§ Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
§ Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Parmoor.)
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.
§ House in Committee accordingly:
§ [THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
§ Clause 1:
§ Power to require, returns.
§ 1.—(1) The Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries may, in any year by notice served on the occupier of any agricultural land in England or Wales or the person having the management of any such land, require 292 him to make within such time as is specified in the notice, and in such form and to such person as the Minister may prescribe by regulations made under this Act, a return in writing for that year with respect to the cultivation of the land, or the crops or live stock thereon, or the persons employed on the land, and, if the occupier is also the owner of the land, that fact shall be stated in the return.
§ (2) No individual return or part of a return made under this Act shall be used, published or disclosed, except for the purposes of the preparation and publication by the Minister of agricultural statistics or of a prosecution under this Act.
§ (3) (a) Any person who refuses, or without lawful excuse, neglects to make a return required under this Act to be made by him shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds.
§ (b) If a return made under this Act is untrue in any material particular, the person by whom the return was made shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds, unless he proves that he made the return innocently and without negligence.
§ (4) Any person who uses, publishes, or discloses contrary to the provisions of this Act any individual return or part of a return shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds.
§ (5) Any notice under this Act may be served on the person to whom it is addressed either personally or by post, and, in the case of a notice to an occupier, may be addressed to "the occupier" without naming him.
§ (6) The expression "agricultural land" includes land used as grazing, meadow, or pasture land, or orchard, or osier land, or woodland, or for a market garden or nursery ground.
§ (7) Any regulation made under this Act shall be laid before each House of Parliament forthwith, and if an address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent twenty-eight days on which that House has sat praying that the regulation may be annulled His Majesty in Council may annul the regulation, and it shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder.
§ LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "such time as is specified in," and insert "twenty-eight days of the receipt of." The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to preserve to your Lordships' House the power of making Regulations under this Bill. Unless the Amendment is accepted the Department will be able to say that the Returns must be made within three or four days, or ten or twelve days, or whatever time they think right. I have always 293 endeavoured to prevent the privileges of Parliament being handed over to the Departments, and I have always held that the proper course is for Parliament to determine, in passing Bills of this sort, what the provisions of the law should be. I am not particularly wedded to twenty-eight days, and if the noble Lord who is in charge of the Bill thinks that the period should be different, I shall be quite prepared to accept an alteration, but I hope that the period may not be less than twenty-eight days. Noble Lords will remember that the voluntary Returns were generally sent in somewhere about the end of June. At that time farmers are very busy with the hay harvest and find it a little difficult, at a few moments' notice, to collect all these particulars. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will consent to put in some particular date, allowing at least twenty-eight days in which to furnish the required information.
§ Before I sit down I should like to call your Lordships' attention to that which took place last year when this Hill was before this House. The Second Heading-was moved on May I by my noble friend the Earl of Ancaster, whose statement ran to about four lines of the OFFICIAL REPORT. No other noble Lord said anything at all, and the Second Heading was passed without any criticism. My noble friend—I am sure quite unwittingly—made a mistake in the few words which he did say. He said that this Bill was substantially the same as Section 15 of the Corn Production Act, 1917. But it is not. It contains three provisions which did not find a place in the Corn Production Act, 1017. I shall move some Amendments later on, the effect of which will be to bring the Bill into line with that Act. I have the section here, but I presume that it is not necessary to read it.
§ I then find that on the Committee stage only one noble Lord said anything which had anything to do with the Bill. Lord Clinton made some remarks, and my noble friend Lord Ancaster said that the point which he raised was answered by subsection (7) of Clause 1. I venture very humbly to differ once more from my noble friend. I hold that subsection (7) of Clause 1 is a perfectly illusory provision, and might as well be left out. In the House of Commons it, is absolutely useless I to try to find out whether anything is lying 294 upon the Table. I do not know how many noble Lords can tell me how we find out in this House. It took me a good many years to discover the process in the House of Commons, and I do not believe there are at this moment ten Members of that House who know it. In this House, no doubt, most noble Lords know what to do, but none of those whom I have asked— perhaps I have been unfortunate—could tell me how to find out what is lying upon the Table. Then the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, made certain remarks which merely went to show that the Bill was being hurried through unnecessarily. I venture to agree with him. On the Third Beading nobody said anything at all. This shows that, by an accident which often happens in the other House, though I was not aware that it so often happened here, the Hill passed through without your Lordships really knowing what it contained. I hope that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill will accept my Amendment, or something like it. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 10, leave out ("such time us is specified in") and insert ("twenty-eight days of the receipt of").—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
§ THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD PARMOOR)I will not follow the noble Lord into the question of the manner in which documents are laid upon the Table of this House. Notice is given from time to time which provides us with that information. As regards the noble Lord's Amendment, I am not sure that I appreciate his objection. I thought that he desired that when this Bill became an Act of Parliament the terms of the notice should be found in it; that is to say, he wanted it in the Act and not in the Regulations. We are at one upon that point, because, as the Bill stands, it will be in the Act, the statutory Regulation being as specified in the notice. The noble Lord requires a specific time, but I do not think this will be so convenient as the provision contained in the Bill at present. This is not a matter of very-great moment one way or the other, but I suggest that what the noble Lord really wants is that some minimum time should be given by Statute. I suggest, if the noble Lord is willing to accept them, that the words should be: "Within such time, not being less than fourteen days, as is.specified in the notice."
§ LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAMThat is not enough.
§ LORD PARMOORI do not think it is a matter of great importance, but the form in which I suggest the Amendment is, I think, the right form, because it gives what the noble Lord really wants, which is a minimum period. Would the noble Lord accept twenty-one days?
§ LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAMI should be perfectly willing to accept the Amendment in the form which the noble Lord suggests—namely, that there should be not less than a certain number of days' notice; but I think the number ought to be twenty-eight.
§ LORD PARMOORI do not want to controvert the noble Lord upon a point of this kind. The advisers of the Ministry think that fourteen days is the right period; the noble Lord suggested twenty-eight days; and I am willing to accept twenty-one days—that seems a fair arrangement.
§ LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAMI am not quite cognisant of the procedure of the House. Might I withdraw my Amendment in order to move it in another form—namely, the insertion of the words, "not being less than twenty-eight days" after "such time"?
§ LORD PARMOORI have already stated that I think that is the right form in which the Amendment should be moved, and that I am willing to accept "not less than twenty-one days."
§ On Question, Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 10. after ("time") insert ("not being less than 28 days").—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE DUKE OF BUOCLEUCH moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "with respect to the cultivation" and insert "of the acreage." The noble Duke said: My Amendment is somewhat on the same lines and is to define the Bill more distinctly than docs its present form. At the present time a Return may be asked for in respect to the cultivation of the land or the crops or live stock thereon. I propose to leave out the words with 296 respect to the cultivation of the land, and to insert in their place the words "of the acreage." It still leaves a Return to be made of the crops or live stock, and so forth. I think it is a practical Amendment and renders the Bill less objectionable. There is a great fear amongst many farmers that the present Return will give far too great power to the Department and that farmers may be pestered with all sorts of questions which may or may not be useful.
It appears to me, and I hope your Lordships will share the view, that if my Amendment is carried, the Department will be able to get all the information they really require, and that if they want further information they will probably obtain it voluntarily as they do at the present time. It is a different matter setting out answers to questions when the answers are voluntary from what it is when the answers have to be made compulsorily, subject to a penalty. We are all aware how, for many years, these questions have been a great nuisance and a great interference with business. Probably they are useful in one respect—they require a large number of clerks to look over them and, possibly, pigeon-hole them. The Lord President was so reasonable in his reply to Lord Banbury that I hope the Government will see their way to accept my Amendment. It will not interfere with the efficiency of the Bill, but will, I think, make it on the whole more acceptable and enable the Department to get better information than they do at present.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 13, leave out ("with respect to the cultivation") and insert ("of the acreage").—(The Duke of Buccleuch.)
§ LORD PARMOORI understand that the effect of the noble Duke's Amendment would be that persons connected with the land would be required to make a Return in writing for each year of the acreage of the land, or of the crops or live stock thereon. The Bill, as drafted, really preserves, in substance, the present form in which these Returns are made. No doubt, the noble Duke is right in saying that at the present time the Returns are voluntary, whereas in future they will be subject to a penalty, but when we come to the question of the penalty I am willing to accept an Amendment put down by the noble Duke. Within the limitations 297 of the Bill the actual form in which the Returns will be required will appear in the Regulations and I am prepared to accept an Amendment from the noble Duke as to the way in which the Returns shall be laid upon the Table. Having regard to those two matters on which I am prepared to meet the noble Duke I will ask him if he cannot leave the existing words in the Bill. Those words enable the Return to be asked for in a sufficiently wide manner. It is thought to be of importance by the Ministry of Agriculture that the Returns should not be cut down so as to give them less information than at present, but when we come to the Regulations and they are laid upon the Table, of course it will be open to the noble Duke, or any one else, to say that we are asking for too much information. This is the view of the Ministry, and I hope the Amendment will not be pressed at this point.
§ THE EARL OF SELBORNEI should like to ask the noble Lord this question. I do not entirely agree with my noble friend behind me, Lord Banbury; I think the principle of the Bill is quite right. We want to make these Returns strictly accurate and not only partially so, but I want to know what is meant by general cultivation. We want to know the exact acreage and the crops, but what is cultivation as distinct from crops? I do not understand what that means.
§ LORD STRACHIEI think the object of the Ministry is that it shall be explained in these Returns exactly how a man is cultivating—whether he is using sulphate or basic slag. It seems to me to be a very difficult thing to ask and is perfectly unnecessary in a Bill of this sort. The Lord President says there is to be only a small penalty, but even if it is reduced to £5 it is a very serious sum for small holders. It is very important that this particular Amendment should be accepted. I think that it will make the Bill more simple and more acceptable, especially to the small men.
§ LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAMThe word "cultivation" was in Section 15 of the Corn Production Act of 1917, but it was there for the very good reason that at that time a subsidy was given to farmers, and there were committees which 298 investigated the control and cultivation of the land. At the present moment no subsidy is given, and there are no committees—and I hope there never will be any more—which can interfere with the business of the farmer, telling him how he ought to cultivate his land. If the Amendment is carried every information which can be wanted can be given. There can be no object in asking for a Return as to cultivation unless you are. going to set up committees to interfere with the farmer in his cultivation. During the Recess I have seen a great many farmers in Wiltshire, and they are very much alarmed, and want to know whether they are to be. interfered with in the conduct of their business. I hope sincerely that my noble friend will adhere to his Amendment, and, if necessary, divide the House upon it.
§ VISCOUNT LONG OF WRAXALLI attach very great importance to this Amendment. I do not at all agree with the Lord President of the Council that with this alteration the information obtained will not be sufficient. It is a totally different thing altogether. They are as different as chalk from cheese-both agricultural products, but differing entirely. In this particular case what the noble Duke wants to do is to give the Minister all the reasonable information that can be of any use to him. If, however, he is to be told what is the cultivation of the land—and it is the widest phrase and may mean anything or nothing—what are the Department going to dc with the information when they have got it? Will they write to the farmer, and say: "I notice you are going to put down so much land in mangolds, and so much in barley; if so, we think it is a very bad arrangement of your land"? If not, what is the use of cumbering the State and the pigeon-holes of the Ministry of Agriculture with all this information which, when they have it, they cannot use? I hope my noble friend will adhere to his Amendment, and put in words which are practical and businesslike, instead of words which are most misleading, and may be very dangerous.
§ THE EARL OF ANCASTERIn the course of this debate reference has beep made to me. It is stated that I was responsible for introducing this Bill in your Lordships' House a year ago. I am 299 not in the least making myself responsible for it to-day, but, in regard to this vexed question of making a Return of cultivation, I should have thought the words proposed were necessary owing to the fact that, certainly on a good many farms in my neighbourhood, there are a number of fields where there is no crop growing, nor are there any sheep, nor any grass—at least, I hope there is not, because, if there is, it is only twitch grass. In that part of the country there is a good deal of land which is known as "dead fallows," and, if you do not occasionally have "dead fallows" on a heavy clay land, you are very likely to get very bad crops. That stale of cultivation, which is very necessary, would not bring the land under the description in the Bill. I should have thought that there was no harm in asking for the information which is required under the Bill.
§ LORD PARMOORI am very much obliged to the noble Earl and also to the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, because I think that the other speakers have entirely misunderstood the meaning of the word "cultivation." It does not mean cultivation in the sense of the way in which the farmer is carrying on his business. It has never been held to include that, nor is it intended now to include it. I have before me what is returned under the head of "cultivation," and I think it is very much the same as has been described by the noble Earl. It states whether land is bare, fallow, or grass, or used for mowing or grazing, or rough grazing, such as mountain heath or moor; and that is information which it is very valuable for the Ministry to have. I did not think it would ever have been suggested that this was an interference with the methods of carrying on business. This is information which has been regularly supplied, it is exactly the information to which the noble Earl, Lord Ancaster, referred, and I hope that your Lordships will allow the words to remain in the Bill.
§ THE EARL OF BALFOURCannot a precise word be found? It is evident, by the admission of the noble Lord, that, though the ordinary practice is what he has described and I understand that nobody has raised any objection to it, the word proposed in the Bill is capable of another moaning. The English 300 language is a rich language. I should have imagined that some phrase could be discovered which would not be open to the misconstruction of which the noble Duke and other members of your Lordships' House are afraid.
§ LORD PARMOORFor the moment it does not occur to me that there is a better word than cultivation to express what is intended, but I should be most willing to consider the point between now and the Report stage, and to see the noble Duke about it, in order that we may make it quite clear that this is not a question of the way in which a business is being carried on, but the condition of the fields as they stand. I hope that, if the Amendment is withdrawn now. suitable words can be found to meet the whole difficulty before the Report stage
THE EARL OF MAYOMay I ask if the acreage of dead pasture mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Ancaster——
§ THE EARL OF ANCASTERNo, I did not mention pasture, I was referring to cultivated fields.
§ LORD PARMOORI think it is rather difficult satisfactorily to answer a question of that kind on the spur of the moment, but if this could be left over till the Report stage I will promise to give every consideration to it in order, as the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, has pointed out, that we may find the most appropriate language.
§ LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAMMay I suggest that the noble Lord should agree to omit the word "cultivation," and to include the word "acreage" now, and, if between now and the Report stage, he should find a better word, we could consider it. It is far better to delete the objectionable word now, and to alter the clause again later, if it is found that we are wrong.
§ LORD PARMOORI am sorry I am unable to accept that suggestion. It would obviously leave uncovered in the Returns very valuable particulars, and I could not assent to the word being struck out.
§ LORD CARSONWould not the best way be to put in a definition of cultivation, and tell us what it is?
§ LORD PARMOORI am much obliged to the noble and learned Lord. I think that might meet the difficulty, but I am not prepared now to give a definition on such a difficult point.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCHIt would seem, perhaps, ungracious if I did not accept the offer that my noble friend has made, though I was specially asked to put down this Amendment and to press it. The real objection I have is to the vagueness of the term in the Bill. Although many of your Lordships want me to go to a Division, after the way in which the noble Lord has met me I hardly like to ask your Lordships to divide. But it is finite understood that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill will look into the matter and will meet my point by inserting a clear definition, so that there can be no abuse of the word "cultivation" by asking for a lot of unnecessary and vexatious information. If that is so, I think I must ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ LORD PARMOORI should like to corroborate what the noble Duke has said. He has expressed my real intention.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved to omit from subsection (1) "or the persons employed on the land." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is proposed in order to bring the Bill within the definition given by my noble friend Lord Ancaster on the Second Reading stage last year. If noble Lords will refer to Section 15 of the Corn Production Act, 1917, they will see that the numbers of men employed are not required. If under that Act, which gave a subsidy to the farmers, and interfered with the cultivation of the farmers' land, it was not necessary to give the numbers of men employed, why is it necessary to do so now? There is a further point. It is extremely difficult, in farming, to say exactly how many men you do employ. Take my own case. I employ a certain number of men regularly, but during the hay and corn harvest I employ extra men, and not always the same number; generally, men who are employed on other parts of the small estate which I 302 have. Again, I have men in to cut hedges. I do not have them in every year. I have had a man in for six or seven weeks this year, whom I have not had for a great number of years. And so with ditchers.
§ How am I to return the number of men I employ? Remember, this is compulsory, and if you do not make a correct Return you are liable to a line, at present not exceeding £20. Supposing I say I employ twelve men, and the Department say: "We require to see your wage-sheet," and I produce my wage-sheet, which shows that fifteen men are employed. They would say: "You have made a false Return," and I should reply: "It is true, I did at that particular time employ twelve men, but the three other men were extra men whom I had in; I did not think it was necessary to put them down. "What is going to happen then? They may say in the end:" That is all right; you need not do anything." Your Lordships see the trouble and bother to which farmers will be put. When it was voluntary it did not matter so much. Now that it is to be compulsory it will place a very considerable burden on the farmer. What is the object of it? What does it matter to the Ministry of Agriculture how many men a farmer employs? Is it that there is to be a Bill enacting that no farmer must employ fewer than so many men per hundred acres? If that is not the object, what is it?
§ I hope that the noble and learned Lord will meet me on this point. Surely at the present moment, when agriculture is in a very parlous condition, there is no need to lay further burdens upon the farmer. It may seem not to give a great deal of trouble to the farmer to say how many men he employs; but as a matter of fact the vast majority of farmers do not keep any very accurate accounts, and this would entail a great deal of trouble. I have not an agent; I have only a sort of foreman and I have to do all this myself It would entail a great deal of work if I had to go through all my wages sheets, which come in once a fortnight, to find out how many men I employ and for how long I have employed them. What is the object of the Ministry of Agriculture knowing whether Lord Parmoor employs twelve men, or fourteen? If any one wants to discover the number of men employed in agriculture he can get it from the Census Returns. You will not get a true Return 303 if you insist upon this provision, because there are the extra men who are employed and who cannot really be put into the Return. The farmer makes his Return in June, say, and he finds that the corn harvest is delayed by the weather and it becomes necessary, on the few fine days at his disposal, to employ additional men to gather the harvest together. When he makes his Return he does not know whether he is going to employ those additional men or not, and the Return is of no use. It seems to me that the only possible object in view is that it may be placed in the hands of those who want to interfere with the management of the farm and to say that a certain number of men must be employed per hundred acres. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 1, lines 14 and 15, leave out ("or the persons employed on the land").—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
§ LORD PARMOORI should regret it if these Returns were asked for in a form which gave unnecessary labour to my noble friend Lord Banbury. But the Ministry of Agriculture consider, not in regard to a particular farm or Return, but in reference to the conditions of the industry generally, that it is important for Them to have these statistics. The conditions, of course, are very different from those of the Corn Production Act of 1917, which was an Act not for the purpose of obtaining information upon which agriculture might be benefited—which is, of course, the, hope in connection with this Return—but in connection with specific points in a particular Act. The Ministry of Agriculture think it is of importance, when they want to assist agriculture in various ways, that they should have this information. I do not think that the noble Lord will be subject to the difficulties or penalties he suggested. There is no real difficulty in giving the number of men who are really employed. I do not suppose that would mean a man who came on for a week or something of that sort, but the number of men who are normally employed. I hope your Lordships will allow this provision to stand in the Bill. I do not think there is any difficulty about it. There is certainly no sinister object in it. We can get a certain amount of this information, no doubt, from the decennial Census Returns, as I pointed out on 304 Second Reading: but it would be very imperfect. Therefore, I trust that your Lordships will allow the Ministry to have this information, which, in their view, is of great importance in regard to the industry at large. I hope that the Amendment will not be agreed to.
§ LORD LAMINGTONI hope my noble friend Lord Banbury will insist upon his Amendment. I have had a sheep farm in occupation for a few years and I find it very difficult to know how many men are employed there. It is a source of constant dismay to me to find how many people come on at lambing time, shearing time, and so on. I cannot see why the Ministry of Agriculture should lay such great stress on the importance of obtaining this information. This is merely an inquisitorial Act. It is important, I suppose, because it is fashionable nowadays for the Government to poke its finger into every concern. I cannot see how the public can benefit by the very inadequate Return which will be made at best, be cause it cannot be an accurate Return.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEThe noble and learned Lord, the Lord President, made a very conciliatory speech, but I wish he could satisfy the House that this information would be useful for the Ministry of Agriculture. They wish to have it; but the Lord President did not tell us why they want to have it, and I am afraid that many people will think that it is a Return for a purpose which the Lord President himself would disclaim, lie told us a moment ago, and I heard him say it with great satisfaction, that His Majesty's Government had no desire to interfere with the methods of agriculture. I think that is what he said in his speech. I am glad that I gathered his meaning correctly. But there is a very widespread feeling in the country that there is a desire to interfere. You hear people in the country saying: "Are they going to send down instructors and professors from Whitehall to teach us how-to manage our farms?" That is the sort of thing they do not regard with any satisfaction at all, and that is why I, for one, should be glad to see that ambiguous expression "cultivation" disappear from this clause altogether. For exactly the same reasons, I should like to see this reference to the number of men employed disappear also, because it seems to lend 305 itself to the same kind of suspicion which, I think, is doing a great deal of harm in the country. I hope that my noble friend will press his Amendment.
THE EARL OF MAYOThe noble and learned Lord in charge of the Bill said that there was no sinister meaning in this provision. The difficulty raised by the noble Lord, Lord Banbury, can be got over quite easily. One column of the Return might be headed "Casual labourers" and another column "Labourers engaged in task work." That would cover the point to which Lord Banbury objected. He said that he had to take on extra men from time to time. We all have to do it. In all parts of England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales extra men are taken on at harvest time, and people are employed on task work. The Government, of course, are pledged to economy and they would have to scrap a great many thousands of the forms which they propose, though they may be using the old ones. But the difficulty mentioned by Lord Banbury could be got over easily in the way I have.suggested, and I commend my suggestion to the noble and learned Lord.
§ LORD PARMOORI am much obliged to the noble Earl for his suggestion, which will be carefully considered. I am afraid I can say nothing more on the main point. As I have stated, this information is required by the Ministry in order that they may understand all the conditions of agriculture. I am sure—at least I am instructed and I firmly believe—that it is not required for any other purpose, or for a sinister purpose such as has been suggested. I must leave the Amendment to the House.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH had an Amendment on the Paper to move, in subsection (3) (a), to leave out "twenty pounds" and insert "five pounds." The noble Duke said: I understand from the Lord President that he is prepared to accept this Amendment, but there is a somewhat similar Amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Banbury., whom I do not want to cut out. Should I do so if I move this Amendment now?
306
§
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 25, leave out "(twenty)."—(The Duke of Buccleuch.)
§ LORD PARMOORI should like to repeat, as I stated before, not by way of emphasising it, but because it is the view of the Government, that we are quite prepared to accept the noble Duke's Amendment to leave out "twenty" and insert "five" pounds, which, in the opinion of the Government and the Ministry of Agriculture, is a sufficient and fair penalty. I did not know that the noble Duke would quite take up the attitude he has done. We do not consider that a penalty of forty shillings, as proposed by Lord Banbury, is sufficient, and therefore, in agreeing that "twenty" should be left out, the Government do so with the intention of accepting the other part of the noble Duke's Amendment that five pounds should be inserted.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAMMay I now move to insert "forty shillings"
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCHI must say that for myself I think that £5 is not an unreasonable sum to put in, but I do not want to move it and prevent my noble friend from having an opportunity of speaking on the question. I move to insert the word "five."
§
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 25, after ("exceeding") insert ("five").—(The Duke of Buccleuch.)
§ LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAMI understood that my noble friend wanted me to move my Amendment, but I do not care which way it is. I shall be content to accept £5.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE EARL OF MAYO moved to leave out paragraph (a) of subsection (3). The noble Earl said: I go a little further than the noble Duke, because I wish to omit the penalty subsection altogether. When I spoke on Second Reading I foreshadowed what I meant by this Amendment, and I gave my reason for wishing to omit this paragraph. The 307 Returns would be got from all over the country a great deal more easily by voluntary methods than they will be got by imposing a penalty. I do not allude to those districts where there is a large population and a sufficient number of police or officials to carry out the task, but to those parts of Wales and Scotland where the population is scattered, and where, if you want your Returns to be accurate, and worth having, you will find it excessively difficult to get them unless you send out an army of people to serve the notices, and, if they are not filled up properly, send out those people again to tell the farmers that if they do not fill them up they will have to go before a magistrate and be fined.
§
In the speech of the noble Lord on the Second Reading he touched on this subject very clearly. He said:—
… the Board of Agriculture Act. 1889. … contains no provision as to the method in which those statistics are to be collected, although, as a matter of fact, on a voluntary basis, a very large number of annual Returns were made. These Returns were subsequently made compulsory by the Corn Production' Act, 1917, but with the repeal of that Act the compulsory powers disappeared.
Then he went on to mention that the council of the National Farmers' Union, recognising the great value of accurate statistical and economic information to the industry in all its branches, had informed the Minister of Agriculture that it would welcome the introduction of a measure in Parliament to put upon a sound basis the annual agricultural statistics from England and Wales. But the National Farmers' Union said nothing about this being compulsory. I think that if they had realised that it would be compulsory, and that they were liable to be fined, they would not have been so anxious to pass their resolution.
§ The noble Lord told us that the proposal to make the Returns compulsory was also submitted to the Agricultural Advisory Committee and the Council of Agriculture and that it received the approval of both those bodies. I wonder if they realised the number of people who were to be employed to serve these notices, and to tell the farmers that unless they filled them up they would be fined. I have no doubt that the noble Lord is not prepared to accept my Amendment. I would point out to him that the experience in my own country is that we 308 get Returns quite easily, and that there is no fine. The twenty-six counties of Ireland are very much smaller than the parts of England, Scotland and Wales to which I allude. The noble and learned Lord knows that a great deal better than I do. I beg to move my Amendment, though I do not think it is much use my trying to persuade the noble Lord to accept it.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 1, lines 22 to 25, leave out paragraph (a).—(The Earl of Mayo.)
§ LORD PARMOORAs the noble Earl has stated, the National Farmers' Union in England and Wales, and in Scotland, passed resolutions approving the principle of compulsory Returns, and the whole Bill is based on the principle that there should be compulsory Returns in order that the information may be obtained. The penalty has been reduced to £5, as desired by the noble Duke (the Duke of Buccleuch), and I hope the noble Earl will not press his Amendment, for it really would alter the whole character of the Bill, which, if this Amendment were passed, would no longer be a Bill of a compulsory kind.
THE EARL OF MAYOIt would make it a voluntary Bill instead of a compulsory one, and that is what I am aiming at.
§ LORD PARMOORThe farmers themselves desire that it should be compulsory in order that it may be effective.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCHI beg to move, in subsection (3) (b), to substitute "ten pounds" for "twenty pounds."
§
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 2, leave out ("twenty") and insert ("ten").—(The Duke of Buccleuch.)
§ LORD PARMOORI am prepared to accept this Amendment.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved to omit from subsection (3) (b) "unless he proves that he made the return innocently and without negligence" and to insert "if it is proved that he knowingly made such untrue return." The noble Lord said: This is a legal point and I move the Amendment with some trepidation. As the Bill stands, if a man 309 makes an untrue Return he has to prove that he made it innocently and without negligence. I have always understood the law to be that a man has not to prove his innocence but that the prosecution has to prove his guilt. The Lord Chancellor will be able to tell me if I am right in that supposition. My Amendment meets the point. It may be extremely difficult for a man who quite innocently makes a mistake to prove that he did so innocently and without negligence. Surely it is for the Department to prove that the man knew he was making a false Return. The noble and learned Lord in charge of the Bill is a celebrated lawyer. Perhaps he will agree with my definition of the law, and in that case I hope he will accept the Amendment.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 2, lines 2 and 3, leave out ("unless he proves that lie made the return innocently and without negligence") and insert ("if it is proved that lie knowingly made such untrue return"). (Lord Banbury of Southam.)
§ LORD PARMOORI do not think the somewhat wide principle to which the noble Lord refers, and with which I entirely agree, has any application to the present case at all. The matter stands in this way. A Return is required; it is not made, or it is made negligently. Surely in those circumstances, if a question arises, it is for the person to show-that the Return has been made in a proper manner. The person who makes a faulty Return should give an explanation as to why he made a faulty Return.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAMI beg to move, in subsection (6), to leave out "or osier land or woodland."
§
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 14, leave out ("or osier land or woodland").—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
§ LORD PARMOORI am prepared to assent to this Amendment.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD RAGLAN had on the Paper an Amendment to add to subsection (6) the words "but shall not be applied to woodlands or gardens attached to dwelling-houses where such woodland and/or garden are less in extent than two statute, 310 acres."The noble Lord said: In consequence of the acceptance by the noble and learned Lord of the last Amendment I will omit all reference to woodlands in moving this Amendment. There are a good many people who have land attached to their villas and cottages from which they sell a good deal of produce. I think a line should be drawn somewhere as to lands from which these Returns are to he demanded.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 2. line 15, at end insert ("but shall not be applied to gardens attached to dwelling-houses where such gardens are lees in extent than two statute acres").—(Lord Raglan.)
§ LORD PARMOORThe noble Lord apparently thinks that these gardens are gardens in the ordinary sense. They are market gardens.
LORD RAGLANIs there a definition of market gardens? If I sell a row of carrots does not that make the garden a market garden?
§ LORD PARMOORNo, certainly not. It is not meant to apply to an ordinary private garden attached to a cottage. I ask the noble Lord in these circumstances to leave out the proposed words. It may be necessary further to consider the definition of agricultural land which is construed to include market gardens. The definition of agricultural land is in subsection (6), and it includes "land used as grazing, meadow, or pasture land, or orchard, or for a market garden or nursery ground." The noble Lord will see that that definition sufficiently protects him.
§ THE EARL OF MIDLETONI do not think the noble Lord in charge of the Bill has made the matter sufficiently clear. Unless the Amendment of my noble friend is accepted, there is no reason why every garden attached to a dwelling-house should not be treated as a market garden or nursery garden, and I venture, to interpose on the really public ground that of all the grave scandals of national expenditure at this moment probably the greatest is the enormous mass of statistics of every description which are piled up in the public offices and which are perfectly useless to anybody. I do not say that there may not be some utility in the statistics which the Government seek under this Bill. If you want to know 311 the amount of corn land or land under any particular culture, it is quite understandable that it may be necessary to have these Returns, though I have grave doubts whether they will be utilised to any great advantage. But to serve on every small occupier a variety of papers, to force labourers to make Returns, to make all the mistakes which public Departments always make,—calling upon a man time after time, and sending him, as I have seen sent, five or six reminders—seems to me to be a waste of money against which this House ought to set its face.
Let me tell the noble Lord that I sat upon the Committee appointed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer nine years ago, and, of all the questions upon which that Committee pronounced, that which called for their strongest comment was the immense rise in the cost of the Stationery Department owing to absolutely futile Returns. We examined head of Department after head of Department, and they admitted that in a great number of cases these arrangements had been made twenty or thirty years ago, that a large number of people were employed in connection with them and that little or no public use was made of the information obtained. I think the noble Lord is fully justified in asking for further information, and I sincerely trust that he will press his Amendment.
§ VISCOUNT CAVEI must say that I am rather afraid of this Amendment. As the Bill stands it applies to market gardens, but not to private gardens attached to houses. Under this Amendment any private garden attached to a house might, if over two acres, come within the Bill.
§ VISCOUNT CAVEI am not at all sure about that. The sale of the produce does not make the garden a market garden. The Amendment might, I think, have an effect which the noble Lord does not intend.
§ LORD PARMOORThere has never been any difficulty in the definition of market garden in the Agricultural Holdings Act, and no such difficulty has ever arisen as the noble Lord suggested. As regards the wider question, every one desires that unnecessary Returns should 312 not be asked for, but these Returns are, I think, essential. The amount of extra work relating to these small market gardens is probably very slight indeed, but we want the Returns in order to get a correct estimate of the whole position regarding all agricultural land, including market gardens. If the proposed words were included, they might involve the risk to which the noble and learned Viscount has referred.
§ THE EARL OF MIDLETONDoes the noble Lord contend that corn can be grown on a holding of under two acres attached to a dwelling-house?
§ LORD PARMOORThat is not suggested; but corn is not the only product of agricultural land. There are agricultural products that can perfectly well be grown on market gardens, and which are habitually and constantly so grown.
THE EARL OF MAYOThis question has cropped up before. As the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Cave, has said, gardens over two acres will not be covered by this Amendment, but there are gardens over two acres, attached to dwelling houses, of which the produce is sold. The noble Lord in charge of the Bill has made it clear that the definition of a market garden has been settled, but my noble friend Lord Midleton was right when he said that a host of people will have to be paid to look after the matter. The noble Lord who moved the Amendment has left out the reference to woodlands—and quite rightly—but what is to be said of these gardens of over two acres? We have had no distinct answer from the noble Lord in charge of the Bill with regard to that point, and I should be glad—I do not know whether the Committee will agree with me—if he would give us a little more information.
§ On Question, Amendment negatived.
§
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH moved to leave out subsection (7), and to insert the following new subsection:
(7) Before any regulation is made under this Act, a draft thereof shall be laid before each House of Parliament, and if an address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent twenty-eight days on which that House has sat against the draft or any part thereof, no further proceedings shall be taken thereon without prejudice to the making of any new draft.
313
The noble Duke said: I think the Lord President is going to accept this Amendment——
THE LORD CHAIRMANDoes not the noble Duke wish to move the Amendment which stands first in his name on the Paper, to leave out the second "may" in subsection (7) and insert "shall"?
§ LORD PARMOORMay I point out that the noble Duke is quite right, because if the new subsection is adopted in place of that which is at present in the Bill the other Amendment becomes immaterial. I accept the noble Duke's Amendment.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 2. lines 16 to 24, leave out subsection (7) and insert the said new subsection.—(The Duke, of Buccleuch.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
§ Remaining clauses agreed to.
§ LORD PARMOORAs one or two matters have to be settled, I do not propose to take the Report stage of the Bill until to-morrow week, which will provide an opportunity of dealing with the matters which have been raised.