AGRICULTURE BILL.

HL Deb 15 December 1920 vol 39 cc154-275

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:

Continuance of Corm Production Act, 1917.

1.—(I) Subject as hereinafter provided, the provisions of the Act of 1917 shall continue in fence until Parliament otherwise determines: Provided that is shall be lawful for His Majesty, on an address presented to him by both Houses Parliament praying that the Act of 1917 shall Cease to be, in force, by Order in Council to declare that that Act shall cease to be in force on the expiration of the fourth year subsequent to the year in which the Order is made

(2) In the event of an Order in Council being made under this section, the expiration of the provisions of this Act of 1917 by virtue of the Order shall not affect the right to any payments under Part 1 of that. Act in respect of the wheat and oats of the year on the termination of which those provisions expire or of any previous year, or any rights, privileges, obligations or liabilities acquired, accrued, or incurred under those provisions before the date on which those provisions expire, or any penalty, forfeiture, or punishment incurred in respect of any offence committed under those provisions before that date, or in respect of any statement or representation made in connection with a claim under those provisions, whether the statement, representation, or claim was made before or after that date.

VISCOUNT CHAPLIN moved, in subsection (1), to leave out from "until" to "expiration" in subsection (2), and insert "the end of the year nineteen hundred and twenty-two, and no longer. (2) The." The noble Viscount said: I ought to apologise to your Lordships for speaking to-night, but I attach so much importance to this question, and I have always been so much interested in it, that I could not refrain from attending this afternoon to move the Amendment which stands in my name. Perhaps I had better begin by explaining as clearly as I can the precise effect of the Amendment.

As the Bill stands the Corn Production Act would continue until Parliament otherwise determines. It is true that there is a provision by which, if an Address were presented to the Sovereign by both Houses of Parliament, the Act of 1917 should cease to be in force, but then by an Order in Council it would be declared that the Act shall cease, but. only at the end of four years after the Order is made. If, on the other hand, my Amendment should be carried, and I hope it may be, the Act would cease at the end of 1922, and subsection (I) of Clause I would read as follows— Subject as hereinafter provided, the provisions of the Act of 1917 shall continue in force until the and of the year nineteen hundred and twenty-two, and no longer. Then, by the addition of the word "The," after "(2)," and the omission from line 18 of the words "by virtue of the Order," subsection (2) will so read that all the rights, privileges, obligations and liabilities referred to in the subsection will remain (without going into details) exactly as they are in the Bill at the present time. MY reasons for taking this course are various. I will state them directly. Before doing so, let me say that. I realise that, wages boards haying once been established, if they are to be disestablished at the date I propose there must be something else to take their place, and before I sit down I will make a suggestion to my noble friend the Minister of Agriculture which I am not without hope he may consider. As under my Amendment the wages boards cannot cease until after the end of 1922 there will be plenty of time in which to consider my proposition.

Now I will give your Lordships my reasons for moving this Amendment. The first and foremost is this. I cannot help saying that farmers were not well treated when the wages boards were set up during the war. What happened was this. On February 23, 1917, the present. Prime Minister made what I have often described as the best and most helpful and friendly speech on agriculture that has ever been made by any Prime Minister since I was in Parliament, and probably for a great number of years before that. I should think you might look back to the days of the great contentions between Mr. Disraeli and Sir Robert Peel in the days of the repeal of the Corn Laws before you would find a speech in support of the agricultural industry more favourable than that which was made by the Prime Minister on the occasion to which I have referred. In that speech he gave the most unqualified promise which was ever given by any Prime Minister within my recollection, and I have been in Parliament now for fifty-two years. I will quote the words which appear in the Official Report for February 23, 1917, which I have just obtained from the Library. He said— We discussed for some time the question of whether you should have a wage board to fix wages or whether you should have a fixed minimum. That is what influenced us eventually in not setting up a Wage board during the war. The farmer I will not say preferred to know the worst but he preferred to know what he had to face. He did not want to be bothered with wage boards: he preferred to concentrate the whole of his mind on ploughing the land. After the war wage boards can he set up and the farmer will then. of course make use of them. Then in the next column the Prime Minister, turning to Mr. Balfour who had said something in interruption, said— My right hon. friend beside me (Mr. Balfour) reminds me that it is not merely during the war that this guarantee of a minimum wage will be given but during the period when there will be a guarantee of prices. Those prices referred to exist in the Corn Production Act to-day. They are still in existence, and therefore the guarantee was that the wages boards should not be set up until the present time at all events, or later.

One word more was said with regard to maximum prices, and there the Prime Minister gave an undertaking that they should not he fixed at all, unless the safety of the nation required it, without being referred in the first place to the Boards of Agriculture of England, Scotland, and Ireland for their consideration. Having said all this, he added— I hope and trust now that with this guarantee the farmers will put their backs into it, Well my Lords, what did the farmers do? They are the most loyal people in England if you will only treat them as they, ought to be treated. They will give you always the most loyal support—at least that is my experience of them. What was the farmers' reply? It did not leave very much time, from February 23 to the spring sowings, because farmers are not people to spend very much of their time in. reading the newspapers and Parliamentary debates, and this magnificent speech of the Prime Minister's would not reach them probably for a fortnight. Nevertheless I believe I am right in saying that they made such. a return, in reply to the appeal of the Prime Minister, that they sowed 357,000 acres more of spring corn than had been sowed in this country for a great many years.

What was the answer to that? As a matter of fact the reply to the tremendous exertions which the farmers have made, in reply to the appeal of the Minister of Agriculture, was that the Corn Production Bill with all its provisions for starting agricultural wages boards was introduced on, I believe, April 16. What are we to think? It is not for me to apportion the blame. I do not know upon whom it rests. I was under the impression for a long time that it was done without the knowledge of the Prime Minister. I can well understand it if it is true, because at that moment he had responsibilities upon his shoulders which probably no other Prime Minister has ever had to bear. He was constantly going abroad, and had everything conceivably connected with the war and our foreign relations to consider from day to day, and very often from hour to hour; and I feel sure that I am right in saying that he never was in the House of Commons On one single occasion during the time when the Corn Production Bill was being discussed. Who is to take the blame for this departure from a pledge given by the head of the Government? I do not know, but of course it must rest upon the Cabinet as a whole.

Well, these wages boards were set up very shortly afterwards, and they have been doubled and in some cases trebled in many parts of the country. I do not grudge in the least fair, and if you like full, wages to the agricultural labourers, but what. I do grudge and grudge most seriously is that the wages boards as established now and carried out at the present time have beyond all question completely upset the great policy announced by the Prime Minister on February 23, 1917, advocating the greatest possible increase in the home production of food and especially of cereal products. That is the position. Who is to blame? As I have said. I do not know; nor is it for me to apportion the blame. What I should like to say bearing upon this point is that I do not really remember who was Minister for Agriculture at that time, but I am bound to say that if I had been in that position at the moment, and was aware of the pledge which bad been given, no power on earth would have induced me to agree to it. But I am speaking for myself alone.

What so many people seem almost entirely to forget in connection with this question is this, and I want to say a word upon the point. First, that in arable farming as every one knows who is acquainted with it, far and away the largest outgoings on the part of the farmer are the wages bill that he has to pay. Secondly, although people generally speaking do not bear this in mind, agriculture is the largest and most important industry in this country. No one ever Seems to consider that. I remember the times—unhappy times they were when the agricultural industry, especially in the great corn-growing districts of Lincolnshire, was nearly ruined. Half of the best farmers that I have known in my life were then ruined, and had to go out of the business. So also Were many of the landlords, and I was among them. When I succeeded wheat was milking 62s. a quarter, and the prosperity of the county of Lincoln at that time was of a kind that. I have never known. In every little village, and in every town, and in the great capital of the county, the most extraordinary prosperity prevailed, but I lived see not many years afterwards, wheat sold in Lincoln market at 17s. 6d. a quarter. That was due entirely to the policy accepted by the country of having enormous importations of wheat. Wheat was even brought here as ballast without any freight charge whatever. Consequently the greater part of the county of which I ant speaking was ruined for several years. Wheat never made more than 23s. a quarter for many years afterwards.

I am very anxious, and always have been, to do something whenever an opportunity offered which would show an indication on the part of the Parliament of this country to do full justice to the farmers. That is one among other reasons why I am moving this Amendment to-day. The farmers of England to the best of my knowledge—and I know a great many of them—are not by any means in favour of this Bill. On the contrary, they detest it. Take, for example, the county of Lincoln. A resolution which was sent to me by the Farmers' Union for the Louth Division of Lincolnshire reads as follows— A largely attended meeting of Wold farmers at Louth the 17th day of November. 1902 was unanimously agreed that the Agricultural lull Li.') now before the House of Commons will be determined to the interests of agriculture on second-rate land, and especially the Wolds of Lincolnshire.[...] They ask to be delivered from, control, which has created such a feeling of distrust and that has driven and is driving many of the most suc[...]eesful and experienced farmers of the district from the land. They trust that a searching inquiry will be instituted by the Government before committing themselves to so unfortunate and far-reaching a declaration as contemplated. They contend that all legislation, beyond provision for security of t[...]ture and the eje[...]ctment of those whose farms are notoriously uncultivated, is undesirable. This is signed by forty-nine farmers representing no less a number of parishes and something like 40,000 acres of farming land. That is not a resolution to be put on one side.

I believe that at present this proposal is being run by a small clique of the Farmers' Union in London, or very largely in London. I have some reason for knowing that they have been largely taken into consultation. It has been my privilege to attend one or two committee meetings presided over by my noble friend opposite, at which I think a large proportion of those present were members of the Farmers' Union, and I am afraid that they are occupying at present in connection with agriculture very muck the same sort of position that Messrs. Smillie and Company occupied some time ago in connection with the Miners' Federation. If that is so, it is most unfortunate. I think that the farmers of England as a rule are among the best and most loyal supporters of the Government, and they have no desire except to do their duty. The resolution which I have ventured to quote shows very clearly what their feeling is. The man who sent that resolution to me I have known very well all my life. He is a member of a family who have been for over three hundred years on the farm which he now owns, owing to his own industry and skill. It is a farm which formerly was mine. That farmer is universally recognised as one of the ablest and most prominent farmers in that part of England, and in that opinion I heartily concur. I mention that to show your Lordships upon what credentials the resolution that I have quoted rests.

I do not hesitate to say that the National Farmers' Union represents only a very small portion of the farmers of England, and they only do that because they have a powerful and well-organised association. Further, I take objection, and have done from the first, to the wages boards as they have been set up. I know a great many gentlemen who have been members of the boards including Sir Ailwyn Fellowes, and they were always coming to me and saying that the proceedings on the boards were so unsatisfactory that they could not remain upon them. In the end they all resigned their positions. There must be something wrong if that is the position with regard to the wages boards. Haying told my noble friend what I think on this matter and also that before I sat down I would make a suggestion to him which I think he might consider in regard to the wages board if this Amendment should be carried, which I should be most grateful if he would accept, I think he would do well (because I have studied the provisions of the Report on that particular subject) to go again to the Reconstruction Committee presided over by the noble Earl. Lord Selborne, and take counsel with them. Paragraphs 25 to 28 in their Report deal very fully with the question of agricultural labourers and the difficulties of trying to form a body to represent them on the wages boards. I recognise those difficulties, nobody more so, because again so main people forget the quality of the land in this country, which varies not only in every county, in every great district and in every parish, but very often in every farm. The great difficulty in establishing wages boards for agriculture seems to me to be this, How are you to decide on what basis the wages are to be in any particular district? Wages have been trebled in some instances and nearly always doubled, and if the present rate of wages is to apply to the poorer and more moderate land in the country then the inevitable effect—I do not care who contradicts me—must be that the greater part of it will go out of cultivation unless the Government cultivate it themselves; and then God help us to bear the increase of debt!

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 8, leave out front ("until") to ("expiration") in line 17, and insert ("the end of the year nineteen hundred and twenty-two and no longer. (2) The").—(Viscount Chaplin)

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

In order to save the rights of noble Lords moving later Amendments, it might be expedient first of all to put the question in this form, "Leave out from 'until' to the end of line 9." If that is agreed to, the rest follows consequentially; if it is disagreed to, the rest goes.

THE MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE (LORD LEE OF FAREHAM)

I listened very carefully to the speech of the noble Viscount, and observed that he dwelt almost entirely upon the question of the wages boards, and one would imagine from his speech that the only effect of his Amendment, if carried, would be to bring an end to the wages boards, which he dislikes so much, at the end of the year 1922. I will deal with the question of the wages boards in a moment. But may I point out to him that if his Amendment is carried it will have the effect of bringing also to an end the guaranteed minimum prices at the end of the year 1922. That may be an object which may seem desirable in itself to those of your Lordships who are ardent Free Traders, but it is of course totally incompatible with the whole policy of guarantees contained in the Bill, which is to give some real feeling of security to the grower of cereals by a reasonable hope of permanence in the policy of guarantees. After all, while the scale of the present system of guarantees admittedly bears no relation whatsoever to the cost of production to-day, that scale lasts until the end of 1922, the date which has been selected by the noble Viscount in connection with his Amendment. If his Amendment were carried the higher scale of guarantees would continue until the end of the year 1922. But would there really be any object or justification whatsoever for bringing in a higher scale of guarantees which was to come to an end in a period of two years? There could be no object in it from a national point of view. No farmer in his senses would consider embarking upon amble or cereal cultivation on a larger scale if he had only the prospects of these guarantees for two years. Indeed, the whole weight of evidence upon which the Government proceeded in accepting this policy of guarantees went to show that unless they were provided for a long period ahead they would be useless. I will go further and say that unless they are given for a long period it is far better that they should not be given at all, because it would be luring the farmer on to ruin if he was short-sighted enough to overlook the fact that they would be brought to an end. I am surprised in that connection that the noble Viscount should have been the author of such a proposal, because I noticed in his speech on the Second Reading——

VISCOUNT CHAPLIN

I do not propose to leave out the prices.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

If Part I is brought to an end it will have the effect of also bringing the guaranteed prices to an end.

VISCOUNT CHAPLIN

I beg the noble Lord's pardon; it is only Clause 1 that I affect. I have said nothing about prices. You can go on with the prices perfectly well. There is nothing about prices in Clause 1.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

But the noble Lord's Amendment says that the provisions of the Act of 1917 shall continue in force until 1922, and that includes the prices.

VISCOUNT CHAPLIN

Not these prices.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

No, but the higher prices. It must necessarily include them.

VISCOUNT CHAPLIN

The Act of 1917 deals with minimum prices.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

If the noble Viscount will allow me to continue my argument I will call his attention to the fact that in the course of the debate on the Second Reading he said— My view, after a careful consideration of the whole question, is that the agricultural world, threatened with a fall of prices which promises to become more acute, might suffer serious disabilities if this Bill disappeared, especially if the fall in prices should occur much more suddenly that we expect.

VISCOUNT CHAPLIN

I said "this Bill"; that is not Clause 1.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

But Clause 1 is the clause which continues the Corn Production Act in permanence, and also is the dominant clause, so to speak, in Part I of the Bill.

VISCOUNT CHAPLIN

That can hardly be so, because the noble Lord will remember that when the Corn Production Act was first introduced it was to terminate at the end of twelve months or when the war ceased, whichever period was the earlier.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I cannot recall what may have been its original form, but the Act as passed continues the minimum prices until the end of the year 1922, and I am quite certain that the effect of the noble Viscount's Amendment would be to bring to an end the guaranteed minimum price on the larger scale at the end of the year 1922.

NOBLE LORDS

Hear, hear.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

That, I feel, would be a fatal policy.

VISCOUNT CHAPLIN

But I do not do it.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I listened very patiently to the noble Viscount's speech, and perhaps he will be good enough to allow me to make my statement in reply.

VISCOUNT CHAPLIN

I am quite willing to do that, but the noble Lord must not put into my mouth words that I did not utter.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I am not putting words into the noble Viscount's mouth. I am only pointing out, with great respect, the effect of his Amendment.

VISCOUNT CHAPLIN

On the Government. It is not the effect of my Amendment.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

May I now come to the portion of the noble Viscount's speech which dealt with the wages boards, which seem to be the main target for his shafts. He addressed to me certain inquiries as to who was to blame for the introduction of wages boards. I am afraid I am not in a position to answer that question. It was certainly before my time in the Government. Nor am I prepared to accept his view that any blame is to be attached to any one. The noble Viscount holds very strongly that wages boards are wholly bad, that they are having an evil effect upon agriculture, and that they should be abolished. There I feel bound to join issue with the noble Viscount. After considerable experience of the operations of these wages boards during the time that I have been at the Ministry I am convinced that, whilst it may be quite possible and right to criticise this or that decision, on the whole they have been beneficial and they have prevented labour troubles in the industry which might have assumed very serious proportions. I should say that there is no industry in the country in which on the whole labour has been so quiet as it has been in the agricultural industry. There has been practically no ca' canny, and there have been practically no strikes, or very few compared with other great industries; and I believe that that has been largely due to the fact that the men have felt that there was a tribunal upon which both employers and employed were fairly represented, where those questions could be thrashed out and decisions given in which they might have a reasonable measure of confidence.

May I say, in passing, that the noble Viscount really, was quite inaccurate in stating that Sir Ailwyn Fellowes, the late Chairman of the Wages Board, resigned because he was in any way disgusted with the Board, its proceedings, its composition, or its decisions.

VISCOUNT CHAPLIN

He has told me so a score of times.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I must remind the noble Viscount that Sir Ailwyn Fellowes wrote a public letter to The Times in answer to my letter on the occasion of his resignation, expressly declaring that he did not resign on account of any of those matters, but solely on account of the fact that his health was bad and that he had to go away to Canada. I really think it is not right that it should be suggested that he resigned on any other account.

May I point this out further, that supposing the noble Viscount's Amendment were carried the effect would not be, I think, altogether what he expects, even with regard to wages boards., Supposing the wages boards disappeared, my own view is that that would be very unfortunate. But what would take their place? Something would obviously take their place, and it is quite clear what that would be, because under the Trade Boards Act of 1918—a later measure than the Corn Production Act—it is provided that in any specified trade to which the Trade Boards Act does not at the time apply, if no adequate machinery, exists in that trade for the regulation of these wage disputes, it is the duty of the Minister of Labour, by an Order which does not require the confirmation of Parliament, to apply the Trade Boards Act to the workmen employed in that particular industry. The result would be that, if the agricultural wages boards disappeared, it would merely mean that the duty of deciding these matters between masters and employees in agriculture would be undertaken by a trade board and a Minister of Labour, and I do not think the interests of the farmers or the interests of agriculture in general would receive more sympathetic consideration at their hands than they would under the present system. After all, on the present wages boards agriculturists, both employers and employed are represented in equal numbers. The Agricultural Wages Board is affiliated, so to speak, to the Ministry of Agriculture, not to the Ministry of Labour, and I cannot help feeling strongly that if we are looking really to the interests of the industry it would be far better that it should be dealt with by an ad hoc agricultural wages board than by one of the industrial boards which would take its place under the Ministry of Labour. That is, I think, the answer to the noble Viscount's objection to the wages boards.

The noble Viscount finished his speech by a general condemnation of the Bill on the grounds that it was not desired by fanners, and lie quoted from a resolution passed by a number of farmers in the Louth district of Lincolnshire. I am quite prepared to believe that that particular branch—I suppose it was a branch of the Farmers' Union, or at any rate a small organisation of farmers—was clearly in opposition to the Bill. That is clear from his statement. But, after all, I have to deal, not with individual branches, but with the whole body of farmers' opinion in so far as it is possible for a Ministry to gather it, and I should not have raised this question otherwise on this Amendment, but I feel I must answer the point raised by the noble Viscount; and I tell him this that 466 out of 523 branches of the Farmers' Union passed resolutions in support of the Bill. Only seventeen have passed resolutions against the Bill—one of which may be the particular branch to which the noble. Viscount refers; forty have not expressed any opinion. And I received only an hour ago this telegram— The Council of the National Farmers' Union, representing all counties of England and Wales, assembled to-day, believing that the Agriculture Bill establishes agriculture more than ever as an industry in which the nation has a definite stake, and that it provides greater security for the farmers' investments of capital, brains, and energy in the soil, urges the Government to use every means to pass the Bill into law forthwith in the form approved by the House of Commons. It is not my business, of course, to defend the National Farmers' Union, although the noble Viscount seemed to think that in some way there was an unholy alliance between me and that body. It is my business obviously to listen to organised opinion, from whencesoever it comes, and I have done my best to ascertain farming opinion, and I am bound (I think your Lordships will agree) to be influenced by such an overwhelming expression of opinion as this. I also get expressions of opinion, perhaps in a contrary sense, from organisations more closely connected with landlords, but it is after weighing all those things that the Government policy has been framed; and I venture to feel, as I claimed on the Second Reading, that we have behind us a very great measure of representative opinion in favour of the proposals of the Bill.

With regard to the noble Viscount's specific Amendment, I certainly feel bound to express the hope that he will not press it, or, if it is pressed, that your Lordships will not insist on it, because it would undoubtedly have the effect not merely of bringing the wages boards to an end and putting in their place what I think would be much less advantageous to the industry, but it also would have the effect of bringing to an end in two years the system of guaranteed prices which is one of the main purposes of this policy.

LORD BUCKMASTER

Whatever may be the merits of this Amendment it is quite obvious that there is some confusion as to what it means. The Bill as it stands runs in this way, that the Act of 1917 shall continue in force until Parliament otherwise determines. Then there is a proviso that it may be determined on the expiration of the fourth year subsequent to an Order in Council made for that purpose. That is as the Bill was drawn and passed the Second Rending. The noble Viscount proposes that it should end in 1922, that instead of its ending by an Order in Council at the expiration of four years it should end at the date that was fixed by the Act itself. It was pointed out by the noble Lord who has just sat down that that would not merely affect the wages but also the guarantees, and the noble Viscount who moved the Amendment was not prepared, I think, to accept that view. The truth is that when you look into the Bill that would undoubtedly be the result, and as I hoped that that was what was meant I was preparing to support the Amendment, because the way in which it will operate is this. This Bill is one of those, I was going to say, "piebald" Bills which depend partly on itself for its colour and partly on the colour that it gets from another Act of Parliament, and therefore it provides a fixed standard of minimum payment or guarantee different from that of the Act of 1917, but it depends upon the Act of 1917 for the purpose of enabling the owner to secure payment of the amount. The consequence is that if you strike out the Act of 1917, although you would leave a beautiful Schedule in this Bill which provides for the minimum payment, it would have the delightful and as I think most beneficial effect of preventing anybody getting the minimum payment that was reserved.

That is how the matter stands, and it is upon that issue that your Lordships are asked to vote. If the noble Viscount would undertake to move the necessary Amendment for dealing with Clause 2 which would undoubtedly be essential if his Amendment did go through, I should be prepared to support him; but if, on the other hand, he intends his Amendment to mean nothing except the effect of destroying the wages board I should be unable to support him. The truth is, as has been pointed out more than once, these two things go hand in hand. You establish a system for fixing wages which the proper economic development of the industry cannot bear or may not be able to bear, and having done that on the one hand you say the industry shall bear it upon the other, because everybody in this country shall pay an increased price for the commodity which they purchase for the purpose of enabling the wages to be paid which the industry itself cannot support. That is the back and bottom of the whole of the Bill. I shall be unable to support the noble Viscount excepting upon the view that both of those things fell. If both fell I would support him. But I thought I would call your Lordships' attention to this at the present moment because I sincerely hope that as this Bill proceeds through Committee, and as your Lordships find (as I think you surely will) that these clauses are more cumbersome, more difficult to understand, and more harsh of operation than you have hitherto anticipated, you will revise upon the Third Reading of this Bill the judgment that you passed when it was read a second time.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

LORD LAMINGTON moved, in the proviso to subsection (1), after "1917," to insert "and Part I of this Act." The noble Lord said: This is purely drafting. I dare say it is the intention of the Government that Part I should cease to operate, but I am advised that there may be a legal nicety involved. If the noble Lord will look at Clause 33, subsection (2), there is some ambiguity whether Part I would necessarily lapse. I desire to have that made definite by moving this Amendment. Perhaps the noble Lord would say whether it is the intention of the Government that Part I should cease to operate.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 12, after ("1917") insert ("and Part I of this Act").—(Lard Lamington.)

LORD LEE or FAREHAM

There is no necessity for the Amendments of the noble Lord as, under Clause 33, Part I of this-Act is construed as being one with the Act of 1917, and under Clause 30 references to the Act of 1917 are to be construed as referring to that Act as amended by this Act.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

That applies then to all Lord Lamington's Amendments?

LORD LAMINGTON

I had an Amendment on the Paper, but for some reason it disappeared from the Marshalled List of Amendments circulated to-day. It was— Clause 1, page 1, line 13, after ("Act") insert ("and this Act"). It is an Amendment that was moved in another place where it was pointed out, as the noble and learned Lord has just told us, that this formed a connecting chain between the various parts of this Act. You have the wages board, and then to enable the farmer to pay those wages you have the guaranteed prices. Then you have the Government control. Then the Government control having been established, they ask that there should be security of tenure given, which represents Part II of the Act. We have been distinctly told that the Bill is interdependent and that the Parts hang together. Therefore if Part I of this Act lapsed it seems reasonable to suppose that Part II should go also.

In another place the Government resisted the Amendment on the plea that it would be absurd to strike out Part II of the Bill which gives permanent conditions regarding agriculture. The noble Lord in charge of the Bill laid great stress in his speech on the point that the real object of the measure was to secure national safety in time of war. That was the subject, the whole theme, of his speech, and he said that our national security and interest could alone justify this great interference with the law of supply and demand and the inconvenience and hardship which would be inflicted upon individuals. His words were echoed by Lord Selborne with his great authority and knowledge of the Ministry of Agriculture and the Admiralty. If this is a Bill entirely to secure our national welfare in time of war and you are going to strike out that portion of it which gives this security, surely the other part should go also. It is only logical that if Part I ceases, Part II should go also.

Amendment moved— Page I. line 30, after ("Act") insert ("and this Act").—(Lord Lamington.)

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I think the course which the noble Lord proposes would have grave inconveniences if carried into effect. After all, Part II of the Bill will form part of the Agricultural Holdings Acts affecting in numerous ways agreements between landlords and tenants in all parts of the country. It would be exceedingly inconvenient if agreements between landlords and tenants were in future to be liable to be brought to a sudden end by an Order in Council under Clause 1 of this Bill. There would be no certainty at all, and no responsible landlord or tenant would be prepared to make an agreement if it could be brought to an end arbitrarily by an Order in Council without fresh legislation. It would bring about an impossible state of affairs as between landlord and tenant, and in those circumstances I hope the noble Lord will not press the Amendment.

THE MARQUESS or SALISBURY

I think it is clear from what Lord Lee has said that we must look upon Part II of the Bill as wholly distinct from any question of guaranteed prices or the provisions in Part I. If not, the whole of the Bill would stand or fall together. I do not desire to contest the position which the noble Lord has taken up, but it has this consequence, that when we come to discuss Part II it cannot be pleaded against any modifications we may suggest that the benefits secured by Part I places us under an obligation which would compel us to act in a particular way. Part I of the Bill is to be treated as absolutely distinct from Part II. The whole Bill is not to come to an end when Part I does; therefore the two must be treated on a perfectly distinct footing and no benefit which the agricultural interest receive under Part I must be pleaded as a reason for not modifying Part II.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH

The argument of the noble Lord with regard to contracts is not very logical. He objects to the Amendment because it is possible under it that certain contracts may be brought to an end. If he is to be consistent he will have practically to drop the whole of Part II of the Bill, which undoubtedly breaks contracts time after time.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

THE MARQUESS OE HUNTLY moved, in the proviso to subsection (1), to leave out "fourth" and insert "first." The noble Marquess said: My object in moving the Amendment is this. I am one of those who agree with Lord Buckmaster's view as to the uselessness of these guaranteed prices. In the Report of the Royal Commission they say that from 1905 to 1914 there was a distinct revival in agriculture. I remember those years very well. I remember also the great inflation which existed in 1875 and the great depression that followed, and the gradual improvement in agricultural prospects which began in 1905 and continued until the war opened. That improvement came about without any aid from the State. Why did it come about? It came about because low prices were in existence and because farmers, through the spread of education and scientific research and knowledge, became wiser in better methods of farming and were able to make both ends meet.

Your Lordships will remember that in those years, instead of having great difficulty in letting your farms, you found farmers were willing and ready to come forward at the low prices to take up farms. There was no difficulty in letting. Now because of the war, and because we have had to fix these minimum prices, we are asked to continue them. I disagree entirely with that policy. It was, however, accepted by your Lordships on the Second Reading and, therefore, I am bound to take another line. My object in moving the Amendment is instead of having these guarantees kept on for four years after an Order in Council has been presented to His Majesty, that they should end at the expiration of the first year subsequent to the year in which the Order is made. That would give two harvests after an Order is passed. There would be the harvest of the year in which Parliament is sitting and the harvest of the subsequent year. That is quite long enough in my opinion for these high guaranteed prices to continue.

There is also this other point, that the maintenance of guaranteed prices does not solely act for the benefit of the farmer. It means that all cereals are kept up in price. You cannot guarantee the price of oats and wheat unless you keep up the price of other cereals, and that means that everything a farmer has to use, fertilisers, etc., is kept up in price. If you want really to benefit the farmer you ought to secure cheap fertilisers and cheap food for his stock. However, your Lordships have accepted the scheme in the Bill, and I only hope that instead of continuing these guaranteed prices for four years, which really means five years, you will agree to let the guaranteed price stop in the first year after the passing of the Order.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 14. leave out ("fourth") and insert ("first").—(The Marquess of Huntly.)

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I am sorry I cannot accept the Amendment, for the reason I gave a short time ago to the noble Viscount, Lord Chaplin. The whole principle of this policy of guarantees is that it should hold out some permanent prospect to the farmer that if he embarks on cereal cultivation he will have a reasonable prospect that the guarantees which protect him against loss will be continued. After all, the farmer thinks in rotations, and the Amendment of the noble Marquess would seem to ignore that fact altogether. To put the farmer in the position where these guarantees might be brought to an end at any moment by an Order in Council would, I think, deprive him of ally feeling of security, and it is difficult to believe that any farmer who knew his business would then be encouraged by the guarantees to embark on arable farming. I recognise that the noble Marquess is entirely hostile to the whole scheme of the guarantees, and his Amendment is a deadly thrust at the principle.

THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLY

To minimise it.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I admit that. From the point of view of the Government it would have this effect, that there would be no prospect of producing any of the results for which we hope from the guarantees, and in these circumstances it would be better, in the interests of the State, that the guarantees should not be given at all.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2:

Amendment as to minimum price and average price.

2.—(1) The minimum prices for the wheat and oats of the year nineteen hundred and twenty-one and any subsequent year shall be such prices for a statutory quarter as correspond to the following minimum prices for the wheat and oats respectively of the year nineteen hundred and nineteen (hereinafter referred to as "the standard year"):—

Wheat. … 68s. per customary quarter of 504 pounds

Oats … 46s. per customary quarter of 336 pounds

and the corresponding minimum prices shall be fixed in respect of each year in accordance with the following provisions:—

1. (a) The Commissioners to be appointed under this Part of this Act shall as soon as possible after the completion of the harvest in the year nineteen hundred and twenty-one and each subsequent year ascertain, after consideration of any information furnished by the Minister, the Board of Agriculture for Scotland, and the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland, the percentage by which the cost of production of the wheat and oats respectively of that year is greater or less than the cost of production of the wheat and oats respectively of the standard year:
173
2. (b) In ascertaining the variation in the cost of production no account shall be taken of any variation of rent, except any variation that is attributable to a variation in the post of maintenance:
3. (c) The corresponding in Minimum prices for the wheat and oats respectively of any year shall be such sums as are certified by the Commissioners to bear to the minimum prices for the wheat and oats respectively of the standard year the same proportion as the cost of production of the wheat and oats respectively of the year for which the prices are to be fixed bears to the cost. of production of the wheat and oats respectively of the standard year.

(2) Any fraction of a penny in the average price or minimum price per statutory quarter shall be disregarded.

(3) The foregoing provisions of this section shall have effect in substitution for the provisions of subsection (1) of section two of the Act of 1917.

(4) The expression "statutory quarter" shall be substituted for the expression "quarter" wherever that expression occurs on the Act of 1917.

LORD BLEDISLOE moved, at the beginning of the clause, to insert— Notwithstanding anything contained in section one of the Act of 1917, the amount to be paid by the Ministry of Agriculture to the occupier of any land upon which wheat or oats have been produced shall be in respect of the actual crop produced thereon and not on the assumption that such crop amounted to four quarters in the case of wheat and five quarters in the case of oats. The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to base the guarantee upon the actual amount of the crop produced, whether of wheat or oats, and not upon the area which is sown with either of those crops. When the Corn Production Act was introduced as a Bill in the House of Commons it did base the guarantee on yield and not upon acreage, and that is a view which is very strongly taken by what is called the Selborne Committee in their Report which was signed, your Lordships will recollect, by three ex-Presidents of the Board of Agriculture, as well as by Sir. Horace Plunkett, Mr. Edward Strutt, and other distinguished agriculturists. Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to refer to one sentence in paragraph 36 of that Report which puts this matter somewhat emphatically. It says— As the object of the State will be to encourage increased production, we regard it as essential that payment should be based on (a) the number of quarters actually harvested, so far as this can be estimated, not on the number of acres sown, and (b) the whole of farmer's production regardless of the amount consumed on the farm. I will not trouble your Lordships with the three following paragraphs, but they go on to explain the somewhat simple machinery which would be necessary to enable the ascertainment of the crops to be made.

I may say that this was in fact altered in the course of the progress of the Corn Production Bill in the House of Commons in 1917, wholly, as I have always understood, because it would be difficult, during an emergency period like that of the war, to set up any sort of machinery which would enable the crop to be actually ascertained. As the Bill stands to-day, and providing as it does for an ordinary normal period and not an emergency period, I suggest to your Lordships that the recommendation of the Selborne Committee ought to be carried into effect, so that every encouragement will be given to the wheat growers particularly, and in a less degree to oat growers, to produce the cereal corn which it is in the public interest they should grow. As the Bill stands, a farmer is paid not upon what he grows but upon the area cultivated. If he grows two quarters of wheat to the acre he is paid on the basis of four quarters, at the cost of the public. Similarly, if he grows five quarters, or six, or seven quarters to the acre—and, after all, wheat growers with good wheat land ought to grow not the miserably low average of four quarters but considerably more, with such varieties of wheat as are now obtainable as the result of research work at Cambridge if he grows any large crop of that sort, he is paid not on the large crop but on the four quarters only, so that injustice is done to the enterprising wheat grower and also, at the other end of the scale, to the public, in that they will be forced when the guarantee materialises to pay in respect of corn which in fact has not been grown.

That is exactly what is likely to happen in the West of England and Wales, where a large amount of land was ploughed up during the war which was wholly unsuitable, on account either of soil or climate, but on which for the time being a fair crop was grown, and now no more than one and a-half or two quarters of wheat can be raised. I would only say in addition that, so far as I can ascertain, every scientific agriculturist in the country is in favour of basing this guarantee upon yield and not upon acreage. I see the noble Lord opposite shakes his head. I may tell him that his own scientific adviser, Sir Daniel Hall, for whom we all have the greatest respect—he is a very great asset to the Ministry of Agriculture—was one of the signatories of the Report which made this very recommendation that I am submitting to your Lordships.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 5, at beginning insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Bledisloe.)

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

My noble friend, in his last sentence, quoted the past opinion of my chief scientific adviser. I can only assure my noble friend that he has changed that view as the result of the experience which we have had since of the impossibility of really checking adequately the actual number of quarters grown on farms.

If there has been one criticism directed against this Bill—and indeed against the whole business of government at the present time—which is stronger than another, it is the objection to what is commonly called the army of officials which, in connection with legislation, descends upon the countryside or the town in order to see that the provisions of various Acts are observed. I am sure your Lordships will see that if you are really going to check the exact amount of production it means that you have got to have a Government official of some kind practically at every threshing throughout the country in order to guard against what might be very serious fraud. It is a comparatively easy matter for the county committee to check the acreage—any attempt at fraud would be very easily detected—but how you are going to check the production, except by an elaborate organisation, passes the wit of man to understand.

Apart from that, the effect of the noble Lord's alternative would, I venture to say, be to discourage in every way the growing of wheat upon second-class land. The guarantees would only be of advantage in those circumstances to the farmer who was fortunate enough to have absolutely first-class land, and the second-class lands would be really out of this scheme and would receive no encouragement at all. That is not the policy of the Government, and on those two grounds it was decided in the original Corn Production Act, in the course of discussion, to adopt this system of acreage as distinguished from production. So far it has, I think, worked well, and it is certainly the desire of the Government that it should be continued. The alternatives seem to be so full of practical difficulties that it is impossible to accept the Amendment.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

I merely wish to state in a few words my reasons for supporting the Amendment of my noble friend behind me. The fact is that the objects of the Government are not those, as far as I can see, of a great number of your Lordships' House. The noble Lord in charge of the Bill stated that the effect of this Amendment would be to discourage the growing of wheat on inferior land——

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

Second-class land.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

Yes, second-class land; but wheat has also been grown on third-class and fourth-class land, and the effect of the measure, as it stands, would be in the opinion of some of us to encourage the growing of wheat on altogether unsuitable land. That might have been necessary during the war. For myself I greatly question whether it was. It did produce, no doubt, a certain quantity of food when food was most needed, particularly where pasture was ploughed up and the inherent fertility of such land could be used for the production of one or two crops of wheat; but it cannot be in the public interest now to encourage the growing of wheat except upon wheat-land. For that reason I certainly shall support the Amendment of my noble friend.

LORD PARMOOR

May I point out two matters on which I entirely agree with the noble Lord opposite as regards the proposed Amendment? Although I agree with the evils which Lord Bledisloe pointed out, if you were to go into the actual amount of corn grown you would have nothing but inquisitions by an army of officials, and secondly, if you proceeded on that basis you would give no guarantee where the guarantee was most needed. I speak as one not in favour of the principle of guarantees, but accepting it we must see that it is in a practical shape. I will give an illustration of what I want to say. Supposing you had land which produced two quarters of wheat to the acre. The guarantee of 68s, Would produce £6 16s. as the guarantee per acre It is shown, however, by the Royal Commission that the average minimum cost of cultivating an acre of wheat under present conditions is about £l4, and therefore you would have a guarantee of the cost of production amounting to £16s., although admittedly the cost of production would be about £14. Of course that is an absurd result if you want to encourage the production of wheat. I ventured when the minimum was 45s. to tell your Lordships how absurd such a. guaranteed minimum was, and I have been justified. Take land, for instance, with which I am familiar. It is second grade wheat growing land, which, apart from an enormous and uneconomic expenditure, would produce about three quarters per acre. That means, with the guarantee at 68s., about £10 per acre guarantee, and I am perfectly certain that no one in my part of the country could produce at less than £15 per acre. As a matter of fact in the Royal Commission instances were given where the cost. was £17 per acre, but the average, as I have said, was between £13 and £14—as a matter of fact £13 12s. Therefore, if an Amendment if this kind were introduced it would make the whole principle of the guarantee an absolute absurdity. I am not in favour of the guarantee, but if you are to have one do. not have one that cheats the farmer. You do not want any guarantee as regards the rich land but it is the second-class land where the guarantee is wanted. On those two grounds I am afraid that I am very much opposed to the Amendment.

THE EARL OF ANCASTER

I hope the Amendment will not be carried. I recollect that in the passage of the Corn Production Act the same question arose and the same arguments were used, and I am sorry that I have to plead guilty to being an unscientific farmer. But a few years ago, when I farmed good land, I did not want any guarantees at all. I was able to produce six to seven quarters per acre without difficulty, and the cost of production was about half what it is on bad land, and I should think that farmers on that class of land would be the last people to come and ask the taxpayer for a guarantee.

If there is to be any cultivation at all upon moderate arable land it is, however, absolutely essential that you should have some guarantee, because it is on those lands, which will only grow four quarters at the very best and in unfavourable seasons will only produce one and a-half quarters, that the guarantee will be of assistance. Lord Crewe told us that he thought this Amendment, would keep land which was unsuitable for wheat and oats in such cultivation. He was afraid that if the guarantee were given on the acreage a large area of unsuitable land would continue to be cultivated. I think he makes a mistake there. With the present rates of wages, and the cost of production, I think that any land on which there is not a fair opportunity of growing a decent crop is not likely to be cultivated, even with the guarantee.

There is one other point with reference to the Amendment. The question has been raised of the cost of officials. If the noble Lord opposite had moved an Amendment that the guarantee should be paid on the amount of wheat or oats that the farmer put into the market I think he would have had more support, and I should have hesitated whether to vote in favour or against such an Amendment. If that were done there would be practically no expenditure to the taxpayer at all: But when the Amendment is opposed by the noble Lord in charge of the Bill on account of expense, I would point out that it is not a very cheap thing to go round and pay the guarantee under this Bill. He talks about a horde of officials having to go round the country to attend upon everybody's threshing in order to find out how much is being threshed out. I assure the noble Lord that only a year ago, when the. Government thought they might have to pay a guarantee, a horde of officials was appointed, and every acre under wheat or oats throughout the length and breadth of England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales had to be examined by those inspectors.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

Oh, no.

THE EARL OF ANCASTER

I can only say that was done in the county with which I am connected. But I withdraw it as to the others. All I can say is, that in the county with which I am associated a crowd of inspectors were appointed at very good salaries who went round the county at the taxpayer's expense with maps under their arms, checking every field to see whether the farmers were cheating the Government, and whether they were saying they were growing eight acres of wheat when they only had six acres. This will have to be done under this Bill in every county throughout the length and breadth of the land. Men will have to go to every inaccessible glen throughout the Highlands of Scotland to find out the exact acreage under oats in every croft, and see whether three acres or two acres are under oats. When it comes to the question of expense, I do not think it matters much whether you go on the basis of acreage or on the basis of how much is turned out of the thrashing machine. Speaking on behalf of the poor land of the country I am certain that if the guarantee is to be any good at all it must be paid on the basis of acreage, and not on the basis of the amount thrashed out of the thrashing machine.

LORD BUCKMASTER

A closer examination of this Bill does not reveal to me that it possesses more agreeable features than when I looked at it on the first occasion, and it also seems that there is something in agriculture which necessarily provokes change. I believe there is a system known as mutation or rotation of crops, but that is nothing comparable to the mutation or rotation of expert opinion which is freely quoted on one side and on the other, and directly some expert whose qualifications appear to suggest that he is a person of incontrovertible experience is quoted on this side of the House, a noble Lord on the other side says, "Ah, yes, but since then he has changed his views." In these circumstances, probably one who has no qualification for being an expert at all may be allowed to say a few words as to the way the matter strikes him.

The noble Earl who has just sat down has stated that so far as good land is concerned the guarantee is not needed. The guarantee, therefore, is to be introduced into this Bill, and to be maintained, not for the purpose of making land grow corn that can grow corn, but for the purpose of making the land that cannot. The noble Lord, Lord Lee, shakes his head. The noble Earl, Lord Ancaster, has some experience in these matters, and it appears to be a matter of common consent that in principle what you are going to do is this. You are first of all going to direct men by Government authority to use land for arable purposes that they do not desire to use, and then you are going to encourage them to go on using it (though it is unfit for the purposes for which it is directed) by the payment of a guarantee.

Let us for a moment consider this. It is suggested that if a man does that, he should at least be stimulated into making the land as productive as he can—if you cannot make it good, make it as good as possible. Does this Bill offer any such inducement? None whatever. As soon as he has got hold of land that is useless he may starve it and let it go on as he pleases, because he is certain in the end that he will have a guarantee paid on the acreage that has produced something which is called a crop. I remember well looking at a hillside which was once green, and observing in the summer time that it was nearly white. When I asked a friend what the explanation was, I was told that it had been ploughed up for wheat. What had happened was that the chalk had come through, and that was the only thing that would grow. I assure your Lordships that is the literal truth. The hillside originally was covered with grass. The grass had been removed but nothing else would grow, and the man who owned that hillside would have had the advantage of enjoying the benefit of a full guarantee for the wheat that had never been grown. Can any more complete condemnation of the whole system of this Bill be imagined than that? If this Bill is to be maintained upon the footing which the noble Earl says, then I respectfully suggest to the Government that it would be well to withdraw it and consider whether they cannot introduce a measure which is more capable of being commended for what I may respectfully call its common sense.

LORD ERNLE

There is one part of the noble and learned Lord's speech to which I should like to attempt an answer. He seems to think that if a man grows wheat he is going to receive from the taxpayer the 68s. mentioned in this Bill. What he does receive from the taxpayer is the difference between the market price and the minimum price, and to pretend that a man is going to plough his land, or to keep it cultivated, for the meagre difference between the market price and the guaranteed price is hardly fair to the Bill.

May I say, as one who was responsible for the Corn Production Act of 1917, that all the arguments which have been used this evening are extraordinarily familiar to me. I should like also to say one word in defence of Sir Daniel Hall, who is the most competent expert in agriculture at the present day, and who was rather twitted with having changed his opinion. Well, I am subject to the same charge. I changed my opinion. I intended that the Corn Production Act guarantee should be paid on yield, but when we came to look into it I can assure your Lordships that this is emphatically the case—any practical way in which we could calculate the yield was impossible. We went into every conceivable plan. There was none. The noble Lord behind me suggested that the guarantee should be paid on the corn that the farmer sends to market. But what is to prevent the farmer buying plenty of the cheap foreign wheat, and sending it into market with his own? Every proposition that you suggest—and I have tried them all—breaks down. Whether we like the present arrangement of paying on acreage or not, it seems to me to be the only feasible one.

I should like to make one other remark regarding what was stated by the noble Earl behind me. I was responsible for sending round the hordes of officials throughout the counties of England, and I will tell your Lordships quite frankly why we did that. It was the very first occasion on which the Act was to be put into operation. We wanted to be quite sure where we were with regard to every acre in the country. We wanted to be able, if there were any frauds—though I, for one, did not imagine that there would be—to check them, and cheek them at once and so accurately that they would not be tried again. But there is no occasion for that same army of officials to go round again. It is not necessary. The noble Earl asks, Why not? Well, we have a complete record at the present moment, and it is a very easy thing now, by means of the crop reporters who are employed by the Board of Agriculture, to check that record. Though I sympathise with Lord Bledisloe in his proposal I must say that it is wholly impracticable, and on that ground I venture to hope that your Lordships will not alter the proposal that is in the Bill.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

I hope that your Lordships will not accept this Amendment. It is absolutely impracticable, and I speak as a man farming and managing his own land. To begin with, a good deal has been said about the number of inspectors, but you would have to have a man inspecting the drum of a threshing machine every single time it went about in threshing. Then there are drums and drums; some have a lot more dross than others, but you may be quite certain that all drums will have very little dross under the proposal of the noble Lord. It is an impossible proposal. The only thing to do is to take the average as it is. In the County of Norfolk where I live there are hundreds and hundreds of acres that are absolutely unsuitable for growing wheat. You can grow it occasionally, but the land is essentially barley land and the rotation is barley, turnips, sheep, and then barley again. You can grow a very good sample of barley on that land and you can occasionally grow a very good sample of wheat, but if you try to grow wheat in rotation you soon get down to a very small area. There are plenty of fields which will produce one thing in one half and another thing in the other, though that is the fault of our ancestors who put the fences in the wrong place.

LORD BLEDISLOE

I do not desire to insist upon my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD HASTINGS moved, in subsection (1), to insert— Barley 59s. per customary quarter of 448 pounds.

The noble Lord said: I am aware that the Amendment which stands in my name may be taken to be an infringement of the privilege of the House of Commons, inasmuch as it proposes on the face of it to put higher charges upon the finances of the country But if your Lordships are willing to hear me, that will not deter me from laying before the House the really astonishing condition of affairs which must result in certain wide areas of this country if the omission I am trying to rectify remains.

As a farmer owning and occupying a considerable quantity of my own land in the county of Norfolk I am, of course, familiar with the agricultural conditions prevailing in that county. It is probably well known to the whole of your Lordships and certainly extremely well known to the noble Lord the Minister of Agriculture that the county of Norfolk is the most important barley-growing centre in this country both in bulk and in quality, and there is, I think, no similar area. in any part of the world which produces in excess of that produced in the county of Norfolk. Norwich is a barley market of greater importance and greater value to this country than any similar market in any part of the kingdom.

At the present time the Norfolk farmer is faced with a very unhappy position. He has seen the market for barley drop to about half of what it was at this time last year, and as a sensible and reasonable man he cannot anticipate that, although the barley market will no doubt recover in value to a certain extent, it will pay him to grow a non-guaranteed crop in the coming year. There are really only three alternatives before him—he must either let his land go out of cultivation; he must grow something else; or Parliament must come to his rescue.

The noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, mentioned that there are wide areas in Norfolk which will not grow any other cereal than barley. That is true, with the qualification that occasionally a certain number of acres will grow oats. As it will not pay the barley growing farmer to grow barley next year he is bound to grow a certain portion of oats or to let his land go out of cultivation, and in the most important barley growing area in England the very first effect of this Bill will be to throw an enormous acreage out of cultivation altogether or compel the farmers to grow a crop to which the land is not suited. That, I am sure, would hardly be the desire of the noble Lord in charge of the Bill.

Quite apart from the chaotic conditions of affairs which this omission must create in the county of Norfolk and in other wide areas which also grow barley, there are going to be financial consequences which when His Majesty's Treasury come to deal with them will in my view create grave despondency and alarm. I have endeavoured to show that whereas the average farmer would be very disinclined to allow his ground to go out of cultivation altogether, he has only one alternative and that is to grow oats. Therefore he will grow oats. There will be tens of thousands, nay hundreds of thousands of acres of oats grown in excess next spring on land which should have grown barley. The result will be that His Majesty's Government, who presumably have based their calculations on the barley they will get, will find their calculations entirely falsified by reason of the fact that double the usual amount of oats will be grown, and they will have to double those calculations and the quantity they have to pay on.

At the present moment we grow in this country something like 90 per cent. of our requirements in oats. What will happen? Instead of producing 90 per cent. we shall produce 190 per cent. Perhaps that figure is rather exaggerated, but it would be no exaggeration to say that we would produce 150 per cent. next year anyhow. The obvious effect would be to reduce the value of oats in the market to a positive drug, and His Majesty's Treasury will have to pay the difference between the drug and the price inserted in this Bill, which will be rather an alarming thing for the taxpayer to have to face.

There is one more point of national interest in this matter. Unless this Amendment is accepted we shall be throwing out of cultivation a certain area of land or we shall compel a vastly greater area to grow a crop which we do not want. We do not want in this country the huge quantity of oats that will be produced. At the same time maltsters and meal merchants will continue to require the large amount of barley they now get from the barley growing centres, and they will get it from abroad. Instead of assisting and steadying the rate of exchange, which it is rather hoped this Bill will do, there. will be a large quantity of unwanted corn of one kind on the market and traders will be compelled to buy a huge quantity of another kind of corn abroad, which is not likely to help the rate of exchange.

I would invite the noble Lord the Minister of Agriculture, who I have no doubt has as much at heart the interest of East Anglia, the Northern part of it particularly, as any other noble, Lord, to come forward as the friend of that part of the country and insist that common justice should be done to East Anglian farmers. Numbers of your Lordships—I am not at all sure that I do not include myself among the number—have the greatest objection to guarantees of any kind, but if you are going to give guarantees why omit one kind of farmer and include others? Barley is not a side show in England. It is one of the main crops of the country, and in Norfolk it is the staple crop, to which every farmer looks for his livelihood. It is the crop that pays the wages of every single agricultural labourer there. If this crop is ruined to so great an extent as it is by its omission from this Bill you will be throwing agriculture in Norfolk into a chaotic condition, and in that part of the world certainly you will not be stabilising or encouraging agriculture, as you wish to do.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 12, at end insert ("Barley, 598. per customary quarter of 448 lbs.").—(Lord Hastings.)

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

The noble Lord, in commencing his speech, suggested that his Amendment might be a breach of privilege. With regard to that I express no opinion. I think that it is not desirable in this House for Ministers to talk about breach of privilege. I only observe that barley is not included in the Financial Resolution which preceded the Bill in another place, and your Lordships can draw your own conclusions from that.

My only duty is to explain the reasons which led the Government in the first instance to exclude barley from the provisions of the Bill. We did not do it without, any authority behind us. The Selborne Committee Report, upon which the Bill is frankly to a very large extent based, definitely recommended that the guarantee should not be extended to barley. They said— We have, after full consideration, decided that a guarantee may be dispensed with as regards the barley crop, and that arable farming will be sufficiently safeguarded without a guaranteed price for barley. That decision has been accepted by the Government. And the Government, for other reasons which I hope are not bad reasons in these times, decided to limit. their liabilities so far as possible in connection with this Bill, and they came to the conclusion, based upon this Report, that guarantees for barley were not necessary to achieve the objects which the Government have in view. The object of the Government is not so much to increase the production of any particular kind of cereal at the present moment; the object of the Bill is the maintenance of as large a proportion as possible of arable land. And they do it by picking out what are, speaking generally all over the country, the essential ingredients of an arable rotation. I know the noble Lord is referring to a particular district in East Anglia, but the Government has to consider the United Kingdom as a whole. Speaking generally, there is no doubt that in covering wheat and oats they are covering broadly the essential ingredients in the average arable rotation.

We do not, of course, under the terms of the Bill interfere in any way with the discretion of the farmer as to what par- ticular crop he should grow, and if he thinks it more to his advantage to grow barley than other crops he will do so, and there will be nothing in the Bill to prevent it. But he will, of course, rely for his profit upon the market prices. And here let me put this point to the noble Lord. He seems to think that the guarantees by themselves are going to be sufficient to tempt people to grow oats or wheat.

LORD HASTINGS dissented.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAN

Well, I thought that was his argument. If it was not, I have nothing more to say about it. The guarantees are not guarantees of profit; they are only guarantees against disastrous loss, and I cannot believe that his estimate of this enormous increase that is to take place in oat-growing as the result of the exclusion of barley will be substantiated in point of fact. At any rate, the Government quite deliberately excluded barley, and I am afraid. that I could not do what he wishes and make myself the champion for the inclusion at this stage of barley in the Bill.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

The noble Lord has very properly appealed to the authority of the Selborne Committee for his decision, but I observe that he does not always follow the Selborne Committee, because on the last Amendment, on the question of acreage or yield, he threw it over. I am a little sorry that the noble Lord did not meet my noble friend's argument. His argument was this, that if you gave, as you allege you do under the Bill, a special benefit to wheat and oats, that may have the effect of driving barley, or a considerable amount of barley, out of cultivation in the county of Norfolk. And it is quite evident that my noble friend's argument is a sound argument if there is really to be a considerable benefit given to oats. Here is land which is suitable for barley or for oats; it at present grows barley. If you give an artificial stimulus to oats you must not complain if the result is that oats are grown instead of barley. I think we shall all agree that it would be a great pity if that was the result, because the county of Norfolk is specially a barley country, and it is a great benefit both to Norfolk and the country that it should be so. And if you upset the balance the effect will be, of course, to lower the price of oats generally, and also to increase the burden which falls upon the taxpayer in the guarantee. So that it appears to be a very substantial argument.

I did notice that in his speech the noble Lord said that, after all, we were not giving very much benefit to oats and wheat; we were only going to save the farmer from disastrous loss. But really, if all that we are doing by this Bill is to save the farmer from disastrous loss, I do not think it will achieve the results which the Government have in view. I do not believe that the farmers of this country are going to grow wheat and oats if the effect of the Bill is merely to save them from disastrous loss, because the reason why farmers grow wheat and oats is to make a profit, and, unless they make a profit, they will not do it.

VISCOUNT CHAPLIN

If the noble Lord goes to a Division I shall certainly support him. The Minister of Agriculture told us that he supported this proposal because of the recommendations of the Reconstruction Committee, and they recommended that nothing should be given for barley. Did they give any reason for that? What was the reason? I ought to know, of course, but I cannot say that I have studied the Report with sufficient closeness.

LORD LEE or FAREHAM

They give very full reasons.

VISCOUNT CHAPLIN

I recollect perfectly well that barley has always been left out. Now why has barley been left out? I thought that the object of these subsidies was to provide an enormous increase of home-grown food, which is essential for the population. What is the most essential of all? Bread. Well, barley bread in old. days was heard of before even wheaten bread, I believe, and

no doubt was used largely during the war, just as much as wheat and oats.

Why has barley been left out? To that we have had no answer given. Take the county of Lincolnshire. With all respect to the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, I venture to think that the barley grown on Lincoln Heath is quite as good, and perhaps better, than any barley in the world. I know that Bass's, the great brewers, take the whole of the Lincoln barley that was grown on Lincoln Heath from every one of the farmers—and all done by arrangement. First of all they used to send down their buyer who tried the samples at the market. Then they offered their price, which was invariably accepted, and took the whole of the barley grown in that district, because it was the finest barley in the world. Why is barley to be left out? It is a very important article of home-grown food, and home-grown drink into the bargain. I have some suspicion that it is in connection rather with the question of drink that barley is treated in this way. Probably many members of the Government are fonder of ginger ale than the other kind. of drink in which most of us more commonly indulge. I should like to have an answer from the Government giving some reason why Parliament has invariably for all these years left out barley in connection with subsidies that are given for corn. I think we are entitled to have some answer upon the subject If the noble Lord goes to a Division, I shall certainly support him.

On Question, whether the words "Barley—59s. per customary quarter of 448 pounds" shall be here inserted?—

Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 64; Not-Contents, 114.

CONTENTS
Argyll, D.	Sandwich, E.	Forbes, L.
Bedford, D.	Shaftesbury, E.	Forester, L.
Northunberland, D.	Wicklow, E.	Hastings, L. [Teller.]
Richmond and Gordon, D.		Lawrenee, L.
Somerset, D.	Bangor, V.	Ligh, L.
	Bertie of Thame, V.	Monekton, L. (V. Galway.)
	Chaplin, V.	Montagu of Beaulieu, L.
Cholmondeley, M.	Chilston, V.	Oranmore and Browne, L.
Northampton, M.	Chilston, V.	Oxenmore and Browne, L.
Salisbury, M.	Hood, V.	Oxenfoord, L.(E.Stair.)
	Avebury, L.	Ravensworth, L.
Abingdon, E.	Barrymore, L.	Redesdale,L.
Ancaster, E.	Bellew, L.	Romilly, L.
Devon, E.	Berwick, L.	St. John of Bletso, L.
Doncaster, E. (D. Buceleuch and Queensberry.)	Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne.)	St, Levan,L.
	Cheylesmore, L.	Sandys, L.
Fitzwilliam, E.	Clanwilliam, L.(E.Clanwilliam.)	Sempill,L.
Graham, E.(D.Montrose.)	Clements, L.(E. Clanwilluan.)	Sempill, L.
Harewood, E.	Decies, L.	Stewat of Garlies,L. (E. Galloway.)
Hehester, E.	Dynevor, L.[Teller.]
Innes, E. (D. Roxburghe.)	Donington, L.	Sudley,L. (E.Arran.)
Iveagh, E	Elphinstone, L.	Sydenham, L.
Lindsey, E.	Fairlie, L. (E.Glasgow.)	Wavertree, L.
Malmesbury, E.	Farnham, L.	Wyfold, L.
NOT-CONTENTS.
Birkenhead, L. (L. Chancellor.)	Devonport, V.	Glentanar, L.
	Falmouth, V.	Harris, L.
Wellington, D.	Gladstone, V.	Hylton, L.
	Goschen, V.	Inchcape, L.
Dufferin and Ava, M.	Hampden, V.	Islington, L.
Lincolnshire, M. (L. Great Chamberlain.)	Harcourt, V.	Killanin, L.
	Hardinge, V.	Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)
Linlithgow, M.	Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)	Lamington, L.
		Leconfield, L.
Bradford, E.	Knollys, V.	Lee of Fareham, L.
Caithness, E.	Milner, V.	Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)
Chesterfield, E.	Peel, V.	Merthyr, L.
Chichester, E.	Wimborne, V.	Monk Bretton, L.
Dartmouth, E.		Monteagle of Brandon, L.
Eldon, E.	Abinger, L.	Mostyn, L.
Grey, E.	Annesley, L. (V. Valentia.)	Muir Mackenzie, L.
Howe, E.	Anslow, L.	Nunburnholme, L.
Jerey, E.	Ashton of Hyde, L.	Oriel, L. (V. Massereene.)
Kilmorey, E.	Askwith, L.	Ormathwaite, L.
Lindsay, E.	Balfour, L.	Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.)
Liverpool, E.	Boston, L.	Parmoor, L.
Lovelace, E.	Buckmaster, L.	Penrhyn, L.
Lucan, E.	Cloncurry, L.	Queenborough, L.
Lytton, E.	Clwyd, L.	Ranfurly, L. (E. Ranfurly.)
Mayo, E.	Cochrane of Cults, L.	Ranksborough, L.
Midleton,E.	Colebrooke, L.	Rathcreedan, L.
Morton, E.	Cottesloe, L.	Rathdonnell, L.
Onslow, E.	de Mauley, L.	Rayleigh, L.
Plymouth, E.	Denman, L.	Ritchie of Dundee, L.
Powis, E.	Desborough, L.	Sackville, L.
Reading, E.	Douglas, L. (E. Home.)	Somerleyton, L. [Teller.]
Rothes, E.	Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.)	Stanley of Alderley, L.
Selborne, E.	Ebury, L.
Stanhope, E.	Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)	Stanmore, L. [Teller.]
Stradbroke, E.		Stuart of Wortley, L.
Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)	Ernle, L.	Sumner, L.
Waldegrave, E.	Erskine, L.	Swaythling, L.
Westmeath, E.	Fairfax of Cameron, L.	Teynham, L.
	Faringdon, L.	Wharton, L.
Sandhurst, V. (L.Chamberlain.)	Gainford, L.	Wolverton, L.
Allendale, V.	Glenarthur, L.	Wynford, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

LORD HASTINGS moved, at the end of the clause, to insert the following new subsection— (5) Nothing in this section shall apply to or affect the manner in which the average prices of British corn are ascertained for the purpose of the computation of tithe, which average prices (subject to the Tithe Act, 1918) shall be ascertained by reference to the market prices prevailing and not to the guaranteed minimum prices established under this section.

The noble Lord said: I fear that unless this Amendment is inserted the effect will be something very different from that which might be desired. I have looked up the Tithe Computation Act and the amending Acts which followed, and I find that the situation is governed by the Corn Returns Act, 1882, Clause 9 of which decrees the way in which the average price of corn shall be ascertained quarterly, annually, and septennially, and Clause 10 applies those averages to the Tithe Computation Act. The situation is governed by the use of the words "British corn" all through the Act. Under this Bill you will create artificial prices for British corn, and it appears that the computators of tithe, when they begin their labours again in 1926, will be bound to take into consideration the prices of corn as artificially created by this Bill.

These subsidies which have been paid by the State to agriculture—I can call them nothing else—are going to the farmer, and through the farmer to the labourer. They are not going to the owner of the land, and the fact is that it is the owner of the land who pays the tithe. There appears to be no occasion why the owner of the land, who derives no direct benefit from the guarantees, should be mulcted in the additional value which may be given to wheat and oats and he compelled to pay a higher tithe than he otherwise would. There is no intention on my part to deprive the beneficed clergy of what they are entitled to. They are not at risk in this matter, and there is no reason why they should not have the prices of wheat and oats increased for them. When the market prices are higher than the guaranteed prices they would of course get the benefit.

It is very desirable, as a safeguard for a landlord, that this additional subsection should be allowed to find its way into the Bill. It would not be practical politics until 1926 as until then tithe is fixed, but after 1926 the computators of tithe will be bound to take the prices as you have fixed them in this Bill and not the prices which would be the normal market prices.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 6, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Hastings.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The noble Lord is labouring under a complete misapprehension upon a somewhat technical point. I am sure that your Lordships, unless you have a doubt upon the point, which I think is extremely improbable, and the noble Lord will accept my guidance on this technical point. No effect whatever is produced on the operations of tithe.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3:

Appointment, remuneration, and powers of Commissioners.

3.—(1) For the purposes of this part of this Act there shall be three Commissioners, one of whom shall be appointed by the Minister, the Board of Agriculture for Scotland and the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland jointly, one by the Treasury and one by the Board of Trade.

(2) There shall be paid to the Commissioners such remuneration as the Treasury may determine, and any such renumeration and the expenses of the Commissioners, up to an amount sanctioned by the Treasury, shall be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament.

(3) The Commissioners may by order require the production of any books, papers, or other documents relating to the subject matter of their inquiry, and may require any person who appears to them to have any information with respect thereto to furnish, in writing or otherwise, such particulars with respect thereto as they may require, and to attend before them and give evidence on oath, and any of the Commissioners shall for that purpose have power to administer an oath.

(4) The Commissioners may, subject to any directions given by the Treasury, pay to any person required by them to furnish particulars with respect to the subject-matter of their inquiry or to attend before then such reasonable expenses as such person shall incur in respect thereof.

(5) If any person fails to comply with any order of the Commissioners made under this section, or knowingly furnishes any particulars which are false or misleading in any material particular, or knowingly gives any evidence which is false or misleading in any material particular, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds or to imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for a term not exceeding one month.

(6) The Commissioners shall not, except with the consent of the person concerned, include in any report or publication made or authorised by them any information obtained by them in the course of an inquiry made by them under this section as to the business carried on by any person which is not available otherwise than through evidence given to them during the inquiry, nor shall any Commissioner or any person concerned in the inquiry, except with such consent as aforesaid, disclose any such information.

LORD PARMOOR moved to leave out subsection (3). The noble and learned Lord said: I want to explain why the powers which I propose to delete in this subsection, and also in subsection (5), appear to be both inquisitorial and unnecessary. I am certain, from information which has been supplied to me, that they are subsections which raise strong apprehension amongst farmers. As a farmer owner I can quite appreciate their point of view. I must remind your Lordships what these Commissioners have to do. The only duty I can find is that from year to year they have to see whether there has been a variation in the cost of production of wheat and oats as against a standard year. That is the only function for which these Commissioners are introduced.

Let us consider what that function is. You have the standard price and you have to see in any given year whether there has been a variation in the cost of production either up or down. How would that be done? It would be done practically in the same way as the initial figure has been fixed by the Royal Commission. You would get typical cases fairly illustrative of the general position, and make up your mind in that way. That would be the method. It would be impossible to suggest, on a matter of this kind, that you should have a general inquiry into the farming accounts of all the farmers in the country. That would be impossible in itself, and it is not intended. What are the powers given here, and are they necessary? The subsection says— The Commissioners may by Order require the production of any books, papers, or other documents relating to the subject matter of their inquiry … They have an inquisitorial power, as I call it, to ask for the production of books, papers, and other documents relating to the subject of the inquiry from any farmer they choose. Every farmer in the country is liable to be called upon to produce books in connection with his business. That is an inquisitorial power as regards business men to which they essentially and very properly object.

But the Commissioners may do more than that, although they are not a Court. They— … may require any person who appears to them to have any information with respect thereto to furnish, in writing or otherwise, such particulars with respect thereto as they may require … Just conceive what that means. The decision will not depend on the accounts of a particular farmer, or the information given by him; yet you are to give the Commissioners the roving power of calling upon any farmer to give information which to my mind is not at all necessary for the work the Commissioners have to do. It is provided that any person may be required to attend before the Commissioners. That is, he may be drawn away from his business— to attend before them and give evidence on oath, and any of the Commissioners shall for that purpose have power to administer an oath. I would ask any business Man here whether he would like an inquisitorial power of that kind attached to his business, with the further power of compelling a man to leave his business to carry this information to the Commissioners. I do not wish to read all subsection (5), but the result is that if he does not do so he may be imprisoned for a term exceeding one month.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Not exceeding one month.

LORD PARMOOR

First of all you have this inquisitorial procedure; secondly, you ask a man to produce information which ought to be private to himself; and, thirdly, if he does. not do so, he may be put in prison for one month. I agree that subsection (6) says the Commissioners are not to tell the story they obtain from the books and documents and private sources, but that may be a very difficult matter to enforce, and in any case it does not go the whole length. What I want to ask the Lord Chancellor is this—Does he think a power of that kind is necessary when the only matter which the Commissioners have to decide is whether there has been a variation in the cost of production as between a particular year and a standard year? I say that that does not depend upon the books of a particular farmer or upon how a particular farmer is carrying on his business. It is a question of taking typical instances which can always be obtained. They have always been obtained without difficulty, and I have no doubt they could be in the future. "We are often told that an official is not an inquisitorial person but one of a "research" character. Let it be so. I sincerely hope, in the interests of farmers, that subsection (3) may be deleted. I believe it is wholly unnecessary and unfairly inquisitorial.

Amendment moved— Page 3, lines 17 to 24, leave out subsection (3).—(Lord Parmoor.)

LORD BUCKMASTER

It is a refreshing experience for me to find myself in favour of a provision in this Bill. I think that this clause must be maintained if your Commissioners are to have any effect at all. Of course I object to the Commission and all the officials, but it is no use putting up an army of officials and then expecting them to act like members of a garden party. They have got to have powers, and they must be unpleasant powers. That is why they are hated. Therefore, when the noble and learned Lord wants to leave out this subsection, he wants to leave out the very means by which the Commissioners may be best able to satisfy themselves as to what they are to fix as the price in relation to which the taxpayer may be called upon to pay a tax. I think the noble and learned Lord ought td be reassured with the explanation that was given him that one month is the limit of imprisonment which may be suffered by any person who has broken the law, and might withdraw the Amendment.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I am always refreshed by my noble and learned friend's humour. When I hear him speaking with so much authority on the subject of agriculture I am reminded of the method by which, when I was assisting my noble friend, Lord Ernle, to carry through the Corn Production Bill in another place, I obtained a fleeting hearing. It was by pointing out that I was the only lawyer in the House of Commons who was not an expert on agriculture, and for quite a considerable time that conciliated those whom I was addressing. The noble and learned Lord speaks of an "army" of officials. I am all in favour of a little permissible exaggeration; I think it sweetens debate. At the same time, I must point out that my noble friend's "army" consists of only three. It is a very small army, and when I watch the newly-generated indignation with which my noble and learned friend speaks of these hordes of officials I cannot refrain from the recollection that he was an ardent supporter of the first Bill which introduced this pernicious organisation upon a really large scale. It was the People's Budget and the Land Taxes of the People's Budget. Day after day, against my strong and repeated protests against these officials, my noble and learned friend doubled into the Lobby to support them. He is the greatest creator of the hordes of officials that there is in this House at the present moment, with the possible exception of the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, who sits by him.

In these circumstances let us address ourselves with snore perspective and sense of proportion to the Amendment. The functions of the Commissioners—under paragraph (c) of Clause 2 (1)—are that they shall ascertain the corresponding minimum price and the percentage by which the cost of production of wheat and oats of that years is greater or less than that of wheat or oats respectively in the standard year. When I listened to the case made by Lord Parmoor I confess I thought he had not paid sufficient attention to the consideration that it is not intended, and could not be intended, that this power should be used generally, as he seemed to apprehend. I do not suppose that ten cases would occur in a year, and in these circumstances I am a little struck by the argument which my noble friend brings forward that the substratum is hardly sufficient to support this power. I disagree so fundamentally with the whole of Lord Buckmaster's opinions on the Bill that the fact that he has taken an opposite view rather inclines me to accept the Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 3, lines 30 to 37, leave out subsection (5).—(Lord Parmoor.)

Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 4:

Power to enforce proper cultivation.

4.—(1) The Minister, if in any case he is of opinion after consultation with the agricultural committee (if any) for the area in which the land is situated—

1. (a) that any land is not being cultivated according to the rules of good husbandry; or
2. (b) that the production of food on any land can, in the national interest and without injuriously affecting the persons interested in the land, be maintained or increased by the occupier by means of an improvement in the existing method of cultivation or by the use of the land for arable cultivation; or
3. (c) that the occupier of land has unreasonably neglected to execute thereon the necessary works of maintanance being, in the case of land occupied by a tenant, works which he is liable to execute under the conditions of his tenancy or rendered necessary by his act or default; or
4. (d) that the owner of land in the occupation of a tenant has unreasonably neglected to execute thereon the necessary works of maintenance, not being works to which the preceding paragraphs applies

may serve notive, in the case of neglect to execute the necessary works of maintenance, on the tenant or owner, as the case may be, requiring him to execute the necessary works within such time as may be specified in the notice, and in any other case on the occupier of the land requiring him to cultivate the land in accordance with such directions as the Minister may give for securing that the cultivation shall be in accordance with the rules of good husbandry or for securing the necessary improvement in the existing method of cultivation, or for securing that the land shall be used for arable cultivation, so, however, as not to interfere with the discretion of the occupier as to the crops to be grown, and where compliance with any such directions, in the case of land in the occupation of a tenant, involves any breach of or non-compliance with any covenant or condition of the contract of tenancy, the Minister may in the same or any subsequent notice so served direct that any such covenant or condition, so far as it interferes with compliance with such directions, shall be suspended, and may provide for securing to the landlord such payments or other benefits (if any) as the Minister thinks just on account of any profit or benefit derived or expected to be derived by the tenant by reason of the suspension of the covenant or condition or by reason of the execution by the owner of any works of maintenance, and any such provision of the notice shall have effect as if it was contained in the contract of tenancy:

Provided that if any person on whom any notice is served under this section is aggrieved by the notice, he may within the prescribed time require the question whether the land has been cultivated according to the rules of good husbandry, or whether the production of food on the land can in the national interest be maintained or increased by the occupier by means of the required improvement in the existing method of cultivation or by the use of the land for arable cultivation, or whether such improvement or use will injuriously affect the persons interested in the land, or whether the works required to be executed are necessary works of maintenance for the proper cultivation or working of the land, or whether the time specified in the notice for the execution of such works is reasonable, to be referred to arbitration in accordance with Part IV. of the Act of 1917, and where any question is so referred to arbitration, no action shall be taken for enforcing the directions given by the Minister until the determination of the reference or except in accordance with the terms of the award, and, where the person on whom any notice is served is a tenant, the landlord shall have the same right as the tenant of requiring any question to be referred to arbitration.

(2) Where any notice is served on a tenant, a copy of the notice shall at the same time be served on the landlord.

(3) Where a notice has been served under this section on the owner or occupier of any land requiring him within a time specified in the notice to execute some work and that person unreasonably fails to comply with the requirements of the notice, he shall be liable, on summary conviction in respect of each offence, to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds and to a further fine not exceeding twenty shillings for every day during which the default continues after conviction:

Provided that—

1. (a) proceedings for an offence under this subsection shall not be instituted except by the Minister; and
2. (b) the Minister shall be entitled to execute any work specified in the notice, and to recover summarily as a civil debt from the person in default the reasonable cost of executing such work in a proper and workmanlike manner, and the right to institute any such proceedings shall not be prejudiced by the fact that the Minister has executed the work specified in the notice.

(4) Where a notice has been served on the owner of any land in the occupation of a tenant requiring him within a time specified in the notice to execute necessary works of maintenance and the owner fails to comply with the requirements of the notice, the Minister may authorise the tenant to execute the works in a proper and work-manlike manner, and a tenant so authorised shall entitled to execute the works accordingly, and at any time after the works have been executed to recover from the owner the costs reasonably incurred by him in so doing, in the same manner in all respects as if those costs were compensation awarded in respect of an improvement under the Act of 1908.

(5) A notice under this section shall not require any work to be executed within a period of less than one month from the date of the notice, unless in the opinion of the Minister it is necessary that the work should be executed within some shorter period specified in the notice.

(6) If, in the opinion of the Minister, the occupier fails to cultivate the land in accordance with directions so given, the Minister, after the prescribed notice, may, if the occupier in default is a tenant, by order determine the tenancy of the holding or of any part thereof at the expiration of the current year of the tenancy, not being less than two months after the making of the order, and, if the occupier in default is not a tenant, enter on and take possession of the land, or of the holding of which it forms part, for such time, and (either himself or by any person authorised by him) do all such things as appear to him necessary or desirable for the cultivation of the land of which possession has been taken, or for adapting such land for cultivation.

Any such order of the Minister may contain such provisions as the Minister thinks fit for adjusting the relations of landlord and tenant where the tenancy is determined; and any such provision of the order shall have effect as if it was determined in the contract of tenancy.

(7) Where it is represented to the Minister by an agricultural committee that the owner of any agricultural estate or land situate wholly or partly in the area of the committee, whether the estate or land or any part thereof is or is not in the occupation of tenants, cultivates or manages the estate or land in a manner inconsistent, with good estate management, and so as to prejudice materially the production of food thereon, the Minister may, if he thinks it necessary or desirable so to do in the national interest, and after making such inquiry as he thinks proper and after taking into consideration any representations made to him by the owner by order appoint such person as he thinks fit to act as receiver and manager of the estate or land or any part thereof:

Provided that—

1. (a) An order made under this subsection shall not, except where the person appointed by the order to act as receiver and manager of the estate or land is appointed to act in the place of a person previously appointed under this subsection, take effect until a period of six months has elapsed after the date on which notice of the order having been made was given to the owner of the estate or land, and the owner may at any time during the said period appeal against the order to the High Court in accordance with rules of court, and where any such appeal is made, the order shall not take effect pending the determination of the appeal; and
2. (b) An order made under this subsection shall not, except with the consent of the owner, extend to a mansion house, or the garden or grounds attached thereto, or to any land which at the date of the order forms part of any park or of any home farm attached to and usually occupied with the mansion house, and which is required for the amenity or convenience of the mansion house; and
3. (c) the order shall not operate to deprive any person, except with his consent, of any sporting rights over the estate or land which do not interfere with the production of food on the estate or land; and
4. (d) any person appointed to act as receiver and manager of any estate or land under this section shall render a 199 yearly report and statement of accounts to the owner or his agent and to the Minister; and
5. (e) the powers conferred by the foregoing provisions shall be in addition to and not in derogation of any other powers conferred on the Minister under this section.

The Minister may by an order made under this provision apply for the purposes of the order, with such modifications as he thinks fit, any of the provisions of section twenty-four of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, 1881, which relates to the powers, remuneration, and duties of receivers appointed by mortgagees, and authorise the receiver to exercise such other powers vested in the owner of the estate or land as may be specified in the order and may be reasonably necessary for the proper discharge by him of his duties as receiver and manager:

Provided that the receiver and manager shall not have power to sell or create any charge upon the estate or land or any part thereof except with the consent of the owner or with the approval of the High Court obtained upon an application made for the purpose in accordance with rules of court.

The owner of any estate or land in respect of which an order has been made under this subsection may, at any time after the expiration of three years from the date of the order, or after any change in the ownership of the estate or land, apply to the Minister to have the order appointing the receiver and manager revoked, and if on any such application the Minister refuses to revoke the order, the owner may appeal against the refusal to the High Court, in accordance with rules of court.

(8) If within one month after the Minister has entered on or appointed a receiver and manager in respect of any land the owner of the land so requires, a record of the condition of the buildings, fences, gates, roads, drains, ditches, and cultivation of the land shall be made within three months after the date of requisition by a person to be appointed, in default of agreement, by the President of the Surveyors' Institution; and in default of agreement the cost of making such record shall be borne by the Minister and the owner in equal portions.

(9) Where the Minister has entered on any land under this provision he may, after the prescribed notice, let the land or, with the consent of the owner, any part thereof for any term not exceeding five years on such terms and conditions as the Minister thinks fit and at the best rent that, having regard to such terms and conditions, can reasonably be obtained:

Provided that—

1. (a) before any contract of tenancy is executed by the Minister under this provision a draft thereof shall be sent to the owner of the land and a reasonable opportunity afforded him of objecting to any provision therein; and
2. (b) a copy of the contract of tenancy shall be sent to such owner as soon as possible after its execution.

(10) Any notice given by the Minister for the purposes of this section, which directs the suspension of any covenant or condition, shall be sufficient defence to any action or other proceed- ing in respect of any breach of, or non-compliance with, the covenant or condition so far as the breach or non-compliance is authorised by the notice of suspension.

(11) If, at any time after a contract of tenancy of any land has been created by the Minister, the owner of the land requires the Minister to with draw, the Minister shall so withdraw as soon as reasonably may be.

(12) When the Minister at any time withdraws from possession of any land of which he has taken possession under this section—

1. (a) he shall before withdrawing (except where the withdrawal is required by the owner of the land) give the prescribed notice in writing of his intention to the person then entitled to resume occupation of the land, and such notice shall be given not less than three months previously to the withdrawal by the Minister, and shall expire on one of the half-yearly days customary in the district where the land is situate; and
2. (b) he may recover from the person then entitled to resume occupation of the land such amount as represents the value to that person of all acts of cultivation or adaptation for cultivation executed by the Minister; and
3. (c) the land shall be subject to any tenancy created by the Minister in like manner as if the tenancy had been created by the person who would but for the tenancy have been entitled to resume occupation of the land.

(13) Any person who is interested in any land of which possession is taken under this section, and who suffers any loss by season of the exercise of the powers conferred by this section in that behalf shall, if he makes a claim for the purpose before the expiration of such period, not being less than one year, after the exercise of the powers as may be prescribed by the Minister, be entitled to be paid by the Minister such amount or amounts by way of periodical payments or otherwise as may represent the loss.

(14) The amount recoverable or payable by the Minister under subsection (12) or subsection (13) of this section shall be determined in each case in default of agreement by arbitration under Part IV. of the Act of 1917.

(15) For the purposes of this section the expression "necessary works of maintenance" means such of the following works as are necessary for the proper cultivation and working of the land on which they are to be executed (that is to say):—

1. (a) The maintenance and clearing of drains, embankments, and ditches;
2. (b) The maintenance and proper repair of farm roads, fences, stone walls, gates, and hedges;
3. (c) The execution of repairs to buildings:

Provided that a notice under subsection (1) of this section requiring any person to maintain or clear any drains, embankments, or ditches shall not operate so as to impose on that person any obligation in that behalf if and so far as the execution of the works required is rendered impossible by reason of the subsidence of any land or the blocking of outfalls which are not under the control of that person.

(16) Where the Minister is satisfied that there are injurious weeds to which this subsection applies growing upon any land, he may serve upon the occupier of the land a notice in writing requiring him to cut down or destroy the weeds in the manner and within the time specified in the notice, and where any such notice is given the provisions of subsection (3) of this section shall, with the necessary modifications, apply as if the land were land which was not being cultivated according to ah rules of good husbandry, and as if a notice had been served on the occupier under subsection (1) of this section.

The expression "occupier" in this subsection means, in the case of any public road, the authority by whom the roal is being maintained, and, in the case of unoccupied land, the person entitled to the occupation thereof.

Regulations may be made under this Act for prescribing the injurious weeds to which this subsection is to apply.

LORD BLEDISLOE moved, at the commencement of subsection (1), to leave out "after consultation with" and insert "with the concurrence of." The noble Lord said: Your Lordships will notice that it is not the county agricultural committee in whom, as is sometimes erroneously supposed, are vested the drastic powers of Clause 4, but in the Minister himself. Under that clause the Minister is bound to consult the county agricultural committee but, having consulted them, he may entirely ignore their advice. In my humble judgment it is in the best interests of the owner and the occupier, and also of increased production, that every safeguard should be provided against unreasonable interference with the processes of farming, and my reason for putting down the Amendment is that the Minister—not necessarily the noble Lord sitting opposite, but possibly some very much more ignorant and very much more ultra-political successor—may, for reasons (not necessarily prudent) of increased production, give an Order without going through what may become possibly the farce of consulting the county agricultural committee. The Minister, you will observe, gives the notice, which may result in all sorts of pains and penalties, whether by way of fine or otherwise; and in order further to safeguard those on whom such notice is likely to be served I suggest it is right that the Minister and the county agricultural committee should be jointly responsible, and that in no case should notice be served unless there is concurrence as to the issue of the notice between the Minister and the county committee,

Amendment moved— Page 4, lines 6 and 7, leave out ("after consultation with") and insert ("with the concurrence of").—(Lord Bledisloe.)

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

May I point out what would be the effect of this Amendment if inserted? In the original Corn Production Act the powers of the Minister with regard to these matters can be delegated to the county committees, and in point of fact they are in all cases so delegated. It was never intended—except in some cases where the committee was perfectly incapable of discharging its duties—that the Minister should exercise his powers direct. Consequently, you may say that in all cases these powers are delegated. Of course, the power to delegate involves the power to take back the powers if they are abused, and, in those extremely rare cases in which the power will be taken back, if the Amendment were passed, the Minister would be in this position, that having found that a committee was so hopeless that it was unable to discharge its responsibility, and having therefore taken back the powers that he had delegated, he would be unable to exercise any powers himself without the concurrence of the committee which he had superseded. That is rather a ridiculous position. If, on the other hand, the committee were not superseded the Amendment would be superfluous, because all it would mean would be that the committee would have to concur with itself in any decision that it came to. I think my noble friend will see that the Amendment would not really help the object which he has in view.

LORD STRACHIE

I have a similar Amendment on the Paper, and I must say that I am not quite convinced by what the Minister of Agriculture has said upon the point. He refers to these committees, which, of course, are new committees which have been set up, as if they were likely to be found at variance with himself or so incapable of carrying out their duties that it would be necessary to supersede them altogether. I think he himself appoints one-third of the committees, and that the other two-thirds are appointed by the county councils, and that great care is taken to appoint only practical men.

I would also remind him that although my noble friend Lord Bledisloe referred only to cultivation of land, this goes a great deal further, because the subsection says (paragraph (d)) that the Minister may act where he is of opinion that "the owner of land in the occupation of a tenant has unreasonably neglected to execute thereon the necessary works of maintenance, not being works to which the preceding paragraph applies." It is a very great responsibility to allow any Minister, without any knowledge of local matters, to come down and order landlords to put up buildings and make great alterations, incurring large expenditure, and also altering the whole cultivation of their land. It seems to me that if that is to be decided against the wishes of the tenant and the owner it should be decided by local men who have expert knowledge, and who know the conditions of agriculture in that particular district.

Although many of us would feel no doubts if this power rested entirely with my noble friend who now presides over the Ministry of Agriculture, there may be another occasion when we may have some one in his position whom we do not entirely trust. Also it must be remembered that he cannot himself go into all these matters. He will have to appoint a large number of officials to go down into the various counties to See whether he should make these orders. On the other hand, if it be done simply with the concurrence of local committees these men will be able to exercise their powers as well as, during the War, they exercised control over cultivation.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I think the noble Lord misunderstood my first point. I did not suggest that the committees were likely to be incapable or in default, but I said that their concurrence would not arise except in the one-in-a-thousand case. In all other cases you would really be asking the committee to concur with itself. I think that the words "after consultation with" are preferable to those which are now proposed, and I trust that the Amendment will not be pressed.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF JERSEY moved, in subsection (1), immediately before paragraph (a), after "situate," to insert "or, if the powers of the Minister under the Act of 1917 have been re-delegated by the agricultural committee to a cultivation sub-committee, then after consultation with such sub-committee." The noble Earl said: The object of my Amendment is to ensure that the Minister shall consult with the committee that actually deals with cultivation. I believe I am correct in saying that in all cases where the Minister delegates his powers to an agricultural committee he makes it a distinct point that those powers shall be re-delegated to a cultivation sub-committee, and I believe in delegating those powers the agricultural committee deprive themselves of any powers which they may possess. The cultivation sub-committee is not responsible in any way to the agricultural committee nor even obliged to report to the committee, and it does seem to me logical that the Minister should consult with the body, whether committee or sub-committee, that actually exercises the very wide powers conferred upon it, and therefore I beg to move the Amendment in my name.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 8, after ("situate") insert ("or if the powers of the Minister under the Act of 1917 have been re-delegated by the agricultural committee to a cultivation sub-committee, then after consultation with such sub-committee").—(The Earl of Jersey.)

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I think that the point made by the noble Earl is a good one, but if he will look at the Martialled List of Amendments he will see an Amendment standing in my name to Clause 30, page 28, line 21. I believe that adequately covers the point. I am not opposed to the principle, but I think it will be more satisfactorily covered by my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD PHILLIMORE moved, in paragraph (a) of subsection (1), after "land," to "insert" not being a park, garden, or pleasure ground or land adjoining or near to the manion house which is required for its protection, amenity, or convenience, and not being woodland, or land cultivated for osiers."

The noble and learned Lord said: Before I put down this Amendment I read the Bill two or three times, because I felt that there must be something that I had not discovered which would make such an Amendment as this unnecessary. I am quite prepared to be told that the Government have considered this point, and that in one of the Acts referred to there is some clause which makes my Amendment super- fluous. But as it stands I propose to bring it to your Lordships' notice. It cannot be that a Minister of Agriculture, with the concurrence of a committee, is to be able to tell a citizen who has bought a villa and three acres of land that he has got to plough up his croquet lawn, or his boys' cricket ground. It cannot be that a Minister, who might after all be a Cockney, or be in the hands of Cockney clerks, is, with or without the concurrence of the agricultural committee, to be able to direct that one of the historical parks of this country, which foreigners from the Continent or America would make it their first duty to see, is to be ploughed up to meet his requirements, or that some of the treasures of botanic gardens or scientific gardens are to be ploughed up. Therefore I have proposed these words, that there shall be taken away from his ravenous clutches lands which are parks, gardens, or pleasure-grounds, or land adjoining or near to the mansion house, which is required for its protection, amenity, or convenience. Then, my Lords, I have been so audacious as to suppose something even more extravagant—that such a Minister may think it desirable to plough up a wood; and in order to prevent his doing that, I include in my Amendment woodlands or land cultivated for osiers.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 9, after ("land") insert ("not being a park, garden, or pleasure ground or land adjoining or near to the mansion house which is required for its protection, amenity, or convenience, and not being woodland, or land cultivated for osiers").—(Lord Phillimore.)

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

The noble and learned Lord is quite correct as to his supposition that at any rate this Government has no evil intentions with regard to all the subjects to which he has referred in his very comprehensive Amendment; indeed, the only objection which I could possibly take to this Amendment is that I think certain words in it are a little too vague and capable of possible abuse in certain cases to be desirable for incorporation in the Bill. I should have no objections to accepting his words "not being a park, garden, or pleasure ground, and not being woodland, or land cultivated for osiers." I think the words "or land adjoining or near to the mansion house which is required for its protection, amenity, or convenience" might lead one a very long way. I have some recollection during the food production campaign of the foolish objections which were made. In some cases it was held to be an infringement of the amenities if land which was just visible from the top windows of a mansion was ploughed. I think the words of the noble and learned Lord go too far. If it would meet his point sufficiently to accept the remainder of the Amendment, I should be pleased to do so.

VISCOUNT HARCOURT

I agree that the word "amenity" has rather a wide application, but I remember, when I was in charge of the Small Holdings Bill in another place, that in spite of my protest against the width of an Amendment in which the word amenity occurred, I was compelled by the noble Viscount who sits behind me, and by others whom he represented to insert this word into that Act, lest the amenity of any country house should be destroyed by small holdings for labourers being created in its near proximity.

LORD PHILLIMORE

I should be ready to take out "or near to" and I think "convenience" might very well come out, but I submit to the noble Lord in charge of this Bill that there may be land adjoining a mansion house which is required for its protection or amenity.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I am most anxious to be reasonable in this matter, and I would ask the noble and learned Lord to consider this. I ant not quite clear what he means by protection. We all use it in connection with our own homes in perhaps rather a wider sense than this. There may be a hill at some distance——

LORD PHILLIMORE

I make it "adjoining."

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

The noble and learned Lord has cut out "near to."

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I am prepared to accept the Amendment in the altered form.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

Will the noble and learned Lord listen to the way in which I put the Amendment, and say whether it is in the right form— not being a park, garden, or pleasure ground or land adjoining a mansion house which is required for its protection or amenity, and not being woodland or land cultivated for osiers.

LORD PHILLIMORE

That is correct.

On Question, Amendment as amended agreed to.

LORD BLEDISLOE moved, in paragraph (a) of subsection (1), to leave out "cultivated," and insert" managed." The noble Lord said: Your Lordships will realise what meaning, in the strict sense of the word, "cultivated" has in its relation to arable land, and your Lordships will probably admit—I am sure the Minister of Agriculture will admit—that the grass land of this country is grossly under-farmed. If grass land, particularly in the West of England, were properly treated there is not the least doubt that its production, not merely of grass but particularly of leguminous plants, could be quite easily doubled, and, moreover, if grass land were properly drained the economic produce of the land could probably be trebled. That is the view of most of the scientific experts on the subject. I want to make it quite clear that the rules of good husbandry are intended in this direction to apply every bit as much to grass land as to arable land, and I desire to substitute the word "managed" for the word "cultivated" in order to adumbrate an extended definition of the rules of good husbandry which some of us propose to try to insert at a later stage of this Bill.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 9, leave out ("cultivated") and insert ("managed").—(Lord Biedisloe.)

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I find myself in complete agreement with the general argument of the noble Lord, but I would like to make a suggestion to him with regard to procedure. Somewhere at this stage of the Bill it will obviously be necessary to have a general debate upon the extent to which the power to control cultivation should be exercised by these committees, and I am a little in doubt at the moment as to what is the most convenient point for your Lordships to take that general debate. I should have thought that perhaps it would have come better on the next Amendment. I believe that it would be the general view of your Lordships that it would be better not to take it on this Amendment. If we were to decide this point now with regard to the substitution of the word managed it might prejudice the subsequent course of debate. Whilst I am not opposing for the moment any of the arguments which the noble Lord has advanced, I would appeal to him to reserve this point to the Report stage. I think he will find that it will come in more conveniently after we have come to a conclusion on the general policy.

LORD BLEDISLOE

I am quite prepared to accept that suggestion.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD PARMOOR moved, in subsection (1), to leave out paragraph (b). The noble and learned Lord said: I am quite aware that this is a contentious Amendment. It has already been discussed and referred to on several occasions, and I hope it will be necessary for me to take up a little only of your Lordships' time. Paragraph (b) refers to a case in which "the production of food on any land can, in the national interest and without injuriously affecting the persons interested in the land, be maintained or increased." When we deal with words of that kind every one would be in favour of the production of food on any land being maintained and increased in the national interest, and we should all desire very much that it be done without injuriously affecting the persons interested in the land. But that really is begging the question.

When we go on we find the means that are proposed in this paragraph to bring about that result— by means of an improvement in the existing method of cultivation, or by the use of the land for arable cultivation. I will take first of all "by means of an improvement in the existing method of cultivation." That means a general power of interference with the way in which a man is carrying on his business. There is no half-house about it. The method of cultivation is the way in which a farmer carries on his business, the way in which he hopes to gain his livelihood. The effect of this proposal is that instead of the view of that farmer, or the industry of that farmer being the predominant factor, the matter is to be decided for him by some outside authority. I think that is destructive to any industry and agriculture is particularly a difficult industry. I do not know whether it would be right to quote a few words from Virgil, Pater ipse colendi haud facilem esse viam voluit. The opinion that agriculture as an industry will stand interference of this kind whereas other industries will not stand it is absolutely wrong.

The remaining part of paragraph (b) is "or by the use of the land for arable cultivation," which means the power—a limited power, I admit—of ploughing up grass land and using that land for arable purposes To put my argument rather shortly may I give the personal experience of a farmer. I fear I shall have to go back a good many years to the year 1879–80 because I was a farmer in those days, as I am now. In 1879–80 the arable land in my own country went down suddenly 75 per cent. in value and we let our rents down 75 per cent. in value. If your Lordships will look back to those times you will find that the Surveyors' Institution made an inquiry which showed that the lands to which I am referring had been more injured as regards their rental value than any other land in any other part of the United Kingdom. What was the effect and what were we told to do? In order to avert the threat of those lands going out of cultivation those of us who could afford to do it spent money in turning arable land into grass land. We were told that was the only thing to do. As a matter of fact it was the only thing which prevented large areas of land going out of cultivation. That cost roughly £50 an acre to do.

Coming to the next period, the period of the war—I do not object to what had to be done during the war period, but fortunately that period is past—we were told to plough up a considerable part of our grass land; with what effect? I think if I state it quite shortly your Lordships will appreciate it. Land which had cost and was worth £50 an acre was only worth from £10 to £15 an acre as arable land. If you want to test the loss in the quantity of production I think those figures will very fairly give your Lordships what that effect is.

Going one step further, wanting to diminish the amount of farming in which I was interested, I tried to let one of my farms the other day. I had from twenty to thirty applicants for the farm, but they all said, "We cannot do it because the grass land has been ploughed up and we know that in this district no farm without its due proportion of grass land can possibly be farmed at a profit." I was obliged to answer them, "You are quite right; that is one of the things I am finding myself and that we are all finding." Because in a district like ours the balance between the amount of grass land and arable land in any farm is not only essential that you may carry on the industry properly, but to get anything like the maximum of productive result. There is no greater fallacy in my opinion than to take some individual fields and try to test what the effect has been in the next year after ploughing up, and then to generalise from that that it is profitable to plough up grass land. I am sure it is not. I am sure the principle is to leave it to those who are practically interested in the industry and know the conditions to carry on their business in their own way, provided only that the land is being cultivated in accordance with the rules of good husbandry.

I protest most strongly against this view of interfering with the farming industry. I am not talking about the farmer for the moment; I am talking about the farming industry. If you want to reduce the amount of food produced in this country you cannot do it more directly than by encouraging interference of this character. You may say, of course, that some people talk about nationalisation and socialisation. I do not believe in bodies who are not immediately interested as the farmers are in the farming industry either having the knowledge, the perseverance, or the interest to get the maximum of production which you can get from people who have to get their livelihood from or are personally interested in a particular industry. That, I think, is a principle of very general application.

There are other names than mine attached to this Amendment. I look upon the words as they stand as hostile to the farming industry and as hostile to what is the object of this Bill—that is, an increased quantity of production. Therefore I earnestly hope when the Division comes this Amendment will be adopted.

Amendment moved— Page 4, lines 11 to 16, leave out paragraph (b).—(Lord Parmoor.)

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

In order to preserve the rights of movers of later Amendments I suggest to your Lordships that I should follow the usual custom and put the Question in this form, "That the first seven words of paragraph (b) stand part of the Bill."

LORD CLINTON

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Parmoor, has explained very fully the object of this Amendment, but there are a few words I should like to add. I think it will be within the recollection of those of your Lordships who were present during the Second Reading debate on this Bill that one of the main oppositions to the Bill was founded on the control orders under this clause, and I think the noble Lord the Minister of Agriculture must be quite aware how greatly farmers generally resent control and interference. He has told us already that most of the branches of the Farmers' Union are in favour of this measure, and of course I do not doubt that for one moment. But I believe there is a legitimate doubt whether they would have been in favour of it had they known thoroughly what was contained in this particular clause.

Your Lordships will recollect that at the time the Bill was passing through its stages in another place, almost to the time it reached the doors of your Lordships' House, this clause was framed almost entirely by reference to another Act of Parliament, and without a complete study of that other Act or the help of the Parliamentary White Paper which was issued to your Lordships it would have been quite impossible, I think, for anybody to interpret very clearly what this particular clause meant. I think it is quite certain that farmers generally had not that opportunity, and it is fair to doubt whether they really had in mind what this control would mean when they voted to support the Bill.

We are prepared to, and have more or less cheerfully, put up with control in times of emergency, but we think now that the emergency has passed the sooner farmers are allowed to manage their own affairs and make the best they can of their land the better it will be for the farming industry. In his speech on the Second Reading, the noble Lord the Minister in charge of the Bill founded the necessity for control largely on the requirements of the country in times of emergency. I think doubts were expressed during the debate whether a change in cultivation from grass to arable at this moment was likely to be of any greater value to the country when some years hence the time of emergency might arise. But the noble Viscount, Lord Milner, supported control on slightly different grounds from those of the noble Lord, Lord Lee, because he said it was necessary that this country should make a greater effort for production not only for its own sake but for the sake of paying its debts abroad. Every one of your Lordships is, of course, in favour of the greatest possible production in agriculture, but I believe that the value of production must depend upon whether it is made at a profit. It is of no use to us if it is done at a loss.

What we really have to keep in mind is that a farmer takes a farm for the purpose of making a living; he puts his whole brains, and energy, and knowledge, and experience, and capital, and labour into his farm with the hope of making a profit. If he does not make a profit he cannot carry on. And there is nothing in this Bill which would enable him to make a profit. It is quite clear, I think, that if directions are to be sent from headquarters to every farmer how he is to work his land—possibly orders given him to change the whole system of cultivation—then the farmer ought to be compensated for any loss which he may suffer owing to carrying out those instructions. But there is no suggestion that that will be done. Under the minimum prices laid down in the Bill the scheme is to prevent him suffering any disastrous loss. And really, as a matter of fact, I think these prices are put in the Bill in order to enable him to pay a minimum wage, which does not necessarily bear any relation to the actual value of the work done, but which is laid down by an outside body to enable the labourer to bear the heavy expense of living to-day.

The matter of these minimum prices was gone into rather closely during the debate on a previous Amendment, and I do not want to say much upon them except this, that it is quite clear that under these minimum prices there will be a class of land which, either because it has less than an average cost of production, or has a greater than average fertility, will always remain under arable cultivation, and I think will always pay the farmer. For that, class of land no control is required. But there is the other class of land—that which has a greater cost of working or a less fertility—which will not pay the farmer. Consequently, it will not be under arable cultivation, and whatever the noble Lord may put into the Act he cannot bring in compulsory arable cultivation against that farmer, simply because that farmer cannot be made by any Act of Parliament to work at a loss.

So far it appears to me that one may regard this severe form of control as probably non-effective. But, in addition to that, it would, I think, to quite a large degree, have a disastrous effect upon the industry, because farmers would be living under the idea that this control may be exercised upon them. One of the objects of this Bill is to create a greater confidence and a greater sense of security among farmers. I do not believe that a power of this kind will do anything but create a lesser sense of security, and for that reason must be unsound and bad for farming generally. It will also, I think, be bad for production, because it is clear that some of this land which now, by recent emergency orders, has been placed under the plough, will again have to go back to grass. Is a farmer likely to spend much money in putting that land back to grass properly if he knows that at any time there may be an order from the Ministry to break it up again?

While I object very strongly indeed to this severe form of control—so severe that any grass land one has got may be ordered to be broken up—I do not in the least object, and I would very strongly support, the more moderate form of control which appears in this clause under the rules of "good husbandry." But I am going to suggest to the noble Lord that, if we can persuade hint to cut out the severe form of control, I personally am quite willing to offer some greater control than the rules of "good husbandry," as they are defined under this Bill, would give, because, as they are defined under this Bill, I do not think they would do anything more than stereotype what, in sonic counties at all events, is a very low class of cultivation. And for that reason I have put down an Amendment at a later stage of the Bill—which, of course, I cannot discuss now—which, I hope, will give him a control more complete than paragraph (a) of this clause would give him, and enable him to see that, after all, farmers do make the best use of the land which they have got under the plough, and will produce from it as much as it is reasonably possible to produce.

LORD RIBBLESDALE

I am quite in agreement with this Amendment, and I hope the paragraph will go out. I have a question to ask which hangs a little on Lord Bledisloe's last Amendment, where he pointed out that he put in the word "managed" instead of the word "cultivated," because he considered that grass land should come into the operations of "good husbandry," and be watched for that purpose just as much as arable land. Now I see here in this paragraph the words "in the existing methods of cultivation or by the use of the land for arable cultivation." I suppose the phrase "existing methods of cultivation" is intended to take in grass land. But in my county what we suffer from a great deal is waterlogged land. It is very wild land, and wherever there is a little bit raised above the dead level of the land it is good grass, and a great deal of that land is useful for young stock. But I could quite believe that an agricultural committee might come down to inspect some of the land (I farmed some of it myself, and I know acres and acres of it in my part of the world) and might at once say, "This land is being managed badly, and we consider that, without injuriously affecting the persons interested in this land, all this water-logged land must be drained," Well, you could no more get the landlord at the present day in my part of the world to drain this fell land, and you could no more get the tenant to come in, than you could—well, I cannot think of any good synonym, but anyhow it would be impossible. I was so much impressed with this six years ago when riding a great deal about on my neighbour's property and my own that I proposed to the West Riding County Council that they should consider lending us money, and actually my own tenants were quite willing to come to some arrangement, where the farm was held under a small copyhold rent or quit rent, for draining this water-logged land. However, that is not the point now.

What I should wish the Minister to explain is whether where an individual like myself has waterlogged land on a rough farm, some of that land being very useful for the breeding purposes of a farm, an agricultural committee can come down and tell the farmer, or tell me, "This will never do. You have got to drain this land." Lord Clinton said just now that you cannot possibly make the farmer or landlord farm at a loss. But what you can do under this clause is to ruin the farmer, and drive him out of his holding; and I should like to hear whether in some sort of way waterlogged land will be kept out of the operation of this clause.

LORD DYNEVOR

During the war a great deal of land was wrongly ploughed up. In my own district I saw some disastrous examples of that. There is no necessity to extend to peace times what was absolutely necessary in war time. Under this paragraph an outside body will give the order to the farmer to plough up the land with no financial risks to themselves at all. The farmer will have to find the capital and will have to stand the loss himself, for under this Bill, unlike under D.O.R.A., he receives no compensation at all for any loss. I sincerely hope that this paragraph will be eliminated from the Bill.

LORD BLEDISLOE

As my noble friend has just indicated, there is much that can be justified when our national citadel is beleaguered which cannot possibly be justified under normal conditions. I have never deprecated the process of ploughing up grass land even in the West of England during the war, when it has been deemed to be essential in the national interest to get a larger amount of bread-stuffs as a result, but I am bound to confess, coming as I do from the West of England, that there has been an almost illimitable amount of permanent damage to good grass land there as a result of the perfectly innocent operations of the county war executive committees. The gentlemen who sat upon those committees, selected as they were from amongst the more experienced men in the country for that very delicate job, have themselves expressed their disinclination to take on that task again, because they know how extremely difficult it is without in the result reducing the net output of the land instead of increasing it.

I venture to suggest that what is really desired by the Minister in charge of this Bill can be perfectly well obtained by tightening up the rules of good husbandry, as my noble friend Lord Clinton proposes to do at a later stage of this Bill—tightening up those rules in relation, as I have said before, to grass land every bit as much as in relation to arable, and, having done so, insisting upon the observance of those expanded rules of good husbandry.

One thing I fear very much from my experience in Gloucestershire and from what I hear is probable in Monmouthshire. What has happened during the war is that if you are not careful the operations of the county agricultural committees under some little pressure from Whitehall may destroy the whole balance of a farm. A farm may be reckoned as a mixed arable farm or dairy farm, or grazing farm, or under some other description, and is let for that purpose and that purpose only. But my own experience in almost every class of husbandry is that if you once begin to interfere with various fields on that farm, about which very often the occupier himself has not sufficient knowledge—and certainly no one outside has sufficient knowledge—as to what is going to result, you are going to impose upon that. man a task for which probably he is wholly unfitted and a class of husbandry about which he knows nothing. He is bound to employ implements which he may not possess, and he is bound in certain cases at his landlord's expense to put up buildings which would not be required for the sort of husbandry for which he took the farm. It seems to me that you are going to impose both upon the land and the occupier of it a task for which possibly neither is properly fitted.

This particular clause, as it is at present framed, does not seem to me to carry the noble Lord anything like so far as he wants to go. He wants to see wheat, or possibly oats, grown upon the land, but the clause only says that arable cultivation is, if necessary, to be imposed upon a particular occupier. How far does that carry him? It is perfectly true—and both the present Minister of Agriculture and the last Minister of Agriculture made it clear—that it is a fact that you can produce even for animal consumption a large increment of food as the result of arable cultivation rather than of grass farming, but that is a class of cultivation about which we in this country know exceedingly little at the present time. Some of us are employing Danish bailiffs and farm managers to instruct us in systems of arable dairying; but so far we know very little about it, and if you are going to insist upon that class of industry for which the bulk of our farmers are not to-day sufficiently equipped, you are going to render their farming much less productive than it is in many cases at the present time.

As was pointed out in the debate on the Second Reading, if you are going to extend your arable area you are bound to provide enormous additions to the available quantities of artificial fertilisers. There are only three general manures of any value obtaining to-day. One of them we all know is farmyard manure, stable manure having practically disappeared because of motor traction; the second is guano, and the third is the landlord's turf. The landlord's turf is an extremely valuable fertiliser in times of emergency, but you are not going to be able to depend upon that continuously for several years to come in order to maintain the fertility of the land which you desire to put under arable cultivation.

As far as I can ascertain, the most enlightened agricultural opinion in this country to-day supports the view that if you insist upon a reasonably high standard of farming for which each farmer himself in his present occupation is equipped, you will in effect increase the net aggregate amount of food raised from the land of this country, and you will enormously increase the amount of arable production and particularly of cereals. The Selborne Committee pointed out repeatedly that if you give farmers sufficient encouragement to grow cereals without the risk of serious loss, you are in fact going to create the incentive and stimulus which are alone wanted to induce them to run the risk of embarking upon the production of cereals on which they have not in previous years embarked because of the disastrous experiences of the long depression which continued from 1878 or 1879 to the end of the last century.

Having created the incentive, for goodness sake see what results from the creation of that stimulus before you begin to impose anything in the nature of compulsion. If, at a later stage, you find you are not getting the sort of crops you want in sufficient quantities, it will not be too late to bring in another Bill and insist upon something in the nature of compulsion to bring about what I believe, and I think your Lordships will believe, can quite well be provided by the stimulus which you are now giving by means of the guarantees provided by this Bill.

LORD, LEE OF FAREHAM

This is obviously one of the most important points in the whole Bill, and I am glad we have been able to have what I might call a general debate upon it, and that I should be given an opportunity to express my views and the views of the Government with regard to the main issue that is involved.

I think that some of the speakers who have preceded me have not given full weight to the restrictions which are provided in the Bill and the powers which would be exercised by the committees under this subsection. I notice, for example, that no speaker has referred to the fact that, according to lines 37 and 38, no notice can be given which will interfere with the discretion of the occupier as to the crops to be grown. But there are many other restrictions. In fact, as I think I said on the Second Reading, perhaps the most effective criticism that has been made on this subsection from my point of view is that it is so hedged about by restrictions and so whittled down that it will be, comparatively speaking, ineffective in most cases. At any rate it is hedged around with tremendous restrictions.

There is an appeal provided in every case against any order, whether it be an order for good husbandry, or for improvements in cultivation, or for ploughing up. The arbitrator has to be satisfied, first of all, as to what would be the increase in the production of food effected; secondly, that it would be in the national interest; and, thirdly, that it would not be injurious to any persons interested in the land. Any Order that got through those three conditions would be very fortunate. I have always felt that the restrictions were so severe that most of the objections your Lordships have expressed with regard to this clause are unnecessary because in most cases the Order would not be effective. Not only from speeches which your Lordships have made in public but from other opportunities I have had of testing the opinion of this House with regard to what is called a "Ploughing Order" I know that the feeling is very strong and very hostile. But I do want to ask your Lordships to give full weight to what has been advanced by Lord Clinton and Lord Bledisloe, and that is, the necessity for taking some powers which will be sufficient and adequate to prevent the perpetuation of bad farming, of which there is a great deal too much in this country. Especially is this necessary in connection with grass farming.

It has been suggested that I have a sort of antipathy to grass, and that wherever a sufficient grass field has been pointed out to me I seek at once to destroy it. Really there is nothing further from my intention. I am aware that my lurid past during the war is always rising up against me, and on another occasion I shall be prepared to defend up to the hilt what I did during the war. I am perfectly certain that if those of your Lordships who are opposing these Ploughing Orders had been in my place. they would have done exactly what I did, and perhaps have gone much further. Do not judge me by that. During the comparatively brief period I have had the honour of holding my present Office I have shown I hope by my actions that I am deeply impressed not only with the importance of grass land but with the importance of making grass land do its full duty by improving it in every possible way that science can suggest. It is not easy to persuade the average farmer that new and scientific methods are necessarily good. He is very slow to convert; and if we are to wait for his conversion to come solely by the process of reading the excellent Journal of the Ministry over which I preside, and other scientific papers, it will be a long time before we make any substantial improvement in the grass land of this country.

There are certain objects I have at heart that I am seeking to further by this paragraph. The first is, that these agricultural committees should have power, when necessary, to bring proper pressure upon the occupiers of grass land to adopt the latest methods in order to make that land more productive as grass. I recognise that a certain amount of grass land was ploughed up under the stress of war which ought never to have been ploughed up, but even if it produced one crop during that stress of war (and relieved us from the peril of starvation) and was ruined afterwards it was a measure of war which could properly be undertaken. The number of mistakes that were made in an agricultural sense have been I think greatly exaggerated. That there were such cases I shall be the last to deny. In those cases it is obvious that the land had better be laid down to grass again, but in that case (and this is the second object) I want these committees to have power to see that the land is properly laid down to grass again and not allowed to tumble down.

The third object—I am not so sure that I shall have the full sympathy of your Lordships on this point—is that it is in the national interest, if possible, to check any widespread movement of seeding down the arable of this country to grass for reasons which may be quite unconnected with food production or, indeed, with good husbandry, but which may arise out of a feeling of fear or self-interest with regard to the possibilities that may be developing on the horizon of labour. I am quite certain that a tendency to get rid of good arable in order to get rid of labour troubles would not be effective in the end. It would defeat itself. It would only result in an agitation, so justified and so widespread on the part of the dispossessed and out-of-work agricultural workers, that it would be quite impossible for any Government to stand still and allow it to proceed, and it would bring in its train evils which may be present to the minds of your Lordships but which I do not wish to particularise further.

For these reasons I am anxious that the committees should have power to prevent anything like an unreasonable conversion of arable into grass land in the present national situation. I have no desire to go further than that. But, when I say "I have no desire," I should be glad if, in certain well-considered cases, the committees could have the power to order that land which was not doing its duty as grass, and never could do its duty as grass, should be converted into arable if that was a desirable course. It would be with great regret I should part with any power of the committees under all these restrictions to order that grass should be ploughed in sonic particular instances. I should greatly regret it, but at the same time I realise that the House, and farmers generally, have not sufficient confidence in these new committees, and may have still less confidence in the Minister of Agriculture to entrust him with this power which may be capable if it was abused, and only if it was abused, of doing injury to the industry. For that reason I should have been perfectly prepared to have accepted an Amendment to be moved later by Lord Ernle excluding from the possibility of any Ploughing Order meadow or pasture land of permanent standing.

I do not know whether your Lordships will be prepared to accept the paragraph with that modification. If not, my feeling is this, that the powers which I have just suggested are really necessary in the national interests, with regard to the improvement of grass land, existing arable land and so forth, are adequately covered by the first portion of this paragraph down to and including the word "cultivation," but omitting the words, "or by the use of the land for arable cultivation." I cannot conceive any definition of good husbandry which can come later which could be wider or more practical than the words, "by means of an improvement in the existing method of cultivation." It will not have escaped the attention of your Lordships that if the powers upon which I think we are generally agreed were inserted in paragraph (a) rather than in paragraph (b)——

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

What is the exact proposal of the noble Lord?

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

To let paragraph (b) stand down to the word "cultivation" and to leave out "or by the use of the land for arable cultivation." In ease of any Orders issued tinder paragraph (b) the occupier of the land upon whom the Order is served has the protection of the restriction to which I have referred, "in the national interest and without injuriously affecting the persons interested in the land," whereas if it were under paragraph (a), under the definition of good husbandry he would not have those protections and, therefore, would be exposed in sonic cases to possible arbitrary action on the part of a committee, or even of the Minister. It is quite true that the main object which the Government have in view is to stimulate arable cultivation. It is not merely, as my noble friend Lord Bledisloe suggested, to grow at this moment an additional quantity of wheat or oats, which is a very desirable thing; but our policy has been to try to increase arable land so that, in case of national emergency, we shall have the means of growing wheat, or whatever crop may be most needed in the national interest, without being exposed to the sort of situation in which we found ourselves in the last war, at the mercy of the wire-worm, and with farmers and labourers who had no experience of arable cultivation and no equipment with which to carry it out.

My noble friend Lord Bledisloe, at the end of his speech, dropped a remark to the effect that we have got to rely in the last resort on the stimulus of the guarantees. I think there is a good deal in that, and I should imagine it must be obvious, not only to the farming community but to the taxpayer, that if these guarantees which are now being offered, and which constitute a very serious potential liability on the nation, are not effective, in the first place, in maintaining our arable area and even in extending that arable area, then they will have failed in their main purpose. In that event, if they are not effective, they ought to be withdrawn. I think that farmers ought to have that in their mind—that they are being offered these guarantees as a stimulus, and if they do not respond to the stimulus then they cannot expect the nation to go on with the system of guarantees. To that extent they will be on their trial. I hope that in the course of my remarks—I do not wish to detain your Lordships too long—I have dispelled at any rate some of the fears that have been expressed with regard to the intentions of the Government on this matter. I agree that perhaps we have been influenced by the very strong expressions of opinion that have come from your Lordships in the matter, and I am most anxious to meet, so far as I can in the national interest, the views expressed in your Lordships' House. I venture to suggest that your object would be sufficiently attained if you agreed to let paragraph (b) stand down to and including the word "cultivation." If that was your view I should be prepared to accept the excision of the remaining words of the paragraph.

A question was addressed to me by my noble friend Lord Ribblesdale about drainage. It is obvious that if there is waterlogged land on any large scale in any district it is quite impossible that the, individual landowner should be called upon to deal with it. Another policy which I have been pressing very hard since I have been at the Ministry of Agriculture is the preparation of large drainage schemes under another Bill, in which the expense falls on the whole of the community that is beneficially affected by the scheme. It so happens that the particular area in which the noble Lord is interested is at present under consideration, and I believe, an Order is actually in draft dealing with the matter. Therefore, I hope the burden will not fall upon him, but upon all those who benefit.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

I am sure the House recognises the spirit in which the noble Lord opposite has endeavoured to meet what is the view that has been expressed not merely by several noble Lords in this House, but so very widely and largely, I may say almost universally, outside the House, by the whole farming community and by all the bodies entitled to speak for farmers. The noble Lord has suggested that instead of following the course recommended by my noble friend Lord Bledisloe and a good many other noble Lords, we should accept paragraph (b) down to the word "cultivation" in line 15. I confess I do not exactly follow the purpose of the noble Lord opposite in making that suggestion. I should have supposed that if the Government desire to bring about by something like forcible means an enlargement of arable farming, not merely for the purpose of growing wheat and oats but arable farming generally, including arable dairying, the retention of the last words in lines 15 and 16 was imperative. But the noble Lord is willing to sacrifice them. I do not see, therefore, what he gains by the retention of the rest of paragraph (b) over and above what is provided for by Amendments to Clause 30 in the names of Lord Bledisloe and Lord Clinton. These almost parallel Amendments, which define the purpose of good husbandry, cover all the ground, so far as I can see, that can be covered by the remainder of this paragraph (b). For instance, the maintenance of grass land in its best condition is thoroughly provided for in the proposed Amendment of my noble friends. I cannot help thinking that if paragraph (b) is allowed to stand, even without the words "by the use of the land for arable cultivation" possibly enforced ploughing may be taken to be implied by the words "the production of food … be maintained or increased … by means of an improvement in the existing method of cultivation." Therefore I confess I cannot see what the noble Lord gains by asking for the retention of these words, and I hope that on reconsideration he will be prepared, in view of the proposals of my two noble friends with relation to the enlarged and very valuable definition of "good husbandry," to sacrifice these words.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

I shall say nothing about the last words of paragraph (b), because of the proposal of the noble Lord in charge of the Bill, although those who heard me on the Second Reading will not be surprised when I say that I agree with him, and that I should regard with nothing less than dismay if there was any great diminution of the existing amount of arable land in this country. I could not regard that as compatible with national safety, and, as your Lordships know, my support of this part of the Bill is based exclusively on that feeling.

But I put that aside altogether for the moment, and I come to the proposal of the noble Lord in charge of the Bill as bearing upon the Amendment to leave out paragraph (b) altogether. I take it from what has passed that most of us in this House are entirely agreed with the noble Lord in charge of the Bill on two matters. I do not say all of us, but most of us, are agreed with him that there may be a great improvement effected in the existing grass land of this country, and that it is reasonable in the national interest that the Minister and agricultural committees should under proper safeguards, have power to put pressure upon farmers who are not cultivating their grass land properly to improve it. If it is not thought that any such powers can wisely be entrusted to the Minister or committees, my argument will not be agreed with. I think also that those who concur with me in that respect will agree that it is important that when land now under the plough, which ought not to have been ploughed up, is put down again to grass, it should be properly put back to grass and not allowed to tumble to grass.

Lord Clinton has a very important Amendment, which I commend most heartily to the attention and good opinion of the noble Lord in charge of the Bill. It defines the rules of good husbandry, and the noble Lord endeavours in that definition to deal with those two points, and therefore it might be said, as has just been said by Lord Crewe, "Is it necessary to maintain any part of paragraph (b) even if you cut out the last line?" I think there is great force in the answer that Lord Lee made to that question. He pointed out that under paragraph (a) you may provide effectively for the proper farming of grass land and for the proper laying down of land to grass, but you are not protecting the farmer or the owner to the same extent as you are in paragraph (b) if the words stand as at present, because remember the words of paragraph (b) are as follows: "that the production of food on any land can, in the national interest and without injuriously affecting the persons interested in the land, be maintained or increased." I think those words are very important, and although I am a strenuous supporter of Lord Clinton's Amendment in respect of the definition of good husbandry, I do not think we shall be doing the farmer or the owner a good turn if we eliminate those words from the Bill.

LORD PHILLIMORE

I hope that paragraph (b) will be thrown out. Paragraph (a) is maintenance; (b) improvement. Nobody ought to be compelled to improve at a loss. If improvements can be done with success they are sure in the long run to be done.

LORD PARMOOR

I only want to say that in my view Lord Clinton's Amendment with regard to the definition of good husbandry meets all the point which the noble Lord has referred to, and I shall certainly press my Amendment to a division.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

As I ex-

Plained at the commencement of the debate, in order to save the rights of later Amendments I shall put the question whether the first seven words of paragraph (b) shall stand part of the clause.

On Question?—

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 34; Not-Contents, 140.

CONTENTS.
Birkenhead, L. (L. Chancellor.)	Farquhar, V. (L. Steward.)	Ernle, L.
Marlborough, D.	Sandhurst, V. (L. Chamberlain.)	Harris, L.
	Hardinge, V.	Hylton, L.
Bradford, E.	Milner, V.	Killanin, L.
Chesterfield, E.		Lee of Fareham, L.
Curzon of Kedleston, E.	Annesley, L. (V. Valentia)	Oriel, L. (V. Massereene.)
Kimberley, E.	Cawley, L.	Ranksborough, L.
Lucan, E.	Clwyd, L.	Rathereedan, L.
Lytton, E.	Cochrane of Cults, L.	Somreleyton, L. [Teller]
Onslow, E.	Colebrooke, L.	Stanmore, L. [Teller]
Selborne, E.	Cozens-Hardy, L.
Strange, E. (D. Atholl.)	Dewar, L.
Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)	Douglas, L. (E. Home)

NOT-CONTENTS.
Argyll, D.	Allendale, V.	Glenarthur, L.
Bedford, D.	Bangor, V.	Glentanar, L.
Northumberland, D.	Bertie of Thame, V.	Greville, L.
Richmond and Gordon. D.	Bryce, V.	Hastings, L.
Somerset, D.	Chaplin, V.	Hindlip, L.
Sutherland, D.	Chilston, V.	Islington, L.
Wellington, D.	Falmouth, V.	Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)
Bath, M.	Hampden, V.	Lamington, L.
Camden, M.	Harcourt, V.	Lawrence, L.
Cholmondeley, M.	Hood, V.	Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)
Crewe, M.	Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)	Monekton, L. V. Galway.)
Lincolnshire, M. (L. Great Chamberlain.)		Monk Bretton, L.
	Knollys, V.	Monson, L.
Linlithgow, M.		Montagu of Beaulieu, L.
Northampton, M.	Ashton of Hyde, L.	Mostyn, L.
Salisbury, M.	Askwith, L.	Nunburnholme, L.
	Avebury, L.	Oranmore and Browne, L.
Abingdon, E.	Balfour, L.	Ormathwaite, L.
Ancaster, E.	Bellew, L.	Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair.)
Caithness, E.	Berwick, L.	Parmoor, L. [Teller]
Chichester, E.	Bledisloe, L.	Penrhyn, L.
Dartmouth, E.	Blythswood, L.	Phillimore, L.
Devon, E.	Boston, L.	Queenborough, L.
Doncaster. E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)	Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne.)	Ranfurly, L. (E. Ranfurly.)
	Chalmers, L.	Rathdonnell, L.
Eldon, E.	Cheylesmore, L.	Ravensworth, L.
Graham, E. (D. Montrose.)	Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)	Rayleigh, L.
Grey, E.	Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)	Redesdale, L.
Harewood. E.	Clinton, L. [Teller.]	Ribblesdale, L.
Howe, E.	Cloncurry, L.	Ritchie of Dundee, L.
Ilchester, E.	Cottesloe, L.	Romilly, L.
Innes, E. (D. Roxburghe.)	Cranworth, L.	St. John of Bletso, L.
Jersey, E.	de Mauley, L.	St. Levan, L.
Kilmorey, E.	Decies, L.	Saye and Sele, L.
Lindsay, E.	Denman, L.	Sempill, L.
Lindsey. E.	Desborough, L.	Stanley of Alderley, L. (L. Sheffield.)
Lovelace, E.	Desart, L. (E. Desart.)
Malmesbury, E.	Dynevor, L.	Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)
Mayo, E.	Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.)
Midleton, E.	Ebury, L.	Strachie, L.
Morton, E.	Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)	Stuart of Wortley, L.
Plymouth, E.		Sumner, L.
Powis, E.	Elphinstone, L.	Swaythling, L.
Sandwich, E.	Erskine, L.	Sydenham, L.
Shaftesbury, E.	Fairfax of Cameron, L.	Wemyss, L. E. Wemyss.)
Stanhope, E.	Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)	Wolverton, L.
Stradbroke, E.	Faringdon, L.	Wyfold, L.
Waldegrave, E.	Farnham, L.	Wynford, L.
Westmeath, E.	Forbes, L.
Wicklow, E.	Forester, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.

[The sitting was suspended at eight o'clock and resumed at a quarter past nine.]

LORD PHILLIMORE

The next Amendments on the Paper in my name are merely consequential on the Amendment which the Minister of Agriculture was good enough to accept.

Amendments moved—

Page 4, line 17, leave out ("land") and insert ("such land as aforesaid")

page 4, line 23, leave out. ("land") and insert ("such land as aforesaid").—(Lord Phillimore.)

LORD HARRIS

Before these Amendments are put, may I ask whether the expression "dwelling-house" would not be more appropriate than Mansion. There are a good many houses to which this exception might apply that are hardly entitled to so grandiloquent a name as mansion.

LORD PHILLIMORE

I think that "mansion" is the conveyancing name. I have no objection to the word "dwelling-house," but I think "mansion" is the right word.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I understand these are merely drafting Amendments, and I accept them.

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH moved, in subsection (1), after "works" ["requiring him to execute the necessary works"], to insert "giving particulars thereof." The noble Duke said: These words were actually passed in the House of Commons on November 16 when Mr. Wood moved that they be inserted. They were accepted by the Government

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 29, after ("works") insert ("giving particulars thereof").—(The Duke of Buccleuch.)

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I agree with the noble Duke that, these words were agreed to, but I am informed that their object would be better carried out by the drafting Amendment which I have on the Paper—Clause 4, page 4, line 29—to leave out from "works" to "and" in line 30, and insert "specified in the notice within such time as may be so specified." I understand that covers the same ground in better legal form, and if the noble Duke will accept that from me I will move it instead.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH

I should like to have an opinion upon it, and if it is not so I shall move the Amendment on Report.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I am assured on good authority that it is so.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I move the Amendment standing in my name.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 29, leave out from ("works") to ("and") in line 30, and insert ("specified in the notice within such time as may be so specified").—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

The next Amendment in the name of Lord Clinton is consequential on what your Lordships have done.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 34, leave out from ("husbandry") to ("and") in line 38.—(Lord Clinton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD STRACHIE moved, in subsection (1), to leave out from "husbandry" ["in accordance with the rules of good husbandry"] to the end of the paragraph concluding "contract of tenancy." The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment. which stands on the Paper in my name.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 34, leave out from ("husbandry") to the end of line 10 on page 5.—(Lord Strachie.)

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I agree that the situation is getting a little complicated, but I will give your Lordships the best information I can on the matter. In view of the deletion of paragraph (b) I am not disposed to resist this particular Amendment, but I must point out that lines 3 to 10 on page 5 are intended to cover, amongst other things, cases where repairs have been executed by the owner or any works in circumstances which justify him in asking that the benefit derived therefrom by the tenant shall be recognised in the order by an increase of rent. On the Report stage I think it will be necessary to insert that provision.

LORD STRACHIE

Will it meet the noble Lord if I only move to leave out to the word "suspended" in line 3 on page 5?

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

Does the noble Lord move it in that form?

LORD STRACHIE

If the noble Lord, Lord Lee, wishes it; otherwise it would be necessary for me to move it as it stands.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I think that would be the best plan.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

Then I will put it in this form, "Page 4, line 38, leave out from what is now the beginning of the line to the end of line 10 on page 5."

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CLINTON moved, in the proviso to subsection (1), to leave out "or whether the production of food on the land can in the national interest be maintained or increased by the occupier by means of the required improvement in the existing method of cultivation or by the use of the land for arable cultivation, or whether such improvement or use will injuriously affect the persons interested in the land." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is consequential.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 14, leave out from ("husbandry") to ("or") in line 20.—(Lord Clinton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Loan DESBOROUGH moved to insert the following new subsection— (3) No action shall be taken by the Minister or by the agricultural committee (if any) under this section unless a full report in writing signed by the person making the inspection, whether on behalf of the Minister or of the committee, and setting out in detail the matters complained of and the improvements or works required, has been served upon the owner or occupier, as the case may be.

The noble Lord said: Subsection (2) of Clause 4 says that where any notice is served on a tenant a copy of the notice shall at the same time be served on the landlord. And subsection (3) goes on to say that where this notice has been Served, if the tenant does not comply with it he is to be fined £20 together with a fine of £1 a day. My desire is to put the new subsection which stands in my name on the Paper between subsections (2) and (3). The object of the new subsection is to ensure that the person who makes the inspection or order shall give the reasons for the faith that is in him in making the order. It will also make the person who is responsible for the order more careful in making it. I must confess that my enthusiasm for Government interference, or departmental interference, or even committee interference of any sort was never at fever heat, and it was still further diminished when in my immediate neighbourhood one Government Department took several hundred acres of our best wheat land and concreted a very large part of it. At the same time I acquit my noble friend (Lord Lee) of any complicity in that operation.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I fought against it.

Loup DESBOROUGH

But at the same time another Department with which my noble friend was very intimately connected made me, or somebody under his aegis made me plough up, at the same time that they were concreting the wheat land, some land which was under water. That land I have now to lay down to grass, because water is not very good for wheat, but a certain amount of Thames water does some good to grass. If a person gives these orders, which are followed by a fine of £20 and £1 a day—which is £365 a year—he ought to be able to give his reasons for it. It cannot be denied that during the war it was impossible to keep land and buildings connected with farming in as high a state of cultivation as was desired. The young men were taken away, and I think some allowance ought to be made for that by these committees. Supposing these orders were given by a committee of the county council, I should like to go to them and say "Look at your own road; I should like to fine you £20 and £1 a day until you are able to put those roads into proper repair"; and similarly some one under the Thames Conservancy might come to me and say "Look at your weirs, your locks, and towpaths"—which I have looked at, and I admit a great deal of money ought to be spent on them, but where is the money to come from? These local committees ought to take into consideration the deterioration which must necessarily take place after a war.

I hope that your Lordships will agree with me that, if a man is competent to order this fine, he ought at least to be competent to state his reasons in writing, which can be examined and if necessary acted upon. It would make these people more careful, and it would make the man who has to come down and make the order very carefully about what be says. As a matter of political economy you cannot, Whatever you do, make people grew anything that does not pay, and even when you are ordering these great improvements you must consider whether the farm itself can at the moment bear the very great expenditure which will be necessary. It is almost impossible to say that anything is not in the interest of good husbandry. You might produce more blades of grass, but you would render it absolutely impossible for him to make the farm pay. You cannot break the laws of political economy. The laws of political economy break you. I hope that it may be possible to insert this subsection for the protection of both the landlord and tenant, and ensure that they shall have full information as to what is required of them, why it is required, and what they ought to do.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 33, at end insert the said new sub-section.—(Lord Desborough.)

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

May I ask a question so that my noble friend Lord Lee may reply to it at the same time as he is answering the Amendment that has been moved by Lord Desborough. It seems very hard that a man should be fined £20 and £1 a day from the very day he does not comply. It may be that the subsequent clauses cover this. But surely he has a right of appeal. If he has a right of appeal it naturally follows, as Lord Desborough says, that everything must be put down in writing. Therefore Lord Desborough's Amendment is not necessary. It seems only fair that if a man has to comply with certain orders he ought to have a right of appeal against those orders. I must say I do not think there is any harm in Lord Desborough's proviso, but if there is an absolute proviso that the order can be appealed against, whether it is at. Quarter Sessions, or before a County Court Judge, or in the High Court, naturally everything must be put down in writing because when it comes before them they will want the proper evidence.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

In answer to Lord Kimberley's question, there is of course a right of appeal in the case of every order of every sort and kind in connection with this section. I think that covers his point.

With regard to the Amendment itself, Lord Desborough has said a great many things with which I am in cordial agreement. I think that the "concreting" of good wheat land is not perhaps the best preparation for the crop that will follow, and he was good enough to say, what is indeed the fact, that that operation, which was intended for other war purposes which I will not go into now having enough troubles of my own without defending the Slough enterprise, had some meaning at the time. But I remember also that I resisted these proposals very strongly in my capacity as food producer, because it took away good wheat land. I was not a member of the Government, and therefore there is no divergence of views. I was only a humble official carrying out the policy of those above me, but I quite agree in that case there was a very unfortunate loss of arable land. That, however, does not seem to me, if I may say so, strictly relevant to this Amendment, which is on a very narrow point.

It is that an official of the Ministry, or of the county committee—a paid Civil Servant probably—should be compelled to disclose the reports that he makes to his Department or to the committee which employes him. I believe that is contrary to the whole practice of the Civil Service, and it would make it utterly impossible for subordinate officials, who are very often charged with difficult and unpleasant duties, that their reports to their superior officers should have to be produced and made public. I venture to say that is a thing entirely without precedent.

LORD DESBOROUGH

I do not think that is the meaning. It is that he should be able to draw up a report and give the reasons why a man is going to be fined, so that the man might know them.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

Of course, in their reports these officers give reasons to the committees and the detailed facts in connection with the particular case. That, obviously, is done. But to say that these reports must be produced and that the unfortunate individual who made them, and who may be in a very humble position, should be exposed to the sort of controversy that would arise, possibly proceedings for alleged libel, is not desirable. This is a question which has been fought out many times in the history of the Civil Service and it has always been ruled that it is impossible for subordinate officers to be called upon to produce their reports. The Ministry, or the county committee, must take the responsibility. I do not think you can go further than that.

LORD HARRIS

I am sorry to hear the reply of Lord Lee. It seems to me to be extremely official and extremely inconsiderate. A man is indicted before the public for bad farming and I submit that he is entitled to know, on paper, what he is charged with. If the Ministry choose to take the responsibility off the informer's shoulders it will be, of course, free to do so. What Lord Desborough presses for—no doubt he will accept an alteration in his phraseology—is that the man who is charged with an offence shall know on paper what he is being charged with and that the offence shall be stated in actual details, if improvements are required that they shall be set forth in detail.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

There is a little misunderstanding. The words of the Amendment state "the report in writing signed by the person making the inspection." He would be a subordinate officer of the Ministry or the county committee. If Lord Desborough would excise those words, then the rest of the Amendment does not raise the question of principle which I have referred to.

LORD LAMINGTON

I hope the noble Lord will stick to his Amendment. This is quite new legislation on the part of the Government, and I do not think we can quote the precedents of the past as to the habits and procedure of civil servants in furnishing a report under this entirely new form of legislation. The new situation has to be dealt with by new methods, and whoever furnishes a report should produce it in writing to the person affected.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

The main thing is that the report should be signed by the responsible body and not by underlings. We had a good deal to do with these private reports in the Army and the enormous difficulty it placed on junior officers to have to sign a report. The main thing is that the man whose actions are complained of should know officially the complaint against him and that it should be put against him by the official head of the Department. We do not want to make it difficult for a junior official, who is trying to do his work as best he can, to give an honest report. The Department should shoulder the responsibility. We want to get an honest opinion, and protect those who give that honest opinion. Instead of the report being "signed by the person making the inspection" it should be signed by the person responsible for the inspection.

THE EARL OF ANCASTER

I confess that I do not quite understand the case in point, but it seems to me that if this clause is to remain and people are to be fined for not doing something which they have been ordered to do, the clause is quite sufficient as it stands. It is true that we are setting up a new indictable offence and that a farmer, if he refuses to carry out an Order made upon him by one of the agricultural committees, is liable to be summoned and fined in a Court of Summary Jurisdiction. Almost every Act of Parliament contains similar provisions. I have always thought in the past that anybody who owned a bicycle or a motor car was particularly lucky if he had not to appear once a year, or more often, before the local magistrates for offending against by-laws in respect of bicycles and motor cars. Under this Bill, it is true, you are adding a fresh danger to the occupying of land, because it is likely, if you are an occupier of land, that you will have to appear before the local bench.

I have been on a committee which has prosecuted in one or two cases under D.O.R.A. where there was failure to carry out its Orders. Before the prosecution was undertaken the case was most carefully gone into, naturally. The committee made several inspections and heard a good deal of evidence as to whether the man was absolutely determined to stand out against the Orders of the committee; a consultation took place with the Board of Agriculture in London, and every care was taken before the man Was prosecuted to see that we had a good case to take to Court. It seems to me that the sank thing will take place now, and that where a man is ordered to clean his land and to cultivate it properly, and refuses to do so, the same procedure will be gone through. No doubt the local committee will inquire, first of all, whether the man has made any effort to carry out this Order, and if they find that protestations and letters are useless their only course is to write to the Minister of Agriculture asking to be allowed to prosecute. The Bill is quite strong enough as it stands. I am one of those who think that if this measure is to be any use at all it must provide some means of getting at the farmer who does not cultivate his land properly. If everything is to be hedged round with conditions so that farmers can go on as they like and defy both the agriculture committee and the Minister of Agriculture, it appears to me that the Bill will be of little use.

On the general question of these claims and penalties, I think the whole position is a very strange one, because there is no doubt that in a large number of cases men will be asked to carry out things which they have no money to do, and the only alternative is to leave the farm. From my experience of working the Orders, I think any committee would hesitate a long time to prosecute some small man whom they knew had not sufficient funds to carry out the Order. Personally, I cannot see why an exception should be made in this case. I suppose a man will receive notice of summons before the magistrate and will know what he is summoned for; and if it is to be made an indictable offence I cannot see why an exception should be made in the case of a man who stubbornly refuses to cultivate his land properly. I cannot see why he should be exempted where a large number of other people who, by various Acts of Parliament which are passed, are made subject to fine and to indictment and are haled before the magistrates, will not have the same safeguard. I should have thought that the same process would be gone through in every ease, and I cannot see that any special protection is required for the farmer.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I venture to think that there is no substantial difference of opinion between my noble friend and the Minister of Agriculture, except in respect of the words "signed by the person making the inspection." I think that is the total amount of the objection. He says, as most of us say, that if a man is to be exposed to these heavy penalties the details of what is complained of should be laid before him. That seems to be almost elementary, and I think we are obliged to Lord Desborough for having brought the matter before our notice. The point which the Minister of Agriculture took was that the subordinate official ought not to make public the secrets of his office, and that he should not be made personally responsible. I think that there is a certain force in his objection, and I should have thought that if my noble friend the Minister of Agriculture would agree to leaving out the words "signed by the person making the inspection" we might come to an arrangement at once.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I am quite prepared to agree to that. I am only seeking to protect what I think are the legitimate rights of the subordinate. Really he is not responsible himself. The Minister or the committee must be responsible.

LORD DESBOROUGH

My object is to prevent action being taken by the Minister or committee until the man knows in writing the reason that proceedings are being taken. I am not willing, but I will with pleasure adopt the suggestion that has been made—my friends are so persuasive—and leave out the words" signed by the person making the inspection." Perhaps the Minister of Agriculture will be good enough to suggest words. I want there to be a report in writing before action is taken, in order to prevent the man from having the trouble of fighting the case before he knows what it is.

LORD PHILLIMORE

I would suggest that we do not want the word "whether" in the fourth line.

LORD DESBOROUGH

I would also like to ask whether "owner or occupier, as the case may be" would be as strong, as "owner and occupier."

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I understand that the noble Lord wishes two notices to be sent.

LORD DESBOROUGH

Where it is necessary.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I do not object to the word "and" instead of "or."

LORD DESBOROUGH

Then the words "as the case may be" will come out.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

I understand that the noble Lord moves the insertion of the new subsection in the following words— (3) No action shall be taken by the Minister or by the agricultural committee (if any) under this section unless a full report in writing signed on of the Minister or of the committee. setting out in detail the matters complained of and the improvements or works required, has been served upon the owner and occupier.

LORD DESBOROUCH

Yes, I move it in that form.

On Question, Amendment as amended agreed to.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

The next Amendment is purely drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 22, leave out ("in respect of an improvement").—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD LAMINGTON moved, at the end of subsection (4), to insert "Provided that the owner shall be allowed to deduct from such costs the value of any allowances or benefits given to the tenant in respect of such repairs." The noble Lord said: My object is that something in addition to the ordinary compensation might be given in return for some facilities or assistance which may have been rendered. Some quid pro quo might be given, and it is only fair that it should be included.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 23, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Lamington.)

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

No doubt the noble Lord is aware that these are not repairs that are executed under any agreement between the landlord and tenant. They are repairs which are executed under an order from the agricultural committee. Of course, if the landlord is willing to assist in the sense of supplying material—tiles for drainage, or whatever it may be—to that extent the cost incurred by the tenant would obviously be reduced without any such provision as is contained in this Amendment, which I think is superfluous.

LORD LAMINGTON

The Committee might give some quid pro quo in some other direction, such as lending horses to do other work.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

It would make legislation exceedingly ambiguous and difficult.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF JERSEY moved, in subsection (5), to leave out from "notice" where that word first occurs, to the end of the subsection. The noble Earl said: The object of this Amendment is to prevent the latter part of the subsection from stultifying the first part. The paragraph seems to say that the Minister is not to require work to be executed in less than a month unless he wishes to do so. You might as well put up a notice saying, "Persons are not to walk on the grass unless they wish to walk on the grass." That seems to be the substance of the subsection. Further than that, it seems to be aggravated in a somewhat unnecessary manner. Very wide powers have been conferred on the Minister. He is to have paramount power over all the land in the country and is also to be empowered to override the regulations that are set down for his guidance. I do not suggest that the noble Lord himself would take any undue advantage of these powers, but I suggest that one month is in itself a very short time in which to carry out any order given under the Notice. Moreover, the subsection as it stands is absolutely meaningless. Therefore I move my Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 26, leave out from ("notice") to end of line 28.—(The Earl of Jersey.)

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

So far as I recall, this subsection was inserted in another place owing to an express desire that these notices should as a rule not come into force too suddenly, and a period of one month was suggested. I am sorry that I do not feel able to accept the noble Earl's Amendment, for this reason. There are certain situations—for example, in which an order is made with regard to the destruction of noxious weeds. If you are to say that the order may not be executed for a month the whole of the damage might be done, and the injury to neighbours that would result would be irretrievable. Those are the sort of things which this is intended to cover. It is in the discretion of the Minister to order the execution to take place at an earlier date. That is the only object of it, and I hope the noble Earl will see that otherwise there might be a danger that weeds might be allewed to flourish for a month with unfortunate results on the neighbourhood.

LORD BLEDISLOE

May I respectfully suggest that this subclause should be referred to the legal adviser of the Ministry to consider whether he can, before Report stage, put it in a more intelligible shape, because it appears to me to be a contradiction in terms. If the noble Lord desires to deal with the particular case he refers to, it should be done by a clause specifically framed for that purpose. He ought not to allow the clause to be so framed as to allow one part of it to contradict the rest.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I hope the matter may be left to me and not to the legal adviser of the Ministry. I shall be glad to consider the point, and if on further examination the words are found to be ambiguous or meaningless we will take steps to put them right on Report. I have made clear what the intention is.

THE EARL OF JERSEY

I do not desire to press my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF JERSEY moved to leave out subsection (6). The noble Earl said: This is an Amendment of considerably more importance than the last. I originally put down one or two Amendments on this subsection of a much less far-reaching character so as to attain the object I had in view—namely, that the owner should not be entirely disregarded in any action that the Minister might think fit to take, and also that the sanctity of contracts should as far as possible be respected and preserved. I do not wish to traverse all the ground that has already been covered or to repeat what I said on this matter on the Second Reading of the Bill. I have left in the two other Amendments and, if necessary, I may be permitted to say something more should occasion arise to move them.

Since putting the Amendments down it has occurred to me that possibly the noble Lord, Lord Lee, might see his way to consider favourably a somewhat wider suggestion. Therefore I have adopted the bolder course in this Amendment of inviting him to drop this subsection altogether, and in later Amendments I have invited him to drop other subsections which would be more or less consequential should he see fit to agree to my present proposal. If he could see his way to drop this subsection a great many of the most irritating features of control would be removed, the Bill would be much less objectionable to many who, while fully concurring in all that was done during war time, cannot look at things now from quite the same point of view.

In effect I am asking him to give up altogether the powers of taking possession of land or determining tenancies and to rely only on those minor penalties which are set out in subsection (3) as being adequate to maintain that high standard of cultivation which I think we should all agree it is absolutely essential to try to preserve. I am sure the noble Lord will believe that many of us who concurred in what was done a few years since would welcome this proposal in no sense as a reflection on anything that has been done in the past. I commend it to the noble Lord on three grounds—that it would promote simplicity and economy; that it would in no way prejudice efficiency; and that it would allay a great deal of irritation which must always be present so long as control exists. I should most cordially welcome any step in the direction of encouraging good will and co-operation between the Ministry, the agricultural committees, the landlords, and the occupiers of land, and I am sure that anything that could be done in the way of minimising these very drastic powers and of eliminating any possible friction would go a very long way towards securing the objects which really underlie the whole of this Part of the Bill.

I do not propose to deal with any subsequent Amendments, but it might save time if I say that should the noble Lord see his way to drop this subsection, and the powers that are conferred on the Ministry thereby, subsections (9), (11), (12), (13) and (14) would, I think, also go with it. If this proposal is accepted I need not repeat on those subsections what I have just said.

Amendment moved— Page 6. line 29, to line 5 on page 7. leave out subsection (6).—(The Earl of Jersey.)

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I have given a good deal of consideration to this matter since I saw the noble Earl's Amendments and I noticed that they were all connected. What passes through my mind is this. Under the original Act the only power that the committees or the Minister possessed to deal with cases of neglect to comply with an Order was either to evict, in the case of a tenant, or to enter upon and take possession of the land in the case of an owner or occupier. Those, I admit, are extremely drastic penalties for dealing with what might be comparatively small offences. I attach to the noble Earl's opinion in this matter great importance, as he was chairman of one of these county committees throughout the war. It is perfectly true that we have found in many cases that the punishment was too heavy for the crime. It would be rather like having no penalty for petty larceny in common law except capital punishment, and in these humane days, even though that was the penalty provided by law, we know that there would be a great reluctance on the part of the administrators of the law to put the penalty into force. To that extent I agree that the very size of the penalty was a hindrance to the carrying out of the work which we wished to do.

It is true there is the case of the Minister entering upon the land himself and proceeding to farm it. I am not very optimistic about what is called farming from Whitehall. I never have been, and I do not expect I ever shall be. In many cases where land has been entered upon for this purpose during the war a great success has been made of it, but I will be equally frank and say there have been cases where it has not been so successful. While that power may have had its real uses in time of war, I am rather shaken in my belief that it is of very great value in time of peace, particularly now that we have already passed a system of minor punishments for these small offences.

I am also aware that some of your Lordships have been kind enough to say in the course of these debates, no doubt from considerations of politeness, "It is all very well for you"—they have even gone so far as to express a certain measure of confidence in me personally as long as I hold my present position; but they say, "Supposing that after your time a Bolshevist Minister of Agriculture were appointed; he would exercise these powers in an entirely different way." Although I think it is bad legislation to be safeguarding yourselves against some future undesirable Minister, at the same time it is quite conceivable that there might be a very enthusiastic Minister of Agriculture who had a deep-rooted belief in his powers to farm from Whitehall, and he might be tempted under these powers to conduct a number of operations of this kind which might or might not be a success. And there might be agricultural committees animated by the same belief in their own capacity, and who might also be tempted to enter upon land on a considerable scale. I am speaking rather frankly as this matter passes through my mind, but I feel that, balancing the advantages for and against, on the whole the balance is against the retention of these particular powers. So far as I can see, what we are really trying to get by this Bill in the way of reasonable powers by committees to enforce proper cultivation and so forth could be quite as efficiently carried out, in some cases perhaps more so, if they had to rely upon other means.

In those circumstances, although I do not like throwing overboard a large portion of the measure for which I am responsible, 1 think there is force in the case that has been put forward, and as I know that your Lordships dislike the use of powers which are in themselves not absolutely necessary I should feel disposed, subject to your Lordships' approval, to accept the noble Earl's Amendment in the first instance with regard to this particular subsection, but it is obvious, that, if I do, it must carry with it the excision of subsections (9), (11), (12), (13) and (14).

THE EARL OF JERSEY

I am very much obliged.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

I understand this is by the general sanction of the House. In that case I can put the whole of the subsection.

LORD SHEFFIELD

I should like to ask the noble Lord in charge of the Bill, if he gets rid of the drastic power of turning out a tenant what remedy does he propose for a persistently recalcitrant tenant who does not obey the order?

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

As far as I can see, he would spend most of his days in gaol.

THE EARL OF ANCASTER

Before this subsection is submitted, I should like to ask a further question. If a tenant is thoroughly bad and you want to get rid of him, as in the case of a tenant who has failed to farm his land properly, you find that the threat of the agricultural committee entering upon his land has no effect; now apparently he is to be given security of tenure. I am not very well acquainted with the Bill, but it appears to me if this subsection comes out it may be perfectly possible for a tenant to defy the agricultural committee for a long time when he is threatened with a prosecution, and then perhaps at a later date, if the agricultural committee has threatened to go on his land and clean the land themselves, he may do a little, and after two or three years, the landlord's land all the time being deteriorated, the landlord will be unable to get rid of him. He will always be able to get rid of him by paying compensation, but, as I understand, this is a clause by which you get rid of a tenant who does not farm his land properly.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

Obviously the way to get rid of a tenant is for the landlord to give him notice. It is clearly provided further in the Bill that in a case of that kind where the tenant is obviously in default, that default being reinforced by a certificate from the committee that he is cultivating his land badly, the landlord will be able to give notice with perfect impunity without having to pay any compensation at all.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF ANCASTER moved, at the beginning of subsection (7), to leave out "estate or." The noble Earl said: I am moving this Amendment to find out whether the word "estate" which occurs often in this subsection is necessary. If it is accepted and the word "estate" is left out then it would have to be left out in a great many other parts of this subsection and would necessitate several consequential Amendments. The word occurring here must mean agricultural land, but I am in doubt whether later on in the subsection where the word "estate" only is used it may not cover a great many other things besides land. It is perfectly clear that if the Ministry is to take over a man's agricultural estate and manage it as they think fit it is hardly fair that the rest of his estate, which may be in goods or chattels, should also become liable to be taken over by the Ministry.

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 7. leave out ("estate or").—(The Earl of Ancaster.)

VISCOUNT MILNER

I do not see how "agricultural estate" could possibly mean goods and chattels.

THE EARL OF ANCASTER

The word "estate" occurs in a good many other places without the word "agricultural," and I should like to have some expression of opinion from other noble Lords as to whether it means anything else in the latter part of the clause besides agricultural land. It was put in in the House of Commons; I do not know for what reason. I should have preferred to have left it at "agricultural land" so as to be quite clear.

LORD HARRIS

This subsection is very obscure. What is good estate management? And what is meant by food production I wish the word farinaceous had been used. That is what is meant. You are not talking about animal food. The object of the Bill is to encourage the growth of cereals and not the growth of cattle and sheep. That was what the Royal Commission was instructed to find out—how to grow cereals to a larger extent than before; and that is what you are trying to encourage in this Bill. You do not refer to animal food at all. You want to see flocks and herds disappear.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM indicated dissent.

LORD HARRIS

Oh yes, you do; I beg your pardon. You have an idea that by soiling, which is the technical expression for cultivating herds by means of arable cultivation, you are going to increase the flocks and herds. That has to be proved; but what you are aiming at is to see a much larger acreage of the land of England cultivating cereals. That must mean a decrease to a certain extent of flocks and herds. That is inevitable.

But what is good estate management? One breeder of racehorses I know, who is an owner of property and a successful horse breeder, devotes a certain part of his estate to breeding horses. One of these committees may take it into its head to say "You are not producing food, either animal or, as we do not eat horses in this country, farinaceous, and that is not good estate management." It is very doubtful indeed to what decision any committee might come as to what is good estate management. It seems to me quite as necessary to put in a definition of estate management as of good husbandry.

LORD BLEDISLOE

Although I should like to acquit the Minister of any intention of climinating entirely our flocks and herds in order to provide farinaceous or other vegetable food, I am bound to say that this subsection is very ambiguous. The noble Lord opposite moves to omit the words "estate or." I should have thought, on the other hand, that the words "or land" ought to be omitted. Your Lordships will kindly notice the different treatment accorded on the one hand to the tenant and on the other to the landowner, in the case of land cultivated by the particular individual. In the early part of the clause it is provided that if a tenant does not cultivate his land properly notice is served upon him, and in the last resort he is fined, perhaps somewhat heavily. If the landlord does not cultivate his home farm properly it is not a question of a fine. More drastic treatment is meted out to him, and there arrives a receiver and manager who takes full control of his estate. I cannot believe that it is really intended by the noble Lord to differentiate so markedly between landlords and tenants in similar cases.

LORD SUMNER

So far as I know, speaking only as a lawyer, the words "estate or" mean nothing in this clause, and as they mean nothing at all they are vicious and had better be left out. It is quite certain that someone will try to attach to the words a meaning more extensive than that of land. One understands what the management of land is. The management of a landed estate, as distinguished from the management of land, must go to some point in the management which is not a question of cultivation at all, but of the proper behaviour of the nobleman or gentleman who happens to own landed property, and I hardly think you propose to put that part of his functions in the domain of the Minister of Agriculture or a county agricultural committee. So far as I know, good estate management means simply good management of the land and, with very great diffidence speaking on an agricultural subject, I should urgently suggest that the words "estate or" should be left out right through. By doing so you cannot possibly make the clause worse, and you may make it rather better.

THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW

May I ask the noble Lord whether the words "agricultural estate or land" can be held to include minerals?

LORD LEE OF PAREHAM

Perhaps I had better not discuss on this Amendment the Main question of the object we have in view by this particular subsection. I think that will arise in a more direct form on the Amendment of the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, which follows. In regard to the Amendment on the Paper, to leave out the words "estate or," I am not quite clear what noble Lords have in mind. Of course, I accept the statement of Lord Sumner that the words "estate or" have no meaning, but I want to be sure that the object is not to confine the receiver, who will be put in under these circmustances and who will be in the position of an agent of the property, to functions which would not be as wide as those of the ordinary agent managing an agricultural estate. It seems to me that it would be almost impossible for him to manage the estate properly if, for example, he were not given control over the agricultural cottages on the estate. It is not clear whether if the word "land" only remains he would be excluded from any control over the cottages or other necessary equipment of an agricultural estate. All that we are aiming at is to put him in the position of the agent of an agricultural estate. I hope nothing will be done to water that down, because otherwise his position would be quite impossible. It is for those reasons that the words "estate or" were put in. I am subject to correction, and if high legal authority tells me they do not carry out our intention I shall be glad to hear it.

THE EARL OF ANCASTER

I am supported by the authority of Lord Sumner, and I think it is a very dangerous thing to have these words in the clause The noble Lord in charge of the Bill has given us no very definite reason why these words should be inserted except that the receiver who is put in should have charge of the landowner's cottages. The landowner may have cottages on the estate in which are people who have no connection with the management of the estate. The gardener might be included, but I do not see why the groom or electrician should be. Then the noble Lord says the Receiver is to have control of everything of which the ordinary land estate agent would have control. I think that in many cases would be a very great part of the landowner's property and possessions. There are, for instance, certain incomes derived from land, such as royalties, tithe—I believe I still receive some tithe—and quit rents. All these things are dealt with by the estate agent and are part and portion of an agricultural estate, but have nothing to do with the derelict fields of which the Receiver may be placed in charge. I admit that there is something to be said for taking charge of the management of land which is not properly cultivated, but I think no door should be opened for the Receiver to get hold of something which legally belongs to the landowner and has nothing to do with the field which the Receiver is going to manage.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

I should like to support the Amendment of the noble Earl, because we want to know what are going to be the powers of the Receiver. Although a strong Tory I am sufficiently Radical to wish to see all estates properly managed, and when I see an estate not properly managed I should like to see a Receiver in charge running it for what I may call the benefit of the public. If the owner cannot run it properly the Government should be strong enough to do so. But you are only just nibbling at it at present, and we want to know what is going to be the scope of the Receiver's powers, and then it is easy to decide what should be his duties. We understand that this man may have an ordinary land agent's duties, but in my- case those duties would run over something like 200,000 acres, and as this Bill runs a receiver's duties might extend over the whole of that.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

I think it will help matters if my noble friend will make his case for this sub-clause now. He proposes to make it later, but I think it will help the whole discussion if he will do it now.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH

Before that is done I should like to point out that the noble Duke who spoke just now wanted to know what it was intended to do. I think my noble friend opposite made it clear. He said that his object was that the receiver put in should be exactly in the same position as the owner's agent. That obviously means he would not only have charge of the agricultural land but he would have charge of the woodlands and of all the building land and everything else. That would be an intolerable position. It is not in the least likely that the man would be competent to have charge of such things. It might be satisfactory for some part of the agricultural land, but he would make a frightful hash of the rest. He would perhaps simply appropriate the land in the way that the Government are able to appropriate Votes from one Department to another. It is a most dangerous thing. We are all in favour of land being properly managed, but if I interpreted my noble friend aright what he advocates is a great danger which I hope your Lordships will not agree to.

VISCOUNT MILNER

I think it may save time and prevent misunderstanding if I say at once, on behalf of my noble friend and on behalf of the Government, that whatever be the literal interpretation of the words used it is riot the intention or the desire of the Government that the receiver put in should discharge the functions of the landlord's agent or take the place of the landlord's agent in respect of any of the landlord's interests other than those connected directly with his agricultural land. It is quite true, as the noble Duke says, that the landlord's agent may be his manager, his agent for mines and for other interests connected with agricultural land. There is no intention at all on the part of the Government to put the receiver in that position. It is merely a desire to give him all the powers——

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

What about woodlands?

VISCOUNT MILNER

I am not prepared to answer about woodlands without further consideration. I only want to make clear the intention. Evidently mines are clearly outside the functions of the man. I only wanted to explain to the noble Duke lest there should be any unnecessary debate about a misunderstanding. He has interpreted our intentions in a much wider sense than is really justified.

LORD SHEFFIELD

We are not concerned so much with the intentions of the Government as with the wording of the Bill, and if it gives power to put in a manager on account of some particular detail, it is giving a wide power. A man may be the owner of a considerable property of ten thousand acres or more, and that part of it let to tenants may be well managed. But he may have a home farm in the hands of someone who entirely mismanages it. Is it to be said that because a particular section is mismanaged you are to put in a manager for the whole? That is going much too far It is useless to say what your intention is. You should make it clear in the Bill itself.

LORD STRACHIE

I will ask my noble friend Why he has not replied to the question put by Lord Bledisloe, as to why the landlord should be treated so drastically in this matter as compared with the tenant?

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I have not had an opportunity.

LORD PHILLIMORE

Will the noble Lord allow me to say a few words first? My noble friend Lord Sumner is, I conceive, quite right in using the words. The proper construction of this section is this: If a field is badly cultivated you put a receiver in on that field. If a farm is badly cultivated you put a receiver on that farm. But you do not put a receiver on a cottage because a field is badly cultivated. Quœre, whether you put a receiver on a cottage if it belongs to the farm. But it is obvious that the Government put a different construction upon these words. It is obvious they put upon them the construction that a receiver may take the whole estate because one, two, or three farms, or possibly all the agricultural farms, on the estate are badly cultivated. If so they ought to put in clearer words. if they do not mean that, these words ought to go out, and I hope your Lordships will strike them out.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I have been trying for some time to put in a word, so to speak. on this subject. I should like to confirm what my noble friend Lord Milner said, that our object is perfectly clear, that we wish the receiver to have to do only with the agricultural estate which is the particular subject of this Order. If the words are not sufficiently clear I will undertake on Report to put in or submit to your Lordships words which will make it perfectly clear, in proper legal form Drafting in the presence of the House is always difficult, and I hope your Lordships will give me that latitude.

NOBLE LORDS

Heat, hear.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

In reply to the suggestion of the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, that I should explain the real object of this subsection, I thought I should have an opportunity of doing that better, perhaps, on the Amendment of the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, later on. But I am very anxious to make the matter plain without further delay. This section is not intended to deal with the ordinary case of a landlord who may not be cultivating his estate to the very best advantage. That is not in the least what we have in mind, and we would never for a moment propose to take these drastic powers to deal with a situation of that kind.

Unfortunately, there are a certain number of cases (I am thankful to say they are not very numerous, but they are sufficiently numerous to be a real scandal and offence in the neighbourhoods in which they occur where it is not a question merely of more or less production of food but where the mismanagement or oppression of tenants is so gross and so scandalous that it becomes not only an injury to the State but a real affront to the whole countryside and a reproach to the whole body of landlords throughout the country, who gather quite undeserved criticism from the existence of these people.

NOBLE, LORDS

Hear, hear.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I am not speaking without positive information with regard to these matters. I do not think your Lordships would desire that I should quote cases, names, or places in a debate of this kind, but I have here—and I shall be prepared to show privately to any one who is interested—the sort of cases with which I am concerned. There are cases for example. where the owner of the estate has had twenty-three agents in the course of seventeen years; where the tenants have been actually prevented from clearing the ditches, or being able to get material—gravel, and so forth which is actually on the estate for the upkeep of roads, yards, and foundations; where tenants have been summarily evicted because they ventured to serve on a war committee, and where they have made a complaint to their landlord because their crops were being destroyed by his deer which he refused to fence in. That is an actual case. There are others which I could quote which are hardly less gross and in some cases more so—cases where a man may not perhaps be in his right mind.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

Give the Hampshire case.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

There was a case in the county with which my noble friend is very familiar. There is a landowner there whose one hobby is litigation, whose one amusement in life is taking people into Court and invariably losing his case. He quarrels perpetually with his tenants and his neighbours, and, finding that these quarrels are in some ways inconvenient, he proceeds practically to lay waste his estate, refuses to accept any tenants, refuses to allow the land to be cultivated, and brings a whole section of his county into a scandalous condition. That is the sort of case—and there are others, I regret to say—at which we are aiming in this particular subsection. We say that when an estate is so scandalously mismanaged that it is in a sense a positive injury to the State and a scandal to the countryside the only way of dealing with it—because cultivation notices are not of the slightest use in dealing with cases of that kind—is that for the time being the State should take charge of that estate, put in an agent to administer it, and try and bring it back to a proper state of cultivation.

The noble Marquess has put down words which are intended to make it more plain that it is only exceptional cases which are aimed at. I am not sure that his words go even far enough. I am quite prepared to see them strengthened if he has any proposal for strengthening those governing words so as to make it perfectly clear that we are not aiming at an estate which is not, according to some high standard of Farming, conducted in Perhaps the very best way.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I think my noble friend opposite has done wisely in explaining to your Lordships the case of the Government for this particular subsection, but I am quite sure that all your Lordships, as you listened to the Minister of Agriculture, must have been convinced, as he himself admitted, that the words as they stand in the Bill are very much wider than he really desires. I do not suppose there is any one of us here who is interested in the land who desires to defend or excuse the sort of cases which the noble Lord has quoted. They are a scandal, of course, and it is the existence of these cases which move one's indignation, because they bring the whole of the landed interest into contempt and into obloquy. I believe, however, that they are exceedingly few. I do not believe that there are more than can be numbered on the fingers of both hands, if as many, in the whole of Great Britain. Therefore it seems to me that there is no reason for any of your Lordships either to defend these cases or to prevent their being dealt with. what happens so often in England is that in consequence of a few scandalous cases all ordinary respectable God-fearing people come and say, "Here is an awful case; we must have a change in the law," and so all of us who look after our estates to the best of our ability are exposed to all sorts of restrictive legislation because of these wretched individuals who misuse their powers.

I believe that that was what the Government designed to meet, but owing to the way in which they have drawn their clause it would affect a great number of people who are in all respects admirable cultivators of the soil. The words are so wide that they would cover cases where, perhaps, a landlord allowed a tenant, an old friend who had been on the estate a long time and who was not quite perfect, to go on a few years longer. That would bring the wretched and unfortunate landlord within the mischief of the clause. That was not intended. The provision was so wide that it covered such cases as that. I tried my hand at amending it, and I am not satisfied in the least with my effort. I agree with my noble friend opposite that my Amendment is not nearly complete enough. I have some other words which I will submit to your Lordships. Of course, if your Lordships wish it not to be moved now, but to be postponed until Report, I would naturally fall in entirely with your Lordships wishes.

I propose to leave out the words, "cultivates or manages the estate or land in a manner inconsistent with good management and so as to prejudice materially the production of food thereon" and to insert these words in their place, "grossly mismanages the estate or land so as to prejudice materially the production of food thereon and the welfare of those who are engaged in the cultivation of the estate or land." The difference is that I get the word "grossly" in, which certainly corresponds to my feeling, Whatever its value may be in law, and I believe it corresponds with the feelings of your Lordships and I also get in not merely the "production of food" but the welfare of the people on the land.

I know that in the estates which most of your Lordships are well acquainted with, what we care about most is that both our tenants and our cottagers should be properly treated, and it is a thing which perhaps makes one more indignant than anything else when we hear that some estates have been grossly mismanaged and the tenants harassed, as in the examples which the noble Lord has cited, or in the cases of labourers, winch makes us more indignant than when the land itself has been ill-treated. I would submit my words for your Lordships' acceptance. I cannot move them now because I believe there is another Amendment before the Committee, but as soon as that Amendment is disposed of I will move them. Your Lordships could then see them in the Bill between now and Report, and if they required further strengthening I would do my best to strengthen them.

THE EARL OF DARTMOUTH

Might I make one suggestion to my noble friend? The Amendment of which he has given us the words includes the words "estate or," and I was under the impression that we agreed to leave those out.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

That was not agreed to, and I did not dare to do it.

LORD PHILLIMORE

I think we might leave it now. But before the Report stage this clause ought to be considered with the assistance of the legal advisers.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I will certainly undertake to do so, if that is the wish of your Lordships.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

It is obviously the wish of your Lordships that a general discussion should take place. At the same time the actual Amendment before the House is Lord Ancaster's. I do not know whether he desires to press it or not.

THE EARL OF ANCASTER

After the advice we have had from two learned Lords, probably the word "land" would be better than the word "estate." Perhaps I had better leave it.

Amendment by leave withdrawn.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I move my Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 10, leave out "cultivates or" down to the end of line 12, and insert "grossly mismanages the estate or land so as to prejudice materially the production of foods thereon and the welfare of those who are engaged in the cultivation of the estate or land."—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

Might I suggest a very small alteration which I think would strengthen the words of the noble Marquess. I suggest "grossly mismanages the estate or land to such an extent as to prejudice."

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Yes.

LORD BLEDISLOE

May I suggest that "or" would be a better word than "and." As the Amendment stands it contemplates the case where food production is prejudiced and at the same time the welfare of those employed on the estate. These drastic powers ought to come into force if either alone are prejudiced.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I am not sure whether your Lordships would agree to that. It would make it turn upon food production alone or the management of the estate alone, and not both together. I am entirely in the hands of the Committee.

LORD SHEFFIELD

As this is a matter of drafting I think the better course would be to agree to the Amendment and the Government can then bring up a well considered clause on Report.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE moved, in the first paragraph of subsection (7), after "the production of food thereon" to insert "and it is shown to the satisfaction of the Minister by the said Committee that not less than six months' previous notice in writing has been given by the said Committee to the owner of their intention to make such representation, and that such notice contained sufficient directions as to the manner in which such cultivation or management should, in the opinion of the said Committee, be improved, and that notwithstanding such notice the cultivation or management of the estate or land has not been adequately improved."

The noble Earl said: It does not seem to me, as the subsection is drafted, that the owner who is to be dispossessed has sufficient notice. When this case was considered by my Committee we allowed for a somewhat longer locus pœnitentiœ than is allowed in the Bill. I suggest that however bad the defaulter is he should have time to repent and adjust matters if he will. As the Bill stands he has six months in which to appeal to the High Court. He should have six months' notice from the committee, which would give him a year altogether. I do not think that is too long.

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 12 after ("thereon") insert the said words.—(The Earl of Selborne.)

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

In considering this Amendment we ought to remember the kind of case and individual with which we are concerned. If the scandal is as great as it would have to be in-order to come under this subsection the sooner it is abated the better. There is no disposition on the part of the Government to hurry the matter at all. First of all, there is the consideration of the whole case by the agricultural committee. Then the report has to be sent to the Ministry, and there is a statutory inquiry by the Ministry and consideration of the representations of the owner. Then there is another six months' delay before an Order can come into effect during which the owner can appeal to the High Court. There may be cases in which delay would be injurious in the national interests; and in many cases the whole period would exceed a year. Under these circumstances I hope the noble Earl will not feel bound to press his Amendment. We thought we had gone far in that direction to give ample time to the individual concerned.

EARL STANHOPE

There is another side to the question. The powers which the Government propose to take are very drastic and I suggest that when an owner is warned that a committee is about to take action and that the whole of the management of his estate will be taken away from him, he may repent of the error of his ways. As we know, there is more joy over one sinner that repenteth, and it is only fair that the man should have the chance to turn into a moderate, or even a good cultivator. If you do not give him the chance, but, issue the Order and he has the right to appeal to the High Court, he has no chance to win the case, because he has had no chance of mending his ways.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

I cannot help feeling that in this case the noble Lord opposite has reason on his side, so long as it is clearly understood, as I hope it is now, that these drastic measures are only to be brought into force in very special cases which amount to a public, scandal. I should have thought six months' notice was long enough to ensure the possible repentance, if there is any room for repentance, of the culprit, and, more particularly as this is done largely in the interests of the tenants and others on the estate, I think the notice ought not to be too long. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend Lord Selborne will not press his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL, OF SELBORNE moved, in the first paragraph of subsection (7), after "such" ["making such inquiry"], to insert "public." The noble Earl said: I beg to move the next Amendment standing in my name.

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 14, after ("such)") insert ("public").—(The Earl of Selborne.)

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

The object, I understand, is that there should be a public inquiry.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

Yes.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

There is some difference of opinion, I believe, with regard to the advantage of having this dirty linen washed in public, but I am inclined to think that it is an advantage and that it increases the deterrent effect. I am prepared, therefore, to accept the Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

The next two Amendments in my name are drafting.

Amendments moved—

page 7, line 39, leave out ("Which is")

Page 7, line 41, leave out ("the order") and insert ("an order made under this subscetion")—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

THE EARL OF ANCASTER had on the Paper an Amendment to insert the following new paragraph— (e) The powers conferred on the Minister by the foregoing provisions shall be limited to the management of the agricutural land.

The noble Earl said: This is another Amendment which I put down in order to restrict the activities of the receiver, but as I understand that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill will reconsider the wording of the clause I do not intend to move it. I hope the noble Lord will take into consideration the question, which has always been in my mind, with regard to the taking of ironstone. In many cases ironstone is taken from what is good agricultural land, and in certain cases it is arranged by lease that the land shall be restored to its agricultural condition after the ironstone has been removed. In other cases the lessee of the ironstone and perhaps other minerals will tell you that he cannot work the ironstone if he has to fulfil this condition. It is quite possible that in a quarrel with a Committee or the officers of the Ministry of Agriculture this might be the means of stopping ironstone working altogether, and making it difficult to get anybody to work the ironstone. I think that is worth considering and it is really with that object I wish to confine the activities of the Receiver to those things which he knows something about—to the surface of the land.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

The noble Earl does not move the Amendment.

THE EARL OF ANCASTER

No.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

The next two Amendments are drafting.

Amendments moved—

Page 8, line 7, leave out ("the foregoing provisions") and insert ("this subsection")

Page 8, line 16, after ("receiver") insert ("and manager").—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM had on the Paper an Amendment in subsection (7), after "Provided that the receiver and manager shall not have power to sell or create any charge upon the estate or land or any part thereon," to insert "or to cut or sell timber thereon." The noble Lord said; This is practically the same Amendment as stands in the names of Lord Strachie, Lord Dynevor, and the Duke of Atholl. There is one slight variation, underwood" being brought in. I am quite prepared to accept that Amendment with the exception of "underwood." I think it would be difficult in the management of a purely agricultural estate to deprive the agent of the power to cut underwood.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

We have both put down Amendments with the same idea. Things are rather different now, and one rather feels that one wants to know who is going to manage the woods—I am talking possibly of a very much bigger thing than that referred to by the noble Lord—and timber. I am talking about Scotland, of which I know something. The noble Lords opposite have decreed that the Board of Agriculture is not to manage our woodlands in Scotland, and the noble Lord opposite has been put in charge of that Department. I see there are difficulties, and I am quite prepared to leave the matter to the noble Lord opposite, and I think so far as Scotland is concerned it may be necessary to specify a little more particularly what is intended. I take it that what the noble Lord really means is that the receiver should have control over the farm hedges, etc, leaving the estate timber under the landlord. This Amendment is confined to what I might call the small timber on the farmland.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

Yes.

LORD STRACHIE

I hope the Minister of Agriculture will not object to the inclusion of "underwood," because under-wood comes not only in scrub but also in growing woods, and it may be a wrong thing to do to cut it at that particular time. There may also be a large number of young trees growing up among old trees, and unless proper care be taken these young trees might be sacrificed. I would remind the House that there is a very strong provision here, because it is "except with the consent of the owner or with the approval of the High Court," and so if the owner is recalcitrant You can go to the High Court.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I will not press the point.

Amendment moved— Page 8, line 22, after ("thereof") insert ("or to cut or sell any timber or underwood thereon ").—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF JERSEY moved, in subsection (7), to omit "or with the approval of the High Court obtained upon an application made for the purpose in accordance with rules of court." The noble Earl said this Amendment explains itself. It seems rather hard that the owners' successor should be penalised. There may be circumstances which are not very apparent, but I confess, on the face of it, if this receiver and manager is so efficient as one must imagine he should be if he is qualified to be placed in this position, it is not easy to see why he should find it necessary to create a charge on the estate, or still more why he should find it necessary to sell it. I have put down the amendment hoping that the noble Lord will explain under what circumstances it would be either fair or necessary for the receiver to sell or create a charge without consent of the owner.

Amendment moved— Page 8, line 22, leave out from ("owner") to end of line 24.—,(The Earl of Jersey.)

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I admit that this is a difficult case, but there may be situations where the owner is not in a position mentally or otherwise to give his consent to the necessary items of estate management, and where the receiver or agent might be in a position where he could not deal with buildings. He would have no means of raising the money which is absolutely essential to the proper management of the estate, and it would bring about an absolutely impossible position if under no circumstances could he have this right. I would point out that these matters are subject to appeal and I hope the noble Earl will not press the Amendment. We are dealing only with very exceptional cases and with people who are obviously from the start unreasonable and cannot be dealt with in the ordinary way.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE moved, in the last paragraph of subsection (7), to leave out "Or after any change of the ownership of the estate or land," with the object of inserting at the end of tits subsection "An order appointing a receiver or manager of any estate or land shall ipso facto be revoked upon the usual quarter day next following after the date of any change in the ownership of the estate or land. Provided that if such quarter day shall occur less than one month after the date of any such change the revocation of the order shall be postponed until the next following usual quarter day."

The noble Earl said: This and the following Amendment go together, and I am quite sure that my object will have the sympathy of my noble friend in charge of the Bill and of all your Lordships. If the drafting of the Amendment on the Paper does not carry out exactly what I mean I shall be very glad to have it altered. My point is this. Dealing with the kind of man on whose semi-lunacy this case is based the sooner he clears out of the management of his property the better. If he has a son and will hand it over to his son the sooner he does so the better. Or if he has no children the sooner he sells his property the better, and passes it on to somebody who knows how to manage it better. It will make a great deal of difference to his power of selling the property if the person to whom he sells it can get possession at once. That is the object of my Amendment. At present., if such a property is put up for sale, the person who wishes to buy it has to consider whether he will be able to get leave from the Minister or from the High Court to take the land into his own management. The mere fact that that is dependent on the Minister in the first place and on the High Court in the second Place will tend to warn off Purchasers. Whereas, if the man knows that if he buys the estate he gets a clean start at once and that at the next quarter day the rent will be handed over to him, he will be quite ready to buy.

Amendment moved— Page 8, lines 27 and 28, leave out ("or after any change of the ownership of the estate or land")—(The Earl of Selborne.)

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

The noble Earl is quite right in supposing I am in general sympathy with the object he has in view, but I think that his wording would require reconsideration. He will see that it would be capable of great abuse. An insolvent, perverse, or obstructive owner would only have to transfer his estate, say, to an infant son and then continue to carry it on as the guardian in order to avoid altogether the consequences of the Order. Or a case might arise where his successor might be an undesirable person. The estate might be bought by somebody who was clearly unfit, mentally or otherwise. I do not think there is any real difficulty in practice. I quite agree with the noble Earl that the proper thing to do is for the man to get rid of the estate, to sell it, in those circumstances, In the case of a reputable buyer there would be no difficulty whatever in getting the order revoked by the Minister who would be only too glad to be relieved of the very unpleasant responsibility of having the estate on his hands and only too pleased to hand it over to any reputable person who could manage it in place of the previous owner. As the Amendment stands it would be capable, I think, of great abuse and evasion. I am in sympathy with the noble Earl's object and perhaps he will consider the matter and bring up some rather more watertight words on Report.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

I do not think I really agree with my noble Friend. I put out of sight altogether the somewhat fantastic Possibility that a man as bad as the man who sells it will buy the estate. I agree that the owner might have an infant child, appoint himself guardian, hand the estate over to him and so resume possession. That is a conceivable case. My noble friend has all the advantages of the Government draftsman and I should like him to try to find words that will evade that difficulty, will give a bona fide Purchaser in the open market immediate Possession, and take the risk of his being a second in succession.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I gladly assume that responsibility on behalf of my noble friend. If he will withdraw his Amendment I will try to find words to meet his view.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

The next Amendment which stands on the Paper in my name is Purely drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 8, line 33, after ("has)" insert ("in pursuance of this section").—(Lord Lee of Eareham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF JERSEY moved, at the beginning of subsection (8), to leave out "entered on or." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is consequential on the previous one.

Amendment moved— Page 8, lines 33 and 34, leave out ("entered on or").—(The Earl of Jersey.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 9, lines 1 to 14, leave out subsection (9).—(The Earl of Jersey.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 9, lines 21 to 24, leave out subsection (11).—(Lord Clinton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 25 to line 7 on page 10, leave out subsection (12).—(The Earl of Jersey.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 10, lines 8 to 16, leave out subsection(13).—(The Earl of Jersey.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 10, lines 17 to 20, leave out subsection(14).—(The Earl of Jersey.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM moved, after subsection (14), to insert as a new subsection— () For the purposes of this section the expression 'rules of good husbandry' includes (due regard being had to the character of the holding) the maintenance of the land (whether arable, meadow, or pasture) clean and in a high state of cultivation, condition, and fertility.

The noble Lord said: I am sorry to trouble your Lordships with a manuscript Amendment, but it is, I think, consequential on the Division which we had before dinner, when paragraph (b) of Clause 4 was struck out. In the course of that debate, whilst I was not altogether in agreement with noble Lords, it became clear that there was a large measure of agreement between us with regard to alternatives to the power to enforce the improvement of grass land, and, in fact, to carry out the stimulation of good farming so long as there was no possibility of orders to plough. Your Lordships, however, were not disposed to accept my suggestion to cut out merely the last words of the paragraph, and it was proposed to accept, instead, certain words at a later stage which were put down by Lord Clinton and, I think, also Lord Bledisloe, as a definition of good husbandry.

I accept the decision of your Lordships, of course, with regard to the cutting out of the ploughing. But I am very anxious that those objects, on which I think we are all agreed, should be inserted in the Bill in what I conceive to be the proper place. The words which I move are the exact words of Lord Clinton in his Amendment to the definition clause of good husbandry, and I think that they would properly come in here. They are good words, and I do not propose to amend them, and I have given a good deal of thought to the actual phrasing suggested. I am prepared on behalf of the Government to accept it, because I think it adequately carries out the real object we have in view, and with regard to which I think there is general agreement.

In saying this I feel bound to point out to your Lordships that there would be a real disadvantage in the other course of merely including these words in the general definition clause. I may point out—what I am sure could not have been in the minds of the noble Lords who wished to move the words at a later stage that if they were put into the general definition clause, which would be applicable both to Clause 4 and Clause 8, the undoubted effect would be that the insistence on a standard of cultivation which is really in excess altogether of the ordinary high standard of farming in any particular district, and the insistence, which we all want to see, on the adoption of the very latest developments and discoveries with regard to the improvement of grass land and everything else—that it should be made a condition of any compensation for disturbance that the evicted tenant should have absorbed the whole of the scientific lessons and given effect to them in his holding, Would be practically to make a dead letter of the compensation clause altogether. I am sure that was not in your Lordships' minds, because it would operate impossibly from the point of view of the general policy of giving a sense of security, I do not mean to the bad tenant or bad farmer, but to the man who by all ordinary standards hitherto has been considered to be farming his holding well and has given no cause of complaint of any sort. or kind. To make it an absolute condition of his receiving any compensation for disturbance that he should be farming up to a higher standard than has been customary in the past, and indeed with regard to which knowledge is not yet sufficiently spread, would I think be altogether unfair, and I am sure it is not your Lordships' contention. For that reason, while of course when we come to Clause 8 it would be proper that we should discuss the good husbandry condition and the application of the definition to it, I venture to say it is important, and indeed consequential on your Lordships' previous decision, that these words should be inserted here.

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 20, after subsection (14), insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Lee of Farehaam).

LORD CLINTON

I would not raise any objection to this new subsection being inserted here, because I think if my further Amendment under Clause 30 is carried, then consequentially those words would again go out. I do not want to make any secret whatever of the fact that it was clearly in my own mind, and I think in the mind of other noble Lords also, that supposing we alter the rules of good husbandry in the definition clause it would apply to Clause 8 as well as to this clause, and I see no reason why it should not. I think if you lay down rules of good husbandry they ought to apply to the whole of the Bill. It was very far from my intention that those rules as worded by myself should definitely bar out all compensation, and I scarcely think they would do so, but they would rule out compensation to those tenants who receive notices to quit and who had really done nothing to deserve compensation. My whole intention was to raise the standard of good farming, and we know that in many cases the standard is very low. I do not want to discuss the whole question now, because we shall have to do it tomorrow night; but if the noble Lord wishes to move, I certainly raise no objection.

LORD BLEDISLOE

As a similar Amendment to Clause 30 stands in my name, I am bound to say that not only will there be considerable confusion if you have two totally different definitions of the rules of good husbandry in two different parts of the Bill, but moreover I think you are deliberately putting a premium upon mediocrity in farming We cannot deny—at any rate those of us who know anything about the history of British farming—that the ordinary standard of farming in this country, apart from animal husbandry, is not a standard of which we have any reason to be proud. It is perfectly true that some fifty or sixty years ago our standard of husbandry in Great Britain stood higher than that of any country in the world, but for the last thirty years we have practically stood still in the matter of ordinary mixed or arable husbandry, while countries on the Continent of Europe and elsewhere have forged steadily ahead of us. If you are going to get any value out of this Bill for the benefit of the general public you have to level up the standard of good husbandry all over the country, not for one purpose but all purposes, and if you are going deliberately to give compensation to a tenant whose standard of husbandry is not only low but is lower than would pass muster under his own tenancy agreement, if that agreement is properly framed, I say you are going to do very little good by this Bill.

Let us be perfectly frank with the farming community and they will respect us. if you want to be frank with them you must tell them that the standard of farming has to be levelled up to a good high average—and that is all that our Amendment will achieve. You are not asking them to attain to the highest state of cultivation, or to embark on new scientific methods with which they are totally unacquainted. All you are asking them is to farm in such a way as to show that they know their business and have sufficient experience to farm land according to the terms of a well drawn agreement. I hope we shall not deceive ourselves, or the farming community, in this matter, but that we shall insist upon reasonably good husbandry such as the Amendment drafted for Clause 30 provides; let us stick to our guns and insist upon it for the purposes of the clause under consideration, and for the compensation clause. I am sure the more level-headed farmers in the country will support us in that course.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

After what has been said, I think Lord Lee of Fareham will realise that he labours under a misconception. There is no desire for the purpose of this clause to invent an arbitrary standard of good husbandry. What we want is to establish a permanent standard of good husbandry for all purposes. Our standard has in many respects fallen lamentably short. In some parts of England it has disappeared and we are anxious to place it on a good footing. The particular words which now appear in connection with Clause 30 have been carefully considered, and went through a process of revision, and at last arrived at this particular form. For the purposes of this clause they have received the approval of the Minister. If it is good for one purpose it is good for all purposes. It is the standard of good husbandry which we want to establish in all parts of England—it is not an absolute standard. If Lord Lee will look he will see the words "a full condition of fertility." It would only be deceiving your Lordships if we were to put in these words here as if we recognised there was a distinction that ought to be drawn between a standard of good husbandry in Clause I and the standard in the later clause. When we come to that other clause—the definition clause—will be the time to discuss whether they are the best words that could have been chosen.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

I agree with my two noble friends that the invention of a double standard would be a great misfortune. There may be one standard so high as to invite the attention of the agricultural community, and another standard comparatively low which would be all that is necessitated by the compensation clause. Probably what has frightened the noble Lord is the word "high." A "high" standard has been spoken of as though it meant extravagant farming involving a vast outlay, and something not altogether practical or necessarily profitable, but that is not, I am sure, the intention of my noble friends. They mean by "high" what we should naturally understand by the use of the word—namely, a reasonably good and solid standard of farming. I hope, therefore, the noble Lord will agree to apply this definition throughout the Bill and not insist on its insertion in this particular place.

VISCOUNT MILNER

I hope noble Lords will not reject the Amendment of the noble Lord in charge of the Bill. This is a clause headed "Power to enforce proper cultivation." When we were discussing subsection (b) all noble Lords who objected to that subsection were emphatic in their assertion that they wished to define "good husbandry" in a manner more adequate than the mere use of the phrase in paragraph (a). They put down Amendments which, I believe, met with the approval of all your Lordships, for the definition of good husbandry, and now the noble Lord in charge of the Bill proposes to adopt these very Amendments in this place. Noble Lords say that the definition of good husbandry which is necessary to complete this clause and necessary to make the clause intelligible and effective, should be applied to all other portions of the Bill. I do not say that it should not, but at any rate it is perfectly certain that it is needed in this clause. Then surely it would be desirable to insert it here.

When we come to the consideration of the latter part of the Bill and of the conditions which could justify compensation, it is perfectly open to the House to propose any amendments which may ensure that compensation shall not be given except in cases where it is really deserved. I really cannot understand why objection is taken to the strengthening of this clause to bring up the standard of good husbandry by the definition which noble Lords desired should be given to it. We have adopted their words. Without the inclusion of those words it is evident that the clause does not carry out the object on which they have themselves insisted, and I hope your Lordships will not refuse to make this clause as watertight as it ought to be.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

There really is, if I may venture to say so, no point in putting the definition in here, unless there was intended to be a difference made hereafter between the definition in this clause and the definition in Clause 8. The proper place for a definition in the ordinary drafting of a Bill is the definition clause of the Bill. That is where we propose to put it. Of course, if the noble Lord had not been good enough to explain to us what his intention was no doubt the matter would have been one more or less of form, but he has told us that he intends to make a distinction, and that is what we do not want.

On Question, whether the proposed new subsection shall be here inserted?—

Their Lordships divided. Contents, 24; Not-Contents, 90.

CONTENTS.
Birkenhead, L. (L. Chancellor)	Farquhar, V.(L. Steward.)	Colebrooke, L.
	Sandhurst, V. (L. Chamberlain.)	Cozens-Hardy, L.
	Milner, V.	Hylton, L.
Bradford, E.	Peel, V.	Killanin, L.
Chesterfield, E.		Lee of Fareham, L.
Lucan, E.	Annesley, L. (V.Valentia.)	Meston, L.
Lytton, E.	Chalmers, L.	Ranksborough, L.
Onslow, E.	Clwyd, L.	Somerleyton, L. [Teller.]
Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)	Cochrane of Cults, L.	Stanmore, L. [Teller.]
NOT-CONTENTS.
Northumberland, D.	Crewe, M.	Ancaster, E.
Sutherland, D.	Lincolnshire, M. (Lord Great Chamberlain.)	Chichester, E.
Wellington, D.		Devon, E.
Ailsa, M.	Linlithgow, M.	Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)
Bath, M.	Salisbury, M.
Camden, M.	Abingdon, E.	Grey, E.
Cholmondeley, M.	Albemarle, E.	Ilehester, E.
Innes, E. (D. Borburghe.)	Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)	Hindlip, L. [Teller.]
Jersey, E.		Lamington, L.
Kilmorey, E.	Clements, L. (E. Leitrint.)	Lawrence, L.
Kimberley, E.	Clinton, L.	Lecontield, L.
Malmeshury, E.	Cloncury, L.	Methuen, L.
Morton, E.	Cottesloe, L.	Monk Bretton, L.
Sandwich, E.	de Mauley, L.	Montagu of Beaulieu, L.
Selborne, E.	Decies, L.	Nunburnholme, L.
Shaftesbury, E.	Denman, L.	Oriel, L. (Massereene.)
Stanhope, E.	Desborough, L.	Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair.)
Westmeath, E.	Dynevor, L.	Penrhyn, L.
Wicklow, E.	Douglas, L. (E. Home.)	Rathdonnell, L.
	Ebury, L.	Ravensworth, L.
Bangor, V.	Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)	Redesdale, L.
Bertie of Thame, V.		Romilly, L.
Falmouth, V.	Elphinstone, L.	St. John of Bletso, L.
Hood, V.	Erskine, L.	St. Levan, L.
Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)	Fairfax of Cameron, L.	Sandys, L.
	Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)	Sempill, L.
	Faringdon, L.	Stanley of Alderley, L. (L. Sheffield.)
Abinger, L.	Forbes, L.
Avebury, L.	Forester, L.	Strachie, L. [Teller.]
Bellew, L.	Glenarthur, L.	Stuart of Wortley.
Berwick, L.	Greville, L.	Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)
Bledisloc, L.	Harris, L.	Wynford, L.
Blythswood, L.	Hastings, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagrecd to accordingly.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I was going to suggest that the House should now resume, as there are questions which it may be convenient to your Lordships should be put now by the noble Lords in whose names they stand. I am in your Lordships' hands in the matter, and if you prefer to finish Clause 1, I am quite willing to go on.

LORD DYNEVOR moved, in paragraph (b) of subsection (15), to leave out "farm roads." The noble Lord said: To keep in proper repair farm roads will place a very heavy burden on farmers. Some farm roads run for a very great distance, and if the farmer is called upon to put them in proper repair he will, owing to the great rise in the cost of road material—I do not think I exaggerate when I say it is three times as costly as before the war—be heavily burdened. Your Lordships will see that in some cases he can be called upon to spend many hundreds of pounds. Provided that the farm roads are in good enough order for the farmer to get his carts across them, I think that is sufficient, and this extra power ought not to be put into the hands of the agricultural committee.

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 27, leave out ("farm roads").—(Lord Dynevor.)

LORD DESBOROUGH

I rise to support my noble friend's Amendment. These farm roads ought only to be used as farm roads, and there is a good deal of danger that the local committees of which we have heard a good deal may repair these roads, turn them into roads for other purposes, and eventually obtain a right of way over them. They are really only for the use of farm carts and not public roads at all.

LORD HASTINGS

I should like to support my noble friend in this matter. After all the condition of farm roads is merely a matter for the occupier of the land who is the only person interested. If the roads are so bad as to interfere with his carts going up and down and to and from the farm naturally he will repair them to such an extent as may be necessary. If he can use them to his satisfaction surely nobody else is interested in the sum of money that is spent upon them. A really large sum is wasted now every year on farm roads and I cannot think there is any necessity to retain these words in the clause.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

There are undoubtedly a great number of cases, particularly in Lincolnshire, where the condition of farm roads is a notorious handicap on good farming, and it is very clear in the Bill that this provision is governed by the preceding words "as are necessary for the proper cultivation and working of the land." Of course, there is an appeal in every case, and I do not think that the fears expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Desborough, are likely to be realised—that roads of this kind could possibly be converted into public roads upon which a great deal of money would have to be spent. I think also this provision should be read in connection with the next Amendment on the Paper which stands in the name of Lord Lamington and deals with the prevention of impossible charges on the ground of the expense being altogether unreasonable. Obviously any proposal for a farm road which involved unreasonable expense would be turned down by any arbitrator, even if it got as far as that. I propose to accept, with a slight modification, the noble Lord, Lord Lamington's, Amendment, and I think it would safeguard the position in regard to farm roads. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord, Lord Dynevor, will not press his Amendment.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

Surely it would be rather a dangerous thing to cut out farm roads altogether. It is an obligation of the tenant to the landlord unless in the contract of tenancy the. landlord has taken an obligation upon himself, and to cut it out here and not to mention it would surely be giving a great inducement to allow roads to fall into an even worse state of repair than they are now, and make it very difficult for the landlord to enforce his contract. I cannot really see how it is in the interests of good farming. We must allow for a certain measure of common sense, and if the Minister in charge accepts the other Amendment on the paper, limiting the cost which may be incurred under this provision, I venture to think that that meets the case.

LORD BLEDISLOE

I should like very strongly to support my noble friend, because I cannot see any distinction in principle between farm roads on the one hand, and fences or gates or walls on the other. Unfortunately there are many cases to-day where, owing to the tenants not executing ordinary repairs on roads, the whole of the metalling has got worn away, and ultimately the landlord has at great expense to re-make the road from foundation to surface.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH

I think my noble friend opposite is wrong, because Lord Lamington's Amendment does not mention anything about roads.

LORD SEMPILL

Would it not be sufficient if some such words were added as "to keep farm roads in a suitable state of repair for the purpose for which they are required"? I cannot agree with Lord Bledisloe as regards fences, stone walls, gates and hedges, because that is a very different matter. As good a stone wall is wanted to a field whether it is on a public road or on a farm road. I am quite prepared to support Lord Dynevor if he would add some such words as I have suggested.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I hope my noble friend will not press his Amendment. There are great difficulties in the way. It is quite true Lord Lamington's Amendment, as at present drawn, would not affect roads, but we have the Minister's pledge that he will put it right. We may be quite certain that the expenses will be limited in the spirit of Lord Lamington's Amendment, so as to apply to roads as well as to the other matters mentioned.

LORD DYNEVOR

I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD LAMINGTON had on the paper an Amendment in the proviso of subsection (15), after "impossible," to insert "except at prohibitive or unremunerative expense." The noble Lord said: I understand that my amendment is accepted.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

The noble Lord will, of course, put this right on Report.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

I will carry out what I promised. With regard to Lord Lamington's present Amendment, I think it is quite reasonable, but I think the words "or unremunerative" should be excised. They raise a number of points which would be exceedingly difficult to determine, and if the noble Lord would substitute the word "unreasonable" for "unremunerative" I should be prepared to accept it.

LORD LAMINGTON

I agree.

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 34, after ("impossibe") insert ("except at prohibitive or unreasonable expense")—(Lord Lamington.)

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

The two Amendments in my name are purely drafting.

Amendments moved—

Page 11, line 1, leave out from ("where") to the end of line 6, and insert ("the occupier unreasonably fails to comply with the requirements of the notice the provisions of subsection (3) of this section shall have effect")

Page 11, line 12, at end insert, the following new subsection: ("(17) The foregoing provisions of this section shall have effect in substitution for section nine of the Act of 1917.")—(Lord Lee of Fareleam.)

Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after Clause 4, to insert the following new clause— —(1) If in any arbitration under Part IV. of the Act of 1917 the arbitrator states a case for the opinion of the county court on any question of law, the opinion of the court on any question so stated shall be final unless within the terms and in accordance with the conditions prescribed by rules of the Supreme Court either party appeals to the Court of Appeal, from whose decision no no appeal shall lie. (2) The Arbitration Act, 1889, shall not apply to any arbitration under Part IV. of the Act of 1917.

The noble and learned Lord said: This is a somewhat technical matter. The Corn Production Act of 1917 provides that an arbitration under Part IV of that Act shall be under and in accordance with the provisions of the Second Schedule of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1908. One of those provisions requires an arbitrator to state in the form of a special case for the opinion of the county court any question of law arising in the course of the arbitration. Section (13) of the Agricultural Holdings Act contains two paragraphs precisely to the same effect as subsections 1 and 2 of the Amendment I am now moving. But it has been held in the courts that the reference in the Corn Production Act to the provisions of the Schedule do not sufficiently incorporate the provisions of the Act of 1908. They obviously form part, and a necessary part, of the arbitration procedure under the Act of Pitts, and they ought, of course, equally to apply to arbitration tinder Part IV of the Act of 1917.

Amendment moved— After clause 4, insert the said, new clause.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I fail to follow fully the Lord Chancellor, not because of his want of lucidity but because of my own lack of comprehension. I am rather sorry that the last words of the first subsection appear, and I should like to call his attention to the fact that this Bill is a profound alteration of the law of landlord and tenant. It makes the most extensive change in the relations of the principal industry of the country, and to say that under no circumstances upon a point of law of the greatest importance should there be an appeal to your Lordships House, appears to me to be most unnecessary. Surely he will agree to strike out these last words. No appeal can take place except by leave of the Court and therefore the matter is absolutely protected from abuse, and there may be matters of great importance which require the highest decision and it would be a great pity if a decision of your Lordships' House, sitting judicially, should be absolutely barred. I will not press the point now but I hope the Lord Chancellor will consider the matter before the Report stage.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I will certainly consider the matter again before the Report Stage. I am not likely to underrate the importance of the decisions given in this House upon legal matters. I tried to make it plain that the words of this new Clause were borrowed from the provisions of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1908, which equally dealt with important matters. The noble Marquess is not quite correct in saying that an appeal cannot take place to the Court of Appeal without assent of the Supreme Court. The clause does not mean that. It means that rules are framed by the Supreme Court prescribing the conditions. That does not mean that in every case you will obtain leave. However the matter shall be considered before the Report stage.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH

Am I right in understanding that under the new clause there will now be an appeal on a point of law to the High Court?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

To the Court of Appeal.

House resumed, and to be again in Committee to-morrow.