§ EARL BEAUCHAMP asked His Majesty's Government whether they are aware of the strong sense of injustice felt by the colonists established at Patrington under the Small Holdings Colonies Act, 1916, as a result of the Government's decision to close down the colony; whether, in view of the large capital loss that will be involved by disposing of the estate and the pledges already given to the ex-Service men by previous Governments, they are prepared to reconsider their decision; or, in the event of their decision being maintained, whether they have made provision for obtaining satisfactory alternative employment or small holdings for the colonists and for paying just compensation where necessary?
§ The noble Earl said: My Lords, I am much obliged to His Majesty's Government for allowing me to ask this Question at this particular moment. It would be a poor requital if I were to delay your Lordships with a long speech and I do not intend to say anything regarding the policy of having this settlement for ex-soldiers. A good deal might be said if we began to express our opinion on the 1667 judgment of those who originated this settlement at this particular place. Nor do I wish to criticise His Majesty's Government for their decision to close this particular settlement in view of the need for economy, and I confess there is a good deal to be said for their action in this matter. The point on which I wish to lay stress, however, is the compensation which is to be given to these men who, at the invitation practically of His Majesty's Government, went down to Patrington and tried to make that movement a success.
§ The Minister of Agriculture has been good enough to express on more than one occasion his sympathy for these men and has promised to do what he can to find them suitable employment. I should be very much obliged if the noble Lord, the Parliamentary Secretary, would be good enough to tell me what progress has been made in helping these men, how many men definitely have been helped to other positions, and whether there is a good prospect that the remaining men will be found suitable occupations, so that they may be engaged in employment such as they really desire and that they may be able to leave this settlement to find other engagements without a rankling sense of injustice. I beg to ask the Question of which I have given Notice.
§ THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD BLEDISLOE)My Lords, the noble Lord's Question has narrowed itself down to a much smaller issue than I thought I should have to deal with to-day. When he says that he does not desire to criticise the closing of the settlement it relieves me of what might have been a somewhat onerous task in explaining to your Lordships the true reason why it was thought desirable to close it. May I say quite frankly, putting it shortly, that we do not in the least contest the view that this settlement has been a failure and a costly failure?
Perhaps I may say, in passing, that I take personal responsibility to a large extent for it because I was asked by the then Minister of Agriculture, Lord Selborne, to get, if possible, a suitable site for a large scale experiment in settling ex-Service men upon small holdings out of which they might have a fair chance 1668 of making a living. This original scheme of a small holdings settlement was, after a few months, and if I may say so after I had ceased personally to have anything to do with it, altered to a scheme of profit-sharing farming; that is to say, farming on a large scale with a prospect and an undertaking to the men that if there were profits they should share in those profits proportionately to their remuneration. Unfortunately, there were no profits, except, I think, for two years; after that there was a series of increasing losses, the losses being due, I may say incidentally, very largely to the rent which, after equipment, had to be charged. When we add to the rent payable by the Ministry to the Commissioners of the Crown Lands the cost of equipment at a very expensive time the total charge is considerably larger than could possibly be charged to the settlement itself per acre.
As regards these men, I should like quite frankly to express on behalf of the Government and on behalf particularly of the Ministry of Agriculture our deep and very genuine regret that the men should find themselves in such an embarrassing position as the result of this costly and unsuccessful experiment. But what I should like to tell the noble Earl—and I believe the men fully understand it—is that even as regards the original settlers the personnel has very largely changed in recent years. There was no Government pledge of permanent employment. Such undertaking as there was was to the effect that these men should have a good farm training and share in the profits if there were any. A good many of these men were in no sense skilled agricultural workers. On the other hand quite a considerable number of them were handymen, who gave good promise of becoming skilled workers with proper training. Moreover, they were not men who had capital sufficient to set themselves up, at any rate at that time, on small holdings of their own.
I do not know whether the noble Earl has seen the very interesting Report of Mr. William Gavin, a man of great experience both in farming and accountancy, who was employed last year by the Ministry of Agriculture to make an independent survey and report upon the settlement to the Ministry. It has been published and I think the noble Earl has 1669 probably seen a copy of it. We cannot leave wholly apart from this issue the question of the cost of continuing the settlement, because, as men of business, we have to consider that to some extent while taking into due account the position of these men who will be displaced by the closing of the settlement. Mr. Gavin estimates that there would be a continuous cost to the Exchequer of something like £4,000 a year to keep the settlement going—that is, for the continued employment of sixty men. Two-thirds of those men, being local men and men of fair experience, should have no difficulty in finding employment with the new tenants who will come to occupy these farms, as used to be the case under the Crown before this settlement was established. In other words, for the employment upon these farms of only twenty men more than would normally be employed, there would be involved an expenditure of something like £200 per man in addition to their normal wages.
I think I can best answer the noble Earl by telling him that a deputation some weeks ago waited upon the Minister of Agriculture from Patrington. It was representative of the Yorkshire branch of the British Legion, and they were invited to inquire and they under-took to inquire amongst the Patrington workers, first of all, how many men desired assistance to obtain employment after Lady Day next when the settlement would be closed down, and, secondly, how many desired to remain in their present houses with the addition of extra land in order to make it an economic proposition if they worked it themselves. As a result of this inquiry the British Legion has recently put forward ten names out of the fifty-five men then employed at Patrington as persons requiring assistance with a view to future employment, and has sent a list of seven or eight men—I think, as a matter of fact, it is eight—who desire to retain their houses with extra land varying from one acre to ten acres. The names of these have been forwarded to the Commissioners of Crown Lands, who have promised to do their best to meet the wishes of these men. One of the ten men I have mentioned has already secured another post.
I think I ought to state that a certain number of these men are not agricultural 1670 workers at all. They are men who are skilled in what I may call non-agricultural employment, such as engine drivers, motor drivers, a carpenter, a wheelwright, a blacksmith and a clerk, all of whom should have no difficulty in securing suitable employment according to their qualifications. The number of the original settlers who are purely agricultural workers is twenty-two only, and the remaining workers, apart from the original workers who have come on to the settlement in recent years, were informed by the present director when they commenced employment that they were taken on as ordinary workers and were not regarded as being on the same footing as the original workers. The total number of the farm workmen whose future employment is uncertain is about ten only, and in relation to these the Ministry is making inquiries through its outdoor officers scattered over the country with a view to obtaining offers of employment with houses for them to occupy.
Moreover—I am sure what I am going to say now will satisfy the noble Earl; this assurance will probably ease his mind more than anything else—we have received authority from the Treasury to pay the removal expenses of any settlers and their families who have the opportunity of securing employment in other parts of the country and this fact has already been notified to each workman living in Patrington. The noble Earl will see that at any rate we are doing our best to secure employment for these men elsewhere and are asking the Commissioners to help us as far as possible in settling on land those who desire to remain and farm on their own account.
§ LORD OLIVIERMy Lords, in view of what has been said here and in view of some comment in the public Press and elsewhere, which has been unjust, I should like to add a few words to what the noble Lord the Parliamentary Secretary has said. When this scheme was taken in hand it was one of three schemes which were definitely intended to test various kinds of settlements. The Ministry of Agriculture were being pressed at that time to settle more men upon the land and this was one of the three schemes which wore very carefully examined by the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, and the noble Lord opposite. This experiment was to be undertaken in 1671 accordance with a certain method. It was not intended to be in any sense an eleemosynary scheme for persons not able to work in agriculture, and according to my recollection the land was selected very carefully by the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, and my noble friend opposite, with the assistance of advisers, as being land that was not unsuitable. I do not think myself, so far as I can judge, that it was unsuitable land for a settlement such as the noble Lord has suggested. After that scheme had been launched its intention was changed and the system on which it was worked was changed, and that is a matter which I think should be remembered in any criticisms that are passed upon this scheme. It was intended as an experiment on definite lines for a definite purpose and that intention was not carried out.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIREMy Lords, I should not have pressed this matter upon your Lordships' attention further if it had not been for something that fell from my noble friend the Parliamentary Secretary, who, with his usual chivalry, took some of the responsibility for this ghastly fiasco on his own shoulders, stating that he had selected the land. He could not have selected a better bit of land for small holdings in England. I remember going down there myself eighteen years ago and I concluded that it was the most perfect bit of land in England for small holdings. It is very good land and is intersected with roads on which cottages might be built. It is like an Australian town, intersected with straight roads and it seemed to me an ideal place.
The moment I got there I was met by a gentleman who came up to me and said: "Oh, Lord Carrington, I am glad to see you have come down to see the Crown tenants." It was on Crown land, that portion of England which is nationalised for the use of the State. I asked him: "What sort of land is this?" and he said: "It wants knowing." Well, everybody and everything wants knowing. He volunteered the statement, "It won't grow mustard," and then he took himself off. There was a man sitting under the hedge. I gave him 5s. and I said to him: "What sort of land is this?" He replied: "It is good rich land." I said: "I am told it won't grow mustard." He said: "It 1672 will grow pepper and salt if it is put in at the right time." If this land had been worked on proper principles it must have been a success. I am sure my noble friend will agree with me that no blame can possibly be attached to the officials of the Ministry of Agriculture.
What happened? They put in a man—I will not mention his name, everybody knows it at the office and at Sunk Island. I would like to call your Lordships' attention to a statement made by this gentleman in his Report in 1921. He says:
There is one aspect of the Ministry's administration to which it is impossible to attach too much importance, and that is that until this work was undertaken the philosophy of small holdings had been incomplete.He admits that there had been some loss of public money in conducting this experiment, but he was satisfiedthat it had given a new tone and direction to the whole policy of land settlement in this country and would hereafter be found to have been abundantly justified.There is only one thing to which I want to call the attention of the House. Those who live on the land and by the land and from the land have no use for philosophy. They have no use for agricultural Mussolinis and no use for bucolic Diogenes. If this scheme had been put into the hands of the officials of the Agricultural Department, if it had been worked through the county councils and properly administered by the county councils, and if it had been looked after also by the Commissioners and by the Minister for Agriculture, this ghastly fiasco would not have occurred.We have heard a great deal about the iniquities of poor old Mr. George Lansbury and his merry men at West Hans. The newspapers have rung with the story of all the money they have wasted. But Mr. George Lansbury did not get £3,000 a year as the administrator received who was put into office over the heads of all the permanent officials. The money at West Ham went into the pockets of those men who were seeking work and finding none. The country is very much indebted to my noble friend, the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, for having brought this before your Lordships' House. It has shown how bad a plight the ex-soldiers might have been in if it had not been 1673 for the very satisfactory statement of Lord Bledisloe on the subject. It shows how wrong it is to put ignorant, inefficient men into high places over the heads of men who have forgotten more than these men ever knew. I think the country is indebted to my noble friend Lord Beauchamp for the way in which he has brought forward this dreadful scandal, which I hope will be the last of this sort of thing.
§ LORD BLEDISLOEMy Lords, I think perhaps with your Lordships' leave, I ought in make one thing perfectly clear. I do not want to suggest for a moment that this land was, as the noble Marquess has been good enough to suggest, wholly suitable for the purposes for which it was originally intended, In fact, I must frankly tell the noble Marquess that it is what is called "silt land," which can produce very line crops in a good season. In fact, although somebody said it would not grow mustard, I found a good crop of mustard growing on some of it. It is quite good land, but inclined to be heavy and liable to run together in wet weather. The great problem was as to whether it would grow potatoes. I discovered before leaving the district that on an adjoining small holding potatoes were being grown, and being grown well, but I still have doubt in my own mind as to whether on a good deal of that land—which, although rich, was nevertheless stiff—potatoes could properly be grown. Potatoes, of course, are a most important crop as far as small holders are concerned.
As regards roads, it is perfectly true that there were roads intersecting the property, but they were soft and had not much metal, and were found to be wholly unsuitable for modern traffic. The result was that at very considerable expense they had to be metalled. I know nothing about the philosophy of small holdings, but I should think that probably if one indulged too much in that sort of philosophy one might lose a great deal of money. Although my own habitation is humble, I have not, like Diogenes, taken to a tub, and I cannot believe that Diogenes at his best would have turned out a very successful farmer.