majesty "may" alter these regulations. Of course it would be in the power of the President to advise His Majesty not to agree either to alter the regulations or to withdraw them because this House or the other House had passed an Address asking His Majesty to do so.

I would remind the noble Lord the President of the Board of Agriculture that under a Bill of which agriculturists thought a great deal, the Milk Bill—I think he was in another place then—the House of Commons insisted, and this House supported it in its insistence, that it should be compulsory on the Minister to withdraw regulations in the way that I suggest in the Amendment, instead of leaving the provision of a permissive character. I cannot move to leave out "may" and put in "shall." Therefore it was necessary to move the subsection in different words, saying that if either House passes a Resolution objecting to the regulations made by the Board of Agriculture under this Bill, then, ipso facto, the regulations shall be null and void. I think this very necessary. As was said just now by a noble Lord sitting on this bench, although we may trust the noble Lord completely—no doubt in his case if this House passed an Address to His Majesty asking him to declare null and void any of the regulations, the President would advise His Majesty so to declare—he may not always be here. We may not have the present Government. We may have an entirely different kind of Government under conditions in which they would not advise His Majesty under this permissive clause, to annul the regulations. In that case the effect would be that this House would be powerless. I am anxious that these words should be put in so that, as in the case of the Milk Bill, it would be impossible for any Minister to advise His Majesty not to annul the regulations after this House or the other House had passed a Resolution that they should be null and void.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

In order to preserve the right of Lord Bledisloe later on, I suggest that the Question should be put to omit this subsection down to the word "void" in line 22.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 16, leave out subsection (4) down to the word ("void") in line 22.—(Lord Strachie.)

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I am endeavouring to do my best to meet your Lordships in regard to Amendments, but I venture to hope that my noble friend will not press this particular Amendment. I can assure him that the words in the Bill are quite as frequently used in legislation of this kind as those which lie proposes to insert in their stead, and they are not in any sense, therefore, at variance with the established practice. Apart from that fact, I do not really think it is much good trying to stop all the earth, so to speak, in view of the possible Minister that may arrive in the days to come. If you have Bolshevist Ministers they will find means of getting round a subsection of this kind, if necessary by getting rid of the Act of Parliament altogether. But my real objection to his Amendment is that it will involve delay (which will be exceedingly hampering) in setting up the machinery under this Bill, which would be particularly inconvenient in this case. We hope that the Bill will become an Act in the course of the next few days. Parliament will then adjourn, and I am naturally most anxious when the Bill becomes law to proceed with the regulations and setting up the whole of the machinery provided under it. After all, the regulations will deal almost entirely with machinery matters, and I do not think that the position of your Lordships' House will be seriously prejudiced if what is quite an ordinary form is observed in the Bill. Otherwise, the delays will be so serious that it may be some months before the Bill can be put into effective operation at all.

VISCOUNT CHAPLIN

This is a proposal which has been moved and carried in this House constantly. There was a time when in the other House of Parliament it was thought that to do so was entirely to alter the character of the clause which had been for years the regular practice. When regulations of this sort were asked for and made under different Acts of Parliament, it was provided that they should be laid upon the Table of both Houses and if either House made any objection, then on the presentation of an Address to the Crown they became null and void. It is precisely what the clause does at the present time. The noble Lord says he is extremely anxious to get on with the Bill in a few days. With the greatest possible respect, I think he would do well to let the public and the agricultural world in general have a little time in order to understand all these numerous Bills affecting the land brought in by the present Government. The agriculturists are not very quick at learning what has happened in Parliament, or what the new laws affecting their interests really mean. The vast number of farmers have felt themselves persecuted by the enormous number of Regulations issued day after day, many of them often recalled or altered within fortnight or three weeks of being issued. There is nothing which has done more to dishearten farmers in their task of increasing the production of food, into which they threw themselves heart and soul when appealed to by the Prime Minister, than the practice of the Government of issuing Regulations of every sort and kind. Indeed they have abandoned all hope of securing that increased production under present conditions. This Amendment has been moved in this House on other measures and carried, and I really see no reason why it should not be carried in connection with the present Bill. I hope it will be pressed to a Division.

LORD BLEDISLOE

It might save the time of the House if I referred to my own Amendment which follows. There are really two alternatives, adopted in different Bills. What appears to be the objection to the particular form in this Bill is this. Regulations may be made, and although Parliament objects to the regulations during the period they are under discussion it will be possible, under the last words of this subsection, for all the regulations made during that period to be valid, and any action taken under them to have full operation. I do not desire to move my alternative Amendment if the noble Lord will assure me that no regulation will continue to operate in spite of the fact that action has been taken under it if, during the twenty-eight days, Parliament takes exception to it. Lord Selborne has pointed out to me that this is his interpretation of it, and if it is the noble Lord's interpretation also I do not desire to move any Amendment.

LORD STRACHIE

I have handed a suggested alternative Amendment to the noble Lord which I think meets his objection. The reason I put it in this form was that it was inserted in another place in connection with the Milk Bill, and was accepted by this House an satisfactory. But the alternative words I have handed to the noble Lord meet his objection because it is provided that these regulations could be laid and could be acted upon, but in the case of either House passing an Address then they would be withdrawn without affecting anything which has been done under them. That would, I think, meet the objection which has been raised. If, of course, the noble Lord desires further time to consider them, and is inclined to intimate that he sees no objection to my modified form, between now and the Report stage I shall be ready to withdraw the Amendment.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I shall be glad to consider this matter further before the Report stage, but my noble friend will realise that the words he has handed to me are somewhat complicated and were in fact framed to apply to a different Bill altogether. However, I will examine them carefully and see whether it is possible to accept them. I cannot undertake in advance to accept them, because it is obviously a matter which requires to be carefully examined.

LORD STRACHIE

I only ask whether the noble Lord has an open mind on the point whether, if this House or the other House does pass an Address, the Minister would withdraw the regulation. If he has not an open mind but wishes the Minister to have a perfectly free hand, even should either House pass a Resolution against the regulation, then it would be a waste of time further to consider the matter and we had better decide it now.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

I am sure the noble Lord has not a closed mind on that subject. If he will consult his legal adviser, who has also been my legal adviser, he will know that the case has been thrashed out in this House again and again. What this House now wants is that, if it passes a hostile Resolution, that Resolution shall be operative. Previously there was a loophole by which it could be avoided. We do not want to stop the Minister from issuing regulations and bringing them into force, nor do we want anything done under them to be invalid because they are subsequently disapproved of.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

All I can say is that I will reconsider this matter on the Report stage, and I hope the noble Lord will be satisfied.

LORD STRACHIE

With an open mind?

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I hope I always have an open mind.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM moved, in subsection (5), after "travelling" to insert "expenses," and to leave out "expenses" and insert "allowance." The noble Lord said: This is really a drafting Amendment as subsistence expenses is not an appropriate expense.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 29, after ("travelling") insert ("expenses") and leave out ("expenses") and insert ("allowance").—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 6 agreed to.

Clause 7:

Constitution of committees.

7.—(1) The council of every county (other than the London County Council) shall, and the London County Council and the council of any county borough may, establish an agricultural committee constituted in accordance with a scheme made by the council and approved by the Board. A committee may consist partly of persons who are not members of the council.

(2) All matters relating to the exercise by the council of their powers under any Act specified in the Second Schedule to this Act, and all other matters relating to agriculture, except such matters as under the Education Act, 1902, stand referred to the education committee, and, except the raising of a rate or borrowing, shall stand referred to the agricultural committee, and the council, before exercising their powers in relation to any matter so referred, shall, unless in their opinion the matter is urgent, receive and consider the report of the agricultural commitee with respect to the matter in question:

Provided that—

1. (i) on the application of the council the Board, after consultation with the Board of Education, may by order direct that any matter specified in the order and relating to agricultural education which but for this provision would stand referred to the education committee shall stand referred to the agricultural committee; and
2. (ii) if the London County Council or the council of a county borough so resolve matters relating to any of their powers under any Act specified in the said Schedule shall not stand so referred to the agricultural committee.

(3) The council may delegate to the agricultural committee with or without any restrictions or conditions any of their powers in relation to matters which by virtue of this section stand referred to the committee, and, if so provided by the scheme, any powers so delegated may in like manner be delegated by the agricultural committee to a sub-committee. A sub-committee may consist partly of persons who are not members of the council or of the agricultural committee.

(4) Every scheme under this section shall provide—

1. (a) for the appointment by the council of at least a majority of the agricultural committee, and the persons so appointed shall be persons who are members of the council, unless, in the case of a county, the council otherwise determine:
57
2. (b) for the appointment by the Board of at least one third of the members of the agricultural committee, and of any sub-committee to which powers of the agricultural committee are delegated:
3. c for the inclusion of women as well as men among the members of the agricultural committee:
4. (d) for the appointment, so far as practicable, of such persons as have some practical, technical, or scientific knowledge of or interest in agriculture.

(5) Any scheme under this section may, for all or any of the purposes of this section, provide for a joint agricultural committee for any area formed by a combination of counties or county boroughs or parts thereof.

(6) If a scheme under this section has not been made by a council of a county (other than the London County Council) and approved by the Board within six months after the passing of this Act, the Board may, after consultation with the council, make a scheme for the purposes for which a scheme might have been made by the council.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE moved, in subsection (4) (b), to leave out "at least" and insert "not more than." The noble Earl said: As the words stand at present the Board might appoint four-fifths or nine-tenths of the whole body were it not for the words providing that the Council shall appoint half the members. I want to draw the noble Lord's attention to the arithmetic of this proposition. The Board is to appoint, as I hope, not more than one-third, but the County Council is to appoint at least a majority of the Agricultural Committee out of its own members. Suppose that the Committee consisted of twenty-one persons. The County Council must appoint eleven of those members out of its own number. The Board of Agriculture would appoint seven, that is altogether eighteen; and it would leave only three persons for the County Council to appoint extraneously to its own members. I think that is too small a proportion. Either the members to be appointed by the Board of Agriculture are too many, or the provision that more than half these members must be members of the County Council is inconvenient. I should have thought greater latitude should have been left to the County Council and that the numbers appointed by the Board of Agriculture are rather excessive.

Amendment moved. Page 4, line 38, leave out ("at least") and insert ("not more than").—(The Earl of Selborne.)

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I think the point which Lord Selborne has put is a perfectly sound one, and I am prepared to accept the Amendment. I think, if I may say so, that it is preferable to the Amendment standing in the name of Lord Northbrook, who suggests "at least one-fourth." Of course that might have the effect if read strictly of being four-fifths. I think that the object which he has in view is better met by Lord Selborne's Amendment. If that is carried, it is obvious that it can mean less than one-third, and the case to which Lord Selborne referred of a county council not having a sufficient margin might be adjusted with good will on both sides.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK moved, in subsection (4) (b), to leave out "third" and insert "fourth." The noble Earl said: I should like to explain to the noble Lord that my Amendment, I am afraid, as it stands is a mistake in drafting, owing to my having had the drafting of it myself, but my intention was not that the Board should have power to appoint "at least one-fourth'' but should have power to appoint not more than one-fourth." That is not a matter of principle, that is merely a matter of numbers.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

That is how it stands now—not more than one-third.

THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK

I hope that the noble Lord will be prepared to meet me and accept "not more than one-fourth." With the great force of the argument used by the noble Lord on the Second Reading I agree, namely, that when a proportion of the total expenditure incurred by any committee is defrayed from the Exchequer, it is desirable that the Department concerned should be represented upon that committee; but I think the proportion of one-third is really rather an excessive one. I cannot but think that one-fourth of the committee would be quite sufficient to safeguard the Treasury against any unnecessary expenditure. I think it should be borne in mind that at the present moment, when the ratepayers in the country are howling at the increase of the rates, it is extremely improbable that any county council would sanction any extravagant expenditure. I should like to point out that in imposing one-third on any scheme for a sub-committee it will be found extremely inconvenient. I welcome the proposal that the county councils shall have power to appoint outside persons, known as selected members, on committees and sub-committees. That has worked extremely well on Educational, Public Health, Mental Deficiency, and Small Holdings Committees, but that was because the selection of those outside members was left to the county councils, and they appointed persons who had local experience and were qualified. I belive the effect of providing that at least one-third must be nominated by the Board will seriously hamper county councils in the appointment of selected persons.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

It is not now "at least one-third" but "not more than one-third."

THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK

That is exactly my point, namely, that if the Board exercise their power of appointing one-third on a small sub-committee it will hamper the county councils in appointing selected persons. Supposing they delegate their power to a small holdings committee, and then have to submit a scheme for the approval of the Board. Say there are twenty-one members on the sub-committee. They will have to provide for the nomination of seven members by the Board. That would leave fourteen members to be appointed by the country councils. Now on many small holdings committees the county councils have already appointed four selected persons, and if they continue those members it will leave only ten members of the county councils, and therefore the elected representatives on the county councils will be in a minority on the committee. Therefore the county councils will greatly hesitate to exercise their power of appointing selected persons. I have no doubt that they will exercise their power, but I believe that the local authority has better knowledge of the requirements of the district, that they are persons with experience, and that they should appoint the members instead of the Board. I therefore beg to move my Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 38, leave out ("third") and insert ("fourth").—(The Earl of Northbrook.)

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I am sorry that I cannot see my way to accept the Amendment. I think Lord Northbrook has left out of account the fact that in respect of small holdings and allotment committees for some years to come the whole of the expenditure does not fall upon the rates at all but on the Exchequer.

THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK

Only with regard to ex-Service men.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

No, with regard to the whole of the small holdings acquisition, and in those circumstances I think it is a very modest proposition on the part of the Board, that they should not have a majority but only one-third. There should be substantial representation to safeguard the interest of the Exchequer in this matter, and I hope the noble Earl will not press his Amendment.

THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK

After that explanation I beg to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE moved, in subsection (4) (d), to leave out "so far as practicable" and insert "in the case of the council of every county (other than the London County Council)." The noble Earl said: I want the noble Lord to agree to cut out the words" so far as practicable." I do not think that they should be in the clause. There ought to be no difficulty in the council of the country finding people who have practical, technical and scientific knowledge in agriculture. I can understand that in the agricultural committees of county boroughs there might be a difficulty, and therefore I have drafted my Amendment so as not to include them.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 3, leave out ("so far as practicable") and insert ("in the case of the council of every county (other than the London County Council)").—(The Earl of Selborne.)

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

If my noble friend desires to press the Amendment I am not disposed to resist it, but I would rather that it had not been moved, because the principle of the provision is just as much applicable to the committee of a county borough, like Birmingham for instance, which has a considerable area of agricultural land within its borough or under its control for small holdings. "So far as practicable" is a somewhat vague phrase. If, however, my noble friend insists upon moving his Amendment I shall not resist it.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM moved, in subsection (4) (d), after "persons" to insert "only." The noble Lord said: The aim of this is to strengthen the objects which I think my noble friend has in view, that the membership should be limited so far as possible to those having experience.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 4, after ("persons") insert ("only").—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD BLEDISLOE moved, in subsection (4) (d), after "practical" to insert "commercial." The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to afford some definite assistance to small holders and allotment holders in the direction in which they will almost certainly require it—namely, the adoption of co-operative methods through the medium of the Agricultural Organisation Society. I am sure that the noble President of the Board will realise that there are many practical farmers who are experts in husbandry but have very little commercial knowledge of their business, and the great object of such an organisation as the Agricultural Organisation Society is to instruct them better on the commercial side of farming, that element which Sir Horace Plunkett, of all other persons in the United Kingdom, has done so much to promote. I would ask your Lordships to accept this Amendment in the interests of small holders and allotment holders.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 4, after ("practical") insert ("commercial").—(Lord Bledisloe.)

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I am prepared to accept the Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT CHAPLIN moved, in subsection (4) (d), to leave out "or" and insert "and some." The noble Viscount said: If this Amendment is accepted the words will then read "have practical, technical, and some scientific knowledge of." I move this because I think we cannot have too much practical knowledge on everything affecting agriculture on the part of those who have to serve on the Committee.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 4, leave out the word ("or") and insert ("and some").—(Viscount Chaplin.)

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I am in general sympathy with the object that my noble friend has in view, but I am a little apprehensive that he might by his Amendment cut out the landowner who, whilst having obviously a very serious interest in agriculture, may not possess these qualifications in his own person. I am anxious that that should not be done, and I am sure that would be the wish of your Lordships. If this Amendment were agreed to it would set up a standard of qualification which would, I fear, cut out the person who is an owner of land and therefore financially and otherwise interested in agriculture, but who may not have been able, either from the circumstances of his life or other cause, to give sufficient attention to agriculture to come within this rather rigid qualification.

VISCOUNT CHAPLIN

Does the noble Lord mean by cutting out the word "or"?

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

Yes.

VISCOUNT CHAPLIN

Well, could it not read "the appointment of such persons only as have practical, technical or scientific knowledge"? If they have practical and technical knowledge they will not want to have the scientific knowledge. That wording would make anybody eligible who has some scientific knowledge, or, in the absence of that, practical and technical knowledge. I do not see how the owner of the land would be cut out, but if he were cut out by those words probably it would be desirable that he should be.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I think that my noble friend moved to insert the word "and" which would stiffen up the qualifications.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD BLEDISLOE moved, in subsection (4) (d), to leave out "or interest in." The noble Lord said: I desire to obtain some explanation from the President of the Board. It is difficult on the face of it to see what sort of persons are contemplated by the insertion of these words, because they obviously cannot be intended to apply to anyone who has a sentimental or romantic interest in agriculture. If they mean persons who have a proprietary or financial interest surely some words should be inserted to make it clear what persons are intended. At present I should imagine that this designation leaves it open to the whole British public to come in.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I was inclined to agree with the noble Lord when I first saw the words, but it was explained to me that interest in any legal document meant some substantial interest and not merely a mental interest, and I believe that is the case. It would be very unfortunate if those who had a proprietary interest were cut out, and that is the reason the words are put in. I think that the noble Lord would find it somewhat difficult to draft a qualifying adjective which would cover all the cases, whereas the word "interest" has a legal signification which is well understood.

VISCOUNT CHAPLIN

It seems to me, with great respect to my noble friend, that if these words remain anybody and everybody would be admitted, because everybody has a substantial interest in bread, and bread of course is entirely agricultural, except so far as it is made by the baker.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I hope that my noble friend will see that if these words are taken out the particular class to whom I referred—the landowner who has only a proprietary interest in his agricultural land—will be cut out, and I imagine that is not his object. I feel bound to make that point clear.

LORD BLEDISLOE

I do not think the words are happy, but in the light of the President's explanation I do not desire to press this Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD BLEDISLOE

I desire to move a manuscript Amendment to come at the end of the last subsection. I move to insert: "Any scheme under this Section may provide for the payment as part of the expenses of the Agricultural Committee of travelling expenses and subsistence allowance of members of the Committee or of any sub-committee of the Committee." This is really only in accord with what has been already incorporated in the Bill in relation to the Council and to the Advisory Committee, and it is also the practice, as your Lordships are no doubt aware, with many similar bodies to-day, notably health insurance committees, containing poor persons who could not attend the meetings unless their expenses were paid.

Amendment moved—

At end of the last subsection, insert: Any scheme under this section may provide for the payment as part of the expenses of the Agricultural Committee of travelling expenses and subsistence allowance of members of the Committee or of any sub-committee of the Committee."—(Lord Bledisloe.)

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I shall be glad to accept this Amendment, which, I may say, meets with the approval of the Minister of Health exercising the old Local Government Board powers, and I am quite sure that without it these bodies would be very much less effective than they would otherwise be. We are most anxious that representatives of the working classes should not be unable to attend on account of the expense, and I am sure that this Amendment will make the bodies more representative of those concerned.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 8:

Additional powers of committees.

8.—(1) The Board may authorise, subject to any restrictions or conditions they think fit, an agricultural committee or a sub-committee thereof to exercise on behalf of the Board a y of the powers of the Board under the provisions of Part IV. of the Corn Production Act, 1917, or Part II. of the Land Drainage Act, 1918, notwithstanding that the committee or sub-committee is not constituted in accordance with those provisions, or any powers of the Board in relation to land acquired by them under the Small Holding Colonies Acts, 1910 and 1918.

(2) The agricultural committee shall appoint a small holdings and allotments sub-committee and a diseases of animals sub-committee, who shall respectively act as the small holdings and allotments committee required to be established under section fifty of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908, and as the executive committee appointed under the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894, though the sub-committee may not be constituted in accordance with the provisions of those Acts. Any power of the county council exerciseable under those Acts (except the power to raise a rate or loan) shall be exerciseable by the sub-committee so appointed.

(3) The small holdings and allotments sub-committee shall comprise one or more members appointed by the Board as representing tenants of small holdings and allotments, and any such member shall receive from the Board for travelling and subsistence expenses such sums as the Board with the approval of the Treasury may allow.

(4) A county agricultural committee (other than an agricultural committee for the administrative county of London) shall make such inquiries as appear to them to be desirable with a view to formulating schemes for the development of rural industries and social life in rural places, and for the co-ordination of action by local authorities and other bodies by which such development may be effected, and shall report the result of such inquiries to the Board and to any local authority or body concerned, and the expenses incurred by the committee under this section to such amount as may be sanctioned by the Board with the approval of the Treasury shall be defrayed by the Board.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

The first Amendment in my name to this clause is purely drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 33, after ("council") insert ("or borough council") and after ("Acts") insert ("or any Act amending the same").—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD BLEDISLOE

The next is an Amendment of some substance, and it is one to which many of the county councils have given considerable thought. I move the insertion, in subsection (2), of the words "if delegated to the sub-committee so appointed," before "be exercisable by the sub-committee." I ask your Lordships to notice what is the exact machinery in this and the preceding clause. Your Lordships will notice that in Clause 7, subclause (2), all matters relating to the exercise by the Council of their powers under certain Acts which are specified in the Second Schedule, stand referred, other than educational matters, to the Agricultural Committee. But the Agricultural Committee have no power of dealing in an executive way with these matters; they are to be considered by the councils of the counties on the reports of the Agricultural Committees. Your Lordships may notice, amongst other things, that small holdings matters and the questions that now come before the Cattle Diseases Committees of the counties are included. Further down in subsection (3) your Lordships may notice that the Council—that is, the county council—may delegate to the Agricultural Committee, with or without restrictions, any of their powers in relation to these matters.

What the County Councils desire to point out, or some of them, in this connection is that here, in spite of the provision of the preceding clause and in spite of Section 50 of the Small Holdings Act, 1908, which expressly empowers the council to delegate their power to a Small Holdings Committee, this section purports to set up a sub-committee which is going to have absolute executive powers in relation to small holdings matters, without any reference to the councils who, after all, are the representatives of the ratepayers, and may embark upon very expensive schemes, for which eventually the ratepayers of the county will have to pay. It is perfectly true, as the noble Lord has already pointed out in another connection, that for the next few years they will be, to some extent at any rate, saddled not upon the ratepayers but upon the taxpayers; but eventually, after the expiry of that number of years, this charge will come upon the ratepayers of the county.

I submit, my Lords, if it is still the case that taxation and representation should go together, it must be obviously irregular to place in the hands of a sub-committee of the Agricultural Committee, who themselves are a Committee to some extent of the County Council, absolute executive powers for framing expensive schemes relating to small holdings and allotments, for which ultimately the charge will fall upon the county ratepayer.

For that reason I desire to incorporate the words which will be found in Section 50 of the Small Holdings Act—which, indeed, are already incorporated in this Bill under the previous clause—so as to enable this sub-committee only to deal in an executive way with these matters if they are specifically delegated by the county councils to them.

Amendment moved— Clause 8, page 5, line 34, after ("shall") insert ("if delegated to the sub-committee so appointed").—(Lord Bledisloe.)

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I agree with my noble friend that this is a point of very serious substance, and I regret very much that I cannot see my way to accept his Amendment. This matter of the acquisition of land for small holdings in order to carry out the Government's pledge to ex-Service men is so vital a matter, not only in point of national honour but in its social consequences, that we cannot contemplate any procedure which would delay or hamper the provision of these holdings. I quite agree with him that in cases where County Councils are pressing on vigorously with this policy, the delay would not be so serious.

I also find that in a very large proportion of these counties they are so impressed with the importance of pressing on, that they are themselves spontaneously delegating their full powers to the Small Holdings Committees. But I regret that there are other counties which are not quite so impressed with the importance of this policy and are inclined to hold back. If you are going to make it impossible for the Small Holdings Committee to act particularly in these matters, these fleeting opportunities of acquiring land which occur —as my noble friend is aware sales are now held very often at exceedingly short notice, auction sales with very little notice at all— if the Small Holdings Committee feels that it cannot act and, indeed, has no power to act effectively without having to refer the matter to the County Council in all cases, I think the result will be that the acquisition of land for small holdings will come practically to a standstill.

We are embarrassed daily now with delays which are giving ex-Service men in many districts the feeling that they are being played with in this matter of carrying out the pledge which has been given to them by Parliament. That is causing a great deal of unrest, a dangerous feeling in many districts in those counties where action is being taken slowly. In those circumstances I cannot help, at any rate during this preliminary emergency period, attaching enormous importance to executive powers being given to these Small Holdings Committees.

I quite agree with my noble friend that when the emergency is past and when we arrive at the period where the county councils take over the full financial responsibility for this policy, delegation is no longer important and, indeed, might become undesirable. But I hope he will recognise that during this period for which really the State is financially responsible, it is of the utmost importance that every facility for rapid action shall be delegated to the Small Holdings Committees.

LORD BLEDISLOE

I do not want to press this Amendment at the moment, but I venture to think that the noble Lord, without doing violence to what is, after all, a canon both of Parliamentary procedure and, hitherto, of county government— namely, that representation and taxation should go together—might possibly find some other means of putting pressure upon those county councils who are inactive or reluctant to do their work in connection with small holdings without taking away the self-respect of those councils who are trying to do their duty in this matter and at the same time watching the interests of their ratepayers.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I hope my noble friend will not think this is any reflection on the counties which are doing their duty. If he had tried, as has been tried on many occasions, to bring pressure to bear on county councils by some other means than giving some one else power to do the work I think he would find it would be an impossible task. I hope he will not press this Amendment, which I should regard as a disastrous change in the Bill.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD BLEDISLOE moved, in subsection (3), after "members," to leave out "appointed by the Board." The noble Lord said: I cannot quite conceive how the Board of Agriculture can possibly know who are really the most efficient persons in a county to put on the Small Holding and Allotments Sub-committee. Those of us who live among small holders and allotment holders have a very good idea, as time goes on, as to what men are—not in a political sense, of which, perhaps, the Board of Agriculture knows more than in the industrial sense—but in an industrial sense the most competent men and the men most capable of doing good work on such an administrative body. For these reasons I desire to ask the noble Lord to leave it to the Agricultural Committees in each county to decide who are the most suitable persons to represent the small holdings and allotment interests and not to leave it to the Board of Agriculture to appoint these persons.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 37, leave out ("appointed by the Board").—(Lord Bledisloe.)

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I can assure my noble friend that the clause as drafted was not intended to give the Board power unnecessarily to interfere. It was only put in that form in view of the fact that payment by the Board of the travelling expenses and subsistence allowances was made. But in view of the subsection which he moved just now, providing for the general payment of these expenses, this point is got over, and under the circumstances I am prepared to accept the Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

The next two Amendments are drafting.

Amendments moved— Page 5, line 39, after ("travelling") insert ("or expenses") Page 5, line 40, leave out ("expenses") and insert ("allowance").—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

LORD BLEDISLOE moved to leave out sub-section (4). The noble Lord said: I only desire to move this Amendment to find out exactly what this sub-section means. It contemplates apparently the use of Government funds on an inquiry by a County Agricultural Committee with a view to formulating schemes for the development of rural industries, and social life in rural places. But it is not made clear what is to happen as the result of their inquiries, whether, in fact, schemes will be formulated and, if so, by whom. It is an extremely picturesque proposal, and personally I wish the effort in this direction all success. In any case, it is obviously desirable that something should happen as a result, and it is to find out what will happen, and what can happen, that I have moved the omission of this subsection.

Amendment moved— Page 6, lines 1 to 12, leave out subsection (4).— (Lord Bledisloe.)

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I know my noble friend would be the last to wish to hinder the development of rural industries and social life. This subsection, which perhaps is somewhat lengthy and formidable in appearance, is really a co-ordination provision. As he is aware, there are, at present a great number of different bodies, composed sometimes of men, sometimes of women, sometimes of both, who are all—no doubt filled with enthusiasm as the result of reading the noble Earl Lord Selborne's Report—seeking to take charge of the development of rural life. The object of this provision is, so far as is possible, to co-ordinate and disentangle the activities of these different bodies and to avoid friction between them, and it is proposed, therefore, that in each county an inquiry should be made into what is going on with a view to trying to produce a scheme which will make use of all that is good in these different activities, and bring them to a focus, and presumably the Agricultural Committee will have one of its officers especially detailed to supervise and deal with this matter. We, on the other hand, on the Board of Agriculture propose to have a special section which will keep in touch with the corresponding officers in the county, with a view to trying to bring the whole thing into one authoritative focus.

LORD BLEDISLOE

After what the noble Lord has said, I am quite satisfied. I should rather wish the clause went so far as actually to provide by statutory enactment for the completion of the scheme at the Board which he contemplates.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

The next is a drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 10, leave out ("section") and insert ("subsection").—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 9:

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

There is a drafting Amendment to this clause.

Amendment moved— Page 6, lines 25 and 26, leave out ("by whom powers are delegated to the sub-committee").—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 10:

Short title and extent.

10.—(1) This Act may be cited as the Agriculcure (Councils, etc.) Act, 1919, and the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries Acts, 1889 to 1909, and this Act may be cited together as the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries Acts, 1889 to 1919.

(2) This Act shall not extend to Scotland or Ireland.

LORD BLEDISLOE moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "Agriculture (Councils, etc.)" and to insert "Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries." The noble Lord said: As this Bill was introduced into the House of Commons the very important provision was not then included that in place of the Board of Agriculture there was to be set up the Ministry of Agriculture, hence the necessity of the alteration in the Title.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 29, leave out ("Agriculture (Councils, etc.)") and insert ("Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries").—(Lord Bledisloe.)

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I accept this Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

Another drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 32, leave out ("Board") and insert ("Ministry").—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.

First Schedule:

Composition of councils and committees.

1.—(1) The Council of Agriculture for England shall consist of the following members:—

(a) One member of each of the Agricultural Committees established by the councils of the counties and county boroughs in England to be nominated by the committee:

Provided that, if the Agricultural Committees established by councils of county boroughs shall exceed twelve in number, the total number of members nominated by those committees shall be twelve and the members shall be nominated by the committees in such manner as the Board may by regulation prescribe.

(b) Six members of the Agricultural Wages Board to be nominated by that Board in equal numbers from the representatives of employers and workmen.

(c) Twenty-four persons nominated by the Board, of whom eight shall be representative of workmen engaged in agriculture, and of the remainder three at least shall be women, six shall be representative of the industry of horticulture, and three representative of agricultural education or research.

(2) The Council of Agriculture for Wales shall consist of the following members:—

(a) Two members of each of the Agricultural Committees established by the councils of the counties and county boroughs in Wales to be nominated by the committee:

Provided that, if the Agricultural Committees established by councils of county boroughs shall exceed six in number the total number of members nominated by those committees shall be six, and the members shall be nominated by the committees in such manner as the Board may by regulation prescribe.

(b) Five persons nominated by the governing body of the University of Wales.

(c) Two members of the Agricultural Wages Board to be nominated by that Board in equal numbers from the representatives of employers and workmen.

(d) Eleven persons nominated by the Board, of whom five shall be representative of workmen engaged in agriculture, and of the remainder two at least shall be women.

(3) The Advisory Agricultural Committee shall consist of the following members:—

1. (a) Four of the members of the Council of Agriculture for England who have been nominated by the Agricultural Committees to be nominated by the whole body of such members representing the Agricultural Committees.
2. (b) Four of the members of the Council of Agriculture for England who have been nominated by the Board to be nominated by the whole body of such members, and so that one of the persons so nominated shall be representative of workmen engaged in agriculture, another shall be a woman, and a third shall be representative of agricultural education or research.
3. (c) Two members to be nominated by the Board in equal numbers from representatives of employers and workmen.
4. (d) Two members of the Council of Agriculture for Wales to be nominated by that council.
5. (e) Two members to be nominated by the Secretary for Scotland, who shall be entitled to act only in relation to matters and questions arising under the Diseases of Animals Acts, 1874 to 1914.

(4) The Board may by regulation vary the constitution of any such council or committee.

Term of office of members of councils and committees.

2.—(1) Subject to the provisions of any regulations made under this Act the term of office of a. member of a council or committee shall be four years, provided that—

1. (a) of the first members of each council or committee one half, or if the total is not divisible by two, the larger half shall hold office for two years only, and the determination of the members so to retire shall be prescribed by regulations made by the Board which, so far as practicable, shall secure that the retirements affects equally all interests represented on the council or committee;
2. (b) a member shall cease to hold office if he ceases to be qualified for nomination by the body by which he was nominated;
3. (c) any member may retire by notice in writing to the secretary of the council or committee;
4. (d) a casual vacancy shall be filled by nomination by the body which nominated the member causing the vacancy, and any person so nominated shall act only for the unexpired portion of the term of office of his predecessor.

(2) A council or committee may act notwithstanding any vacancy in the membership thereof.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE moved, in subsection (1) (a) to leave out "One" and insert "Two." The noble Earl said: I want to raise a general discussion on the Schedule which I think may very much facilitate business. This is a matter in which the noble Earl, Lord Northbrook, has taken great interest. I am moving that the county councils shall appoint two members to this Council instead of one, and I do so for this reason. I attribute more importance to this Council of Agriculture than Lord Northbrook does. I think it is not an exaggeration to call it a miniature Agricultural Parliament, and it is very badly wanted, in my judgment, now that agriculture has become so reduced in representation in the House of Commons. Now that so many important questions are coming forward, I think it is of very great importance that there should be a small Agricultural Parliament from which on occasion the opinion of agriculture can be enunciated for the information not only of the Government but of the whole country. That is the first function. The second function is as the elected body of the Advisory Committee. If my Amendment were carried, the numbers would rise from 90 to 132, or thereabouts, and I do not think that this is at all an excessive number for an Agricultural Parliament for England, considering that you would never get more than about 100 present. Consider what the present constitution of the Council is. There are 50 county councils—

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

48.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

50; but you subtract London and Monmouthshire. Therefore, by the Bill as it stands now, you have 48 elected members. You have 12 members representing the Agricultural Committees of the county boroughs, you have 24 nominees of the Board of Agriculture, and 6 nominees of the Wages Board. Therefore your total numbers are 42 non-elected as against 48 elected. I think that is much too large a proportion of non-elected, because I cannot regard the 12 representatives of the county boroughs as true representatives of agriculture; they are representative mainly of the urban interest. Therefore it would be more accurate to put it this way—the urban interest and the nominees almost approach in numbers the actual elected representatives of the county councils. If, on the other hand, the county councils each appointed 2, then there would be 96 elected representatives of the Agricultural Committees of the county councils, and the urban and nominated interests might be 42 or 50 without endangering the real agricultural character of the Council. A change like that is very necessary for another reason—namely, it would be very difficult for the Agricultural Committee of a county council to make its choice of one member. There is the landowners' interest, there is the farmers' interest, there is the agricultural labourers' interest. It would be very difficult indeed to choose between those three. You will get a far better representation of those three interests, I suggest, if all the counties nominated two than if they nominated only one.

Then I come to the further Amendments I have on the Paper, which Amendments have two objects in view. The first object is to assert the claim of the landowners and the occupiers to representation, the same as the agricultural labourers. To that I attach great importance, and I believe my noble friend entirely agrees.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

Hear, hear.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

I thought that as the Schedule is drafted it necessarily limited the discretion of the Minister in making his nominations because it distributed his nominees—so many to labour, so many to horticulture, so many to women, so many to education, and so many to research; and, if my claim is admitted, there would also be so many to the landowners and so many to the occupiers. I thought that, with very limited numbers at his disposal, it would be very much better for him to wait and see whom the county councils elected, and then he could judge how many of each class were necessary in order to fill up the Council and make it truly representative. But if he attaches importance to giving directions in the Schedule as to the numbers to be allocated to each class, it becomes must easier if you allow the county councils to elect two members each; because then the chance of all interests being properly represented is much greater. In the first instance, there is not the same danger of the elected members being nearly out-voted by the nominees; and for my part I should be willing, instead of moving it in the form on the Paper, to move it in another form allocating the twenty-four—or twenty-eight or thirty members as it probably would be —to be nominated by the Board of Agriculture, to the different classes instead of leaving it unspecified. I thought it would be convenient if I raised the whole question in this manner.

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 5, leave out ("One") and insert ("Two").—(The Earl of Selborne.)

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I think there is great force in the observations of my noble friend Lord Selborne, particularly when he points out the difficulty that would undoubtedly remain if a county council or Agricultural Committee could nominate only one of its members. They would always be faced with this sort of thing—are we to pass over the Chairman? And it might perhaps,, in many cases lead to the Committee not being represented in the very best way. In these circumstances, and in view of the fact that really the enlarged council would not be at all too large for a body representing the whole of agriculture, I am prepared to accept his Amendment—two members for one member.

With regard to the other points, I think my noble friend will see that it would be very difficult to make the necessary Amendments here and now; but I am in general agreement with his argument. In view of the fact that the numbers to be appointed by the Agricultural Committees have been doubled, it will involve, of course, a certain increase—not a very great one—in the numbers that will be nominated by the Board, particularly as it is desired to introduce representatives of other interests than those already mentioned in the Schedule. I would suggest, if my noble friend would not press his Amendments now, that I undertake on the Report stage to place Amendments on the Paper which would have the effect of providing that all the classes to which he has drawn attention shall be represented amongst the Board nominees; that there shall be at least 8 representatives of workmen, 4 of owners, 4 of tenants, 3 of women, 6 representing horticulture, and 3 representatives of agricultural education or research. I would ask to be allowed to reserve the exact number that should be nominated by the Board. It is obvious that the 24 must be increased, and I will put down a suggestion with regard to that on Report.

I hope that my noble friend will not press his objection to the Agricultural Wages Board being mentioned as such, for this reason if for no other—we have all had occasion, possibly, to criticise some of the decisions of the Agricultural Wages Board, but I am sure it is of the utmost importance that, as this Board has come to stay, it should be brought into the closest possible and constant touch with agricultural opinion. Its representation under these proposals of my noble friend would be so small as to make the effect comparatively little when it comes to voting, but I think it would have the inestimable advantage that the Wages Board would be constantly refreshed with a knowledge of what agriculturists are thinking and saving in their Councils. All these matters will have to be provided for in the clause as redrafted. I hope that, with the assurance I have given that I am in agreement with my noble friend's general view, he will withdraw.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

I am very much obliged to my noble friend. I have handed to him my own suggestions for Amendment, but, after what he has said, I will certainly not move the Amendments on the paper. I understand that he accepts my suggestion that the county councils should nominate two members each. I hope he will not suggest that the county borough councils should do the same. One member each would be enough for them.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

No; I am prepared to leave that.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

I think I should be almost certainly prepared to accept his form of allocation of the nominees of the Board of Agriculture, if all the classes he has named are fairly represented. As regards the Wages Board I have some doubts myself on that matter, but I would not press those doubts against my noble friend. What I have always thought was that if the Wages Board ought to be represented, the Minister of Agriculture should nominate them on his own responsibility. I do not see on prima facie grounds why the Wages Board, which has nothing whatever to do with anything but wages, should, ex officio as it were, have representation on a body which has nothing to do with wages. That is how I put it to my noble friend.

At this stage I do not prejudge his arguments, but I put it to him that the existing words are faulty. The proposal that there shall be three representatives of workmen and three of employers limits the number I think quite unduly. If he likes to say three of these representatives must represent workmen I understand him, but why he should prevent the Board appointing one of its members who, does not happen to be an elected representative of the employers I do not know. He might want to send his own Chairman. I ask him to consider that, and for the moment I will suspend judgment until his Amendments are on the Paper.

LORD BLEDISLOE

Before this is disposed of, I should like to appeal to the noble Lord not too hurriedly to make up his mind to retain specifically the Wages Board in this Schedule. I should like to remind him that the Wages Board is an ad hoc body, constituted by virtue of a temporary Statute, though I am told it is likely to be re-enacted in some amended form. We are now dealing with what is proposed to be a permanent Statute and there is proposed to be incorporated in it reference to a body, which under an existing Statute, is a temporary body only. The very fact that you are going to have on the Council persons specifically appointed as representing the Wages Board may tend to divert the proceedings of the Council to matters which they were not originally intended to discuss, and the result may be to put quite an undue stress on wages questions, which I venture to hope will sink into the background in the course of a very short time now, and so allow scope for the discussion of far more important agricultural topics.

It occurs to me in passing that the noble Lord would achieve his purpose if he provides for labour being sufficiently and efficiently represented by a sufficient number of persons. If he desires to refer to the Wages Board at all, I would suggest that he should simply provide for the inclusion of a number of persons representing labour "drawn from the Agricultural Wages Board or from other sources," so as not specifically to earmark persons who are necessarily going to the Council to discuss wages questions, thereby possibly providing a serious bone of contention in an otherwise peaceable assembly.

VISCOUNT CHAPLIN

I merely wish to say a few words on this matter, beginning by stating that I very much agree with what has fallen from my noble friend on my right (Lord Bledisloe). I am very glad the noble Lord the President has seen fit to accept the proposal of Lord Selborne. That, I think, will be a great feature in the Bill and add to its prospects of doing good. Lord Selborne spoke of the question of wages. With all the force I can I wish to impress on the President of the Board of Agriculture that, so far as I have been able to form an opinion is different parts of England, the present operations of the Wages Board have done more than anything else to prevent that increased production which has been declared over and over again by the Government to be vital to the future of this country. I do hope that in producing fresh Amendments that aspect will have the full consideration of the President of the Board.

We are all of us anxious—no one more so than myself—to realise the possibility of an enormously increased production of food, but so far from that matter having been properly managed up till now, we began with a terrible mistake on the part of the Government, when the unqualified promise given to the farmers by the Prime Minister himself (and given in Parliament) that no Wages Board should be set up till after the war, was not fulfilled. Since then we have had the appointment of Wages Boards, which undoubtedly—and I am perfectly certain upon this point—have already reduced the increase that had been made to begin with, and will continue to prevent anything like the increase that every one of us desires to see, unless this point raised by Lord Selborne is most carefully and thoroughly considered.

Let me say one word as to this proposal to add members from the county boroughs, as it appeared originally in the Bill. Take the county of Lancashire. Such is the number of boroughs in Lancashire that they will have, in their Councils or their Committees, an infinitely greater number of members than the Agricultural Councils of the county in Lancashire; and that is not the only county placed in that position. You may find many others in the north of England. Although it may be, and I think would be, a very good thing—and I was delighted to hear my noble friend speak of it—that we should have a miniature Parliament for agriculture, it would be a very curious Parliament as suggested. I know there is a clause in the Bill limiting the number of the county borough members, but it would have been a very different Bill than it is likely to be with the Amendments which we have now been promised. All of us, I think, are grateful to the noble Lord the President of the Board of Agriculture for the consideration that he has assured us he will give to the matter.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I only wish to add that your Lordships will realise that similar provisions will have to be made with regard to the Council for Wales.

Amendment, by leave; withdrawn.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE moved, in subsection (3) (b), to leave out from "and so that" to the end of the paragraph and to insert "two of the persons so nominated shall be representative of workmen engaged in agriculture, and one shall be representative of the owners and one of the occupiers of agricultural land."

The noble Earl said: My suggestion is to remodel paragraphs (b) and (c). At the present moment paragraph (b) says that the nominated members of the Council of Agriculture for England shall elect four of their number, one of whom shall be a representative of the workmen, another shall be a woman, and a third a representative of agricultural research. There you have one workman, one woman and one representative of agricultural research. In paragraph (c) you have two members to be nominated by the Board to represent the employers and workmen, and the scheme of paragraphs (b) and (c) is, two representatives of labour, one woman, one representative of education, and one employer. You want in this case to bring in quite definitely the owner and the occupier, and I suggest this change, that the nominated members of the Council of Agriculture should select four of their number, two to represent the workmen, one the owners, one the occupiers, leaving the Board of Agriculture to nominate the woman and the representative of education, or anybody else they choose. I attach great importance to getting the owner and occupier definitely for election among the nominated members of the Council.

Amendment moved— Page 8, line 9, leave out from ("that") to the end of paragraph (b), and insert.("two of the persons so nominated shall be representative of workmen engaged in agriculture, and one shall be representative of the owners and one of the occupiers of agricultural land").—(The Earl of Selborne.)

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I am in general agreement with the proposal of the noble Earl but I shall be glad if he will let me bring the matter up on Report. It will be necessary to make a consequential alteration in the number of members nominated by the Council of Agriculture under (a) and (b). I think they would have to be increased to five in each case in order to bring in all the classes concerned. That will bring up the total number of the Committee to fourteen, leaving out the temporary members for Scotland. I hope he will allow me to bring the matter up on Report.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM moved, in subsection (3) (e), to leave out "act" and insert "attend and vote." The noble Lord said: This is purely a drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 8, line 19, leave out ("act") and insert ("attend and vote").—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

First Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Second schedule agreed to.

Title:

An Act to provide for the constitution of Councils and Committees in connection with agriculture, and to amend the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries Acts, 1889 to 1909.

LORD BLEDISLOE moved, in the first line of the Title, after "of" to insert "a Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries and of." The noble Lord said: It seems that when first introduced it was forgotten that a Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries was set up, and the most important part of the Bill should appear in the Title.

Amendment moved— In the first line of the Title, after ("of") insert ("a Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries and of"). —(Lord Bledisloe.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Title, as amended, agreed to.