§ Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
§ Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl De La Warr.)
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.
§ House in Committee accordingly:
§ [LORD STANMORE in the Chair.]
629§ Clause 1:
§ Establishment of Agricultural Land
Corporation.
§ 1.—(1) The Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries (hereinafter referred to as "the Minister") in conjunction with the Secretary of State for Scotland and with the concurrence of the Treasury may, at any time within one year after the commencement of this Act, by order made in accordance with the provisions of this section establish a corporation (hereinafter referred to as "the corporation") for the purpose of promoting and improving the agricultural development of such land in Great Britain as may be vested in the corporation, by conducting thereon large scale farming operations and otherwise; and the affairs of the corporation shall be administered, controlled and managed by such persons (hereinafter referred to as "directors") as His Majesty in Council may be pleased to appoint, and of the directors at least one shall be experienced in finance and of the remainder at least half shall have had practical experience in agriculture and the number of such directors shall be not less than five and not more than nine persons.
§ (2) An order made by the Minister and Secretary of State under the last foregoing subsection, shall—
- (a) provide for the constitution of the corporation as a body corporate under the name of the Agricultural Land Corporation, having a common seal and power to hold land without licence in mortmain:
- (b) provide for the remuneration of the directors out of moneys belonging to the corporation:
- (c) provide for the administration and management of the operations of the corporation in Scotland by means of a committee of the directors acting in consultation with such number of persons having practical experience of agriculture in Scotland as may be specified in the order:
- (d) empower the corporation to purchase or take on lease land by agreement, and, subject to any conditions specified in the order, to sell, let or exchange for any purpose any land vested in the corporation and to pay or receive money in respect of equality of exchange, and shall incorporate (subject to such modifications as may be specified in the order) the Lands Clauses Acts except the provisions of those Acts with respect to the purchase and taking of land otherwise than by agreement:
- (e) define particularly the objects of the corporation:
- (f) provide for the establishment of a fund (to be called the Agricultural Land Fund), to be administered and controlled by the directors, for the payment into the fund of all moneys received by or on behalf of the corporation, and for the payment out of the fund of any moneys required for the purposes of the corporation:
- (g) empower the directors, subject to such conditions as may be imposed by the Minister and Secretary of State with the approval of the Treasury, to borrow money for the purposes of the corporation and shall make provision as to the security upon which money may be so borrowed:
- (h) make provision for securing the payment to the Treasury of all moneys received by or on behalf of the corporation not required for the purposes of the corporation:
- (i) provide for the keeping of the accounts of the corporation, such accounts to include a profit-and-loss account, and to include a valuation made at the commencement and end of each financial year for the annual audit of those accounts, and for the making of an annual report to the Minister and Secretary of State showing such audited accounts of the corporation as may be specified in the order:
- (j) require the directors to furnish to the Minister and Secretary of State such information as to the operations of the corporation as they may at any time demand:
- (k) contain such supplementary or con-sequential provisions as the Minister and Secretary of State consider necessary or desirable for giving effect to the objects of the corporation as defined by the order,
§ (3) Before any order is made by the Minister and Secretary of State under this section a draft thereof shall be laid before Parliament, and if either House of Parliament within twenty-one days during which that House has sat next after any such draft is laid before it resolves that the order shall not be made, the draft shall thenceforth be of no effect, but without prejudice to the making of any new order.
§ (4) Any Order in Council appointing any person to be a director of the corporation may be revoked by any subsequent Order in Council, and any order made by the Minister and Secretary of State under this section may be amended by any subsequent order made by them at any time, but a draft of any such order shall be laid before Parliament in like manner as the original order.
§ (5) The Minister, as respects land in England, and the Department of Agriculture for Scotland, as respects land in Scotland, shall have power to acquire land otherwise than by agreement for the purpose of vesting the land in the corporation, so, however, that the compensation and other expenses of acquiring any such land shall be defrayed by the corporation.
631§ (6) The Minister and Secretary of State shall make to Parliament not later than the first day of May an annual report as to the operations of the corporation, including a summary of the annual accounts of the corporation.
§ VISCOUNT ASTOR moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "such" ["development of such land"]. The noble Viscount said: Until a few hours ago I was under the impression that the noble Earl in charge of the Bill would first of all explain the object of Clause 1, and that then those of us who wish to move Amendments would put them forward as an alternative way of carrying out that object. I find that this is not the procedure, and so it is necessary, I suppose, to say a word about the object of Clause 1 in order to explain why in my opinion the proposal which I am going to put forward is a better way of carrying out that object. The object of Clause 1, I understand, is to carry out experiments in large-male farming—although there are added the rather indefinite words "and otherwise," which seem to allow for considerable extension—and to carry them out on a businesslike basis. The method proposed in the Bill is through a Corporation consisting largely of experts and free front Ministerial and Departmental control. The Bill as drafted proposes that the experiments should be carried out on land acquired by and owned by the Corporation, and a million pounds has been voted for this purpose. There are therefore two points that we have to consider: the object and the method by which the object is to be carried out.
§ As regards the object, I confess, after considerable discussion and examination, I think a case can be made out to-day for carrying out experiments in large-scale farming and otherwise. This is a mechanical age. I think it would be unbusinesslike to suggest that agriculture, of all industries, should not have mechanisation applied to it in the same way as other industries. We know by experience; history shows that when an industry is mechanised it tends to be dislocated. That was the experience of the cotton industry last century and it is so to-day, but in spite of that it has been proved essential for progress that these changes should be made. Whether it is necessary or not in agriculture it is impossible to tell until the experiment has been made. 632 It certainly is a fallacy to imagine that agriculture alone of all industries may not require to be adapted to modern inventions.
§ It was explained on the Second Reading that the original suggestion for an experiment such as this was put forward by a Committee under Lord Selborne's Chairmanship, and it has been put forward since on more than one occasion by Mr. Orwin, and I myself, in travelling round the country, have run across experiments which are being carried out to-day by individuals. I recently read an article in The Times written by Lord Ernie and I am not quite certain—perhaps Lord De La Warr can tell us—whether the money voted for carrying out Clause 1 can be utilised for the purpose of what Lord Ernie in his most interesting article called process farming. He explains in his article that in Denmark the farmers not only produce the raw material but own their own factories, in which they enjoy the profits from butter and bacon as well as from milk and pigs. He goes on in the same article to suggest that. the million pounds might be better spent in the development of process farming, by loans for the erection of stations for drying or canning vegetables, pulping fruit, drying milk, extracting flour from potatoes and similar objects, processes which mitigate the danger of gluts and afford seasonal employment. I dare say the noble Earl will be able to tell us whether the Corporation could carry out experiments on those lines under Clause 1. As regards the amount of money to be spent, certainly it seems to me that if we were to get for a million pounds an answer as to applying the principle of mechanisation to farming, and as to whether altering our methods of agriculture was desirable or necessary, it would be money well spent in the interests of the industry.
§ I come now to what may be a more controversial matter—namely, that of methods. The Bill as drafted proposes that experiments should be carried out by the Corporation only on land which they own. There are three alternative ways in which experiments could be carried out. One is in the way which I suggest in my Amendment—namely, grants to private individuals or societies, and I rather gather that that is what Lord Ernie had in mind in his article; or it can be done, as suggested by Lord Lothian in his 633 Amendment, by the Corporation either on land which it owns itself or by grants to private individuals. The proposal in the Bill seems to me to be the least desirable and likely to be the most expensive. There is really no adequate limit to the commitments on which we should be embarking. If the Corporation buy land and the experiment is a failure, they cannot stop, and so the money voted need not necessarily be the limit of our commitment. The object of my Amendment is to enable the Corporation to conduct experiments or supervise the conducting of experiments by giving grants to private individuals or corporations.
§ There are undoubtedly, to-day, people who are competent and qualified and ready to carry out experiments such as are contemplated, but they are just short of the necessary capital. It would be far cheaper for the Corporation to give those private individuals a grant. In that way you limit the amount of your loss, and if you enter into partnership with individuals when making a grant you can share in the profit if there is one. That is the object of my Amendment. I do not know what procedure the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, is going to adopt—whether we shall have a general discussion on my Amendment and that of Lord Lothian at the same time—but I have explained briefly the Object of my Amendment.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 17, leave out ("such").—(Viscount Astor.)
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANWith your Lordships' leave, I would like to present my remarks as covering not only this Amendment, which also stands in my name, but also my Amendment standing in the middle of page 2 of the Marshalled List. The object of the Amendment I have put down is twofold: in the first place to support the principle of the clause and in the second place to bring about an alteration in giving effect to it. The principle of the clause is to spend some public money in permitting experiments in large-scale farming and otherwise, with a view to promoting agricultural development, and to do so exclusively through a Government Corporation spending money on land which it has acquired itself. The purpose of my Amendment is to make it possible for that 634 Corporation to enter into partnership with or to make advances to private individuals or corporations for this same purpose.
As I understand it, the majority or a very large number of those who have given close study from a scientific point of view to agriculture in Great Britain to-day, are in favour of the principle of Part I of the Bill. I do not think it is open to doubt that the most serious problem which confronts agriculture today is whether you can save arable farming at all, whether the whole of that eastern area running from the East of Scotland in the North round the Eastern Counties of England and round as far as Dorsetshire in the South is going to follow the example of Western England and give up arable cultivation altogether or not. The reason is twofold. In the first place, lower costs abroad, due to the highly mechanised methods of the new world or the low rates of wages on the Continent of Europe; in the second, the policy of this country in having doubled—and rightly doubled in my view—agricultural wages since the War. The working costs of British farmers so far as labour is concerned have been almost doubled while the working costs of foreigners have not been anything like doubled, if they have been increased at all.
In these circumstances can arable agriculture survive at all? I think there are a great many people who take the pessimistic view that it is doomed. I have investigated personally a certain number of experiments in mechanisation. Mechanisation in substance is a proposal to substitute mechanical or tractor power for horse power and for those who look after horses, and to substitute artificial manures for the animal manures which have been the main source of the fertility of the land in the past. It is a depressing sight, I confess, to go through a modern mechanised farm. The buildings are empty. There are no animals about the place. The farming is as good as ever but the human life and animal life is very small. What is the alternative? I was recently in Norfolk examining a very interesting experiment there, and I was told that what is actually happening there is that the alternative, which is rapidly coming to the fore, is that the farmers should take 635 the farms and convert them purely into rough pastures, with the result that there is even less labour and even less production on those farms than there is on mechanised farms.
As I understand it the principle of this Bill is to try to meet that situation, on the one hand by experimenting to find out whether it is possible by adopting modern methods to keep arable cultivation alive—a matter, I may say, of the gravest importance to us nationally because if we are not going to produce any arable products in this country we are in even greater danger in time of War than we are to-day—and secondly, by trying to utilise that labour which is inevitably forced off the land by mechanised farming by finding an opening for it in small holdings. I believe that is a sound approach to the problem. The question of small holdings will come up later. I am only concerned now with the question of whether or not it is a good thing to experiment in modern methods which will keep arable farming alive in that third of England in which it is dying to-day. I am in favour of doing so and I think it is worth while spending public money upon it.
Why do I think that such money as is spent ought to be partly spent by entering into partnership with or making advances to private individuals as well as on Government land? I think your Lordships will agree with me that it is normally the function of the owner of land to make these very experiments which are contemplated in this Bill. Is it possible for the owner of land to-day, with the existing system of taxation, to do so? I do not think any country has ever contrived a more disastrous system of taxation for agriculture in the history of mankind. Whatever view you may take of the landlord system, it seems to me beyond question that the worst possible system is to keep the landlord system alive and then make it impossible for it to function at all. That is the present system. As far as I can estimate the State is now taking more than £10,000,000 a year capital out of agriculture. It is taking about £3,000,000 a year in Death Duties, and anybody who knows the land knows that the incidence of taxation, both Income Tax and Super Tax on land is infinitely more heavy than on the ordinary industrial companies. It 636 is a taxation on gross revenue less certain deductions and not on the dividends which pass into our pockets. It is impossible under existing conditions for the owners of land to do the things which they ought to do and I welcome this Bill because, for the first time, it is a recognition by the State that capital ought to be put back into agriculture, and that the only hope of its recovery is that capital should be put back.
Therefore, I am proposing—I know it will open me to the odium of an attack on the ground that I am proposing to subsidise landlords—that in this whole business of experimenting the State should take the power, if it proves advantageous to do so, to enter into arrangements with the owners for this same purpose and not only do it on its own land. I do not personally object to the Government making its experiments on land of its own or acquiring land for the purpose. I think in some cases it is of advantage to do so. I am not afraid of the great bogey of nationalisation. I think that one of the best ways of convincing the public mind about the nature of the ownership of land is that the State should take a certain amount of land into its own hands and experiment, and burn its fingers in the process. The ordinary person believes that the ownership of land is like drawing dividends from War Loans. It is nothing of the kind. It is an extremely difficult and expensive business to conduct, and until the State itself conducts a certain amount of business of that kind I do not think it will understand in the least how to deal with it. And, therefore, I venture to put down an Amendment that the Corporation should be empowered not only to make experiments on land of its own, but also to enter into partnership with private individuals or public authorities or to make advances for the purpose of discovering how the arable industry of this country may be preserved.
§ VISCOUNT HAILSHAMI rise not really to make any considered contribution to the discussion of the particular Amendment which is now before your Lordships, but rather to make a suggestion which possibly may be in the interests of the saving of time. Your Lordships will have seen by the Marshalled list of Amendments that we have some two and a half pages of Amend- 637 ments dealing with the wording of Clause 1, finishing with an Amendment to leave out the clause altogether. If it should turn out—I am not saying it will—but if it should turn out that there is a strong feeling in this Committee that the clause ought to be left out altogether, there will be a very considerable and unnecessary expenditure of time in discussing the details of what is to be in the clause. The noble Marquess who has just spoken said very truly, and indeed my noble friend Lord Astor also said, that there were two things which they had to deal with—first, whether it was necessary and advisable to have these large-scale farm experiments made by the State, and, secondly, assuming that it was advisable, what the best form of machinery was for carrying that into effect. The immediate purpose of the Amendment before us is to modify the machinery. But if the majority of the Committee should take the view that it is not desirable to have these experiments at all, then obviously a lengthy discussion on the exact machinery which should be adopted would really turn out to be a complete waste of time.
What I was going to suggest for the consideration of the noble Earl in charge of the Bill is that perhaps he might concur in thinking that we might have a general discussion on the main point which the noble Marquess stressed and which the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, has also laid emphasis upon, as to whether or not it is desirable to have the large scale farming experiments by the State. If the general sense of the Committee should seem to be against that view then possibly it would not be regarded as reasonable or profitable to discuss Amendments which only deal with the question of how the experiment is to be carried out. It is only in the interest of time, as I hope the noble Earl will appreciate, that I make the suggestion. If it commends itself to the Committee it seems to me that we may save a good deal of discussion which may turn out to be wholly unnecessary.
§ LORD BUCKMASTERI wish to say a word in strong support of what has been said by the noble and learned Viscount. It was impassible, both for the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, and the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, to discuss their Amendments without explaining why 638 it was that they approved of the principle of Clause 1 of the Bill. There are some of us in the House who think that however you amend the clause it is impossible to reconcile it with their improvements. I am one of them, and it seems to me that to discuss all these Amendments before discussing the vital question whether the clause ought to remain in the Bill is exactly like discussing what clothes a man ought to wear when the real question to consider is whether he ought not to be sentenced to death.
§ LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAMIf it is the wish of your Lordships that I should move to leave out Clause 1 I am prepared to do it now.
§ THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EARL DE LA WARR)It is needless for me to say that I hear with surprise that the noble Lord is willing to move that Clause 1 should be left out. There are, I understand, no specific rules on this point and therefore the Government are entirely in the hands of the Committee. But I would put it to your Lordships that there are a number of Amendments of considerable importance on the Paper which it occurs to me might very considerably alter the feeling of many of your Lordships as to whether you are prepared to pass this clause or not. It may well be that your Lordships dislike the whole thing so much that you are prepared to kill the clause at once without further discussion; but I am not entirely sure whether that will really redound to the credit of Committee discussion in this House or not. That, of course, is entirely for your Lordships to decide. For myself, whilst net wishing in ally way to inconvenience your Lordships or waste your time, I would say, speaking for the Government, that we would certainly prefer that at any rate the more important of these Amendments, such as the one that has just been put before your Lordships by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, and the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, should be discussed in order that your Lordships should be in a position, if the Amendments are carried, to pronounce on the general principle included in the clause with those Amendments inserted. However, as I say, we are entirely in your Lord- 639 ships' hands, and if you feel so certain that, no matter what form it takes, you wish to move the clause right out of the Bill, then it is entirely for your Lordships to decide and for another place to deal with the matter when the Bill returns to them in that form.
§ LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAMI beg to move that Clause 1 be omitted from the Bill.
§ VISCOUNT HAILSHAMMy noble friend will forgive me, but I do not think it is possible to do that. There is a Motion before your Lordships' House to make the particular Amendment which stands at the head of the list of Amendments, and that has to be disposed of. I think my suggestion can only be carried out by the general assent of the Committee. I only put it forward because I thought it might save a very great deal of time.
§ LORD BUCKMASTERIt is possible for a Motion to be made that the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Banbury, shall have precedence over the others. I see no objection to that. The real point which I submit is whether the Amendment of Lord Banbury should have precedence over these other Amendments, and I beg to move that it should.
§ LORD PARMOORI really must take objection to that, because we ought to keep our practice right. I dare say that Motion might have been moved specially, with the consent of the Committee, before the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, moved his Amendment which has been supported by the noble Marquess. That Amendment is now before the House. I am not saying that conditions might not arise which would make it of advantage to take the question of leaving out the clause first; but that is not so at the present time. So long as the other Amendments are before your Lordships' House we have to proceed with them.
§ LORD BUCKMASTERI cannot see why the noble and learned Lord should object. I would point out to him that the principle of the clause was one of the things vital to the arguments of the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, and the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian. They said the first thing that underlay their Amendment was the principle of the clause. It was the very thing on which 640 they based their ease. If that is so, we ought to discuss the principle of the clause first, and I beg to move that that be done.
§ Moved, That the Amendment of Lord Banbury to leave out Clause 1 have precedence over other Amendments on the clause.—(Lord Buckmaster.)
§ LORD PARMOORI hope the noble and learned Lord will consider that that really would be an absolute upsetting of our procedure. It might be said of our procedure that we, first of all, go through the Amendments and then the question arises to leave out the clause. But after certain noble Lords have moved an Amendment on a matter of detail it does not seem right that we should pass away to the quite different question of leaving out the clause altogether. I claim that at this time—and I hope that we shall keep to our proper procedure—so long as these Amendments are before the House, as they are at the present time, they ought to be disposed of first.
§ VISCOUNT HAILSHAMMay I make a suggestion which would possibly meet the point? As my noble and learned friend Lord Buckmaster has said, in order to determine the merits of this Amendment it is necessary to consider the principle of the clause. Both the mover and the seconder have, in fact, discussed the principle of the clause. If those who are against the clause would express that view on this Amendment and if this Amendment should then be defeated it may well be that the movers of subsequent Amendments would not think it necessary to take up time in moving them. We should achieve the end we all have in view without running any risk of upsetting our procedure.
§ LORD BUCKMASTERWith the consent of your Lordships, I will withdraw my Motion.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAMI hope it will be in order for me to discuss on this Amendment—
§ LORD PARMOORHas the noble Viscount withdrawn his Amendment?
§ VISCOUNT ASTORI am not quite certain how we stand.
§ LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAMAm I to understand that the noble Viscount has not withdrawn?
§ VISCOUNT ASTORThat is so.
§ LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAMI understand it will be in order for me to do what the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, did at the beginning of his speech—to discuss whether or not, this is a good or a bad clause. If that is so, I propose to say that in my opinion it is an extremely bad clause and I will give your Lordships my reasons for saying so. The clause enacts that the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State for Scotland may, for the purpose of pro-mating and improving the agricultural development of land, buy a certain quantity of land and vest it in a Corporation. Then there are a certain number of directors, half of whom shall have had practical experience of agriculture and one of whom shall know something about finance. They may purchase, take or lease land by agreement and proceed with the establishment of an Agricultural Land Fund. All this is going to cost a million pounds.
In the first place, if noble Lords will turn to Clause 22 they will see that for the purposes of Clause 1 the Treasury are authorised to advance the sum of £1,000,000. I would ask noble Lords whether it is necessary to carry out experiments on this scale. Have they not been carried out before? My noble friend Lord Stanhope—I have his speech here—stated on the Second Reading that in Yorkshire, on the Partington Estate, the Government carried out experiments on an estate of 2,300 acres on which, in ten years, the Ministry lost over £82,000. I do not think this is a good augury for an experiment the antecedents of which show that in all probability we shall lose more money besides the £1,000,000 which it will cost. On the occasion to which I have referred, my noble friend Lord Stanhope drew the attention of your Lordships to the Co-operative Wholesale Society which, in 1930, had a farm acreage of 20,625 acres, and on that acreage lost £34,000 in a single year.
Why should we do this at a moment when it is common knowledge that the country is in a very bad financial position? What are we going to gain by it? Presuming, which I think is extremely 642 probable, that 10,000 or 20,000 acres are bought by this Corporation, and it is found, as the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, said just now, that by doing away with all the men on the land and by doing away with all the animals on the land and having nothing except machinery and artificial manures possibly—though I do not believe it myself—you might make arable farming pay. This Bill, I understand, was introduced in order to encourage employment; yet the first thing that is going to be done is to do something that will get rid of men on the land, discourage employment, and send more unemployed people to seek the "dole," or whatever is necessary. What is to happen if the £1,000,000 is not sufficient? It must be remembered that the following two clauses also propose to spend money. I presume, if we pass this clause, we shall have to pass the other clauses, which mean a cost of £6,700,000, Therefore, in the interests of economy, in the interests of employment, to avoid turning out the tenant-farmer, which must necessarily result, and to avoid turning away the labourers from the land, I trust your Lordships will reject the clause.
§ LORD HASTINGSMight I, before making a few general remarks, say how glad we agriculturists on this side of the House are to see the noble Earl (Earl De La Warr) restored to health, and in his seat and able to deal with the very strenuous business which lies before him. The exceedingly interesting speech which fell from the noble Marquess, Lord was as surely a very remarkable utterance for a distinguished and consistent Free Trader to make. I conceive it impossible that any Protectionist could have been able to explain to your Lordships so lucidly and with such conviction the reasons why arable agriculture in England is now falling away and has become decadent. The noble Marquess has explained that wages have had their effect, and that mechanised agriculture abroad has had its effect, and he leaves us with the certain knowledge that arable agriculture in England, unprotected and compelled to face unaided this accumulation of competition from overseas, is in no condition to compete. The noble Marquess accepts that situation, and then goes on to suggest that the best way to get rid of it, or to 643 ameliorate it, is to adopt national farming on modern mechanised lines.
Surely it would occur to most reasonable people that the first way to deal with a situation such as that which prevails is to endeavour to see if, by some fiscal means, it would not be possible to preserve arable agriculture in that condition in which it now is rather than embark on an elaborate and costly State scheme whereby, and under which, a very large proportion of those persons now engaged in agriculture, however unsuccessfully, would be displaced. Surely it is more desirable to retain upon the land those who are already there, even though it may involve some sacrifice of fiscal principles, rather than deliberately to expropriate them in order to give opportunity for an experiment such as is designed in this Bill. So much for that side of the matter.
It all depends, in my humble view, upon the angle of approach as to whether one considers this experiment desirable or not. The noble Earl in charge of the Bill, in his two speeches on Second Reading, both when he introduced the measure and when he took part in the debate, referred to this clause, and on each occasion he approached it from one angle. It was the angle of expediency. He endeavoured to explain to the House how desirable it was that, in view of the fact that arable agriculture had fallen upon evil days, some alternative method should be found. That, of course, was sound sense. I would not be so foolish as to attempt to controvert it, but I say it depends entirely upon the angle from which the subject is approached. I am bound to approach it from a totally different angle. I know there are in existence, and we all know, innumerable farmers farming 100 acres, 200 or 300 acres under grave difficulties to-day, but they are there, and it is in the interests of the State that they should remain where they are and not be displaced. We also know there are large numbers of labourers employed on those farms who are not able to earn the wage which the State says they should have. That is not their fault. It is, however, the fact. Nevertheless I consider it highly desirable that they should stay where they are. It is in the interest of the State that it should be made possible for 644 them to remain on the farms, and for the tenants to farm successfully where they are.
There is another angle of approach that I make. If this large-scale farming is to be subsidised by the State—for the moment I am not concerned as to the immediate cost; I am concerned more with the large principle involved—if it is held to be desirable to subsidise large-scale farming we have to face the consequences. What are the consequences going to be? For the moment we are dealing with arable agriculture, and we had better confine ourselves to that, although I know large-scale farming can be conducted in other kinds of agriculture as well as arable. But for the moment it is arable farming that we are considering. There are a large number of persons who believe that mechanised farming on a large scale, in the present condition of unprotected agriculture, would fail. They want it to fail, and therefore they would like to see the experiment. That seems to me to be a rather futile method of approaching any big subject. There are many indeed who feel confident that this large-scale farming, even under present conditions in England, would succeed, and that is to my mind the really dangerous possibility, because, if you have spent great sums of State money in inducing a successful experiment, you have to see where it is going to lead to.
You are not to stop at it, but, having found the thing is successful, what do you do? The presumption is that, having discovered it is successful, you would try to extend the experiment. It would no longer be an experiment. It would became part of the adopted practice of agriculture in the country. It is to be remembered that we have not a hinterland, that we are not a prairie country. We are a country with a very limited area of land, an area which is becoming more limited because of the growth of towns and the requirements of the population generally. We have no great fields to fall back upon. We have almost only what we see under our noses. Can we afford to extend prairie farming indefinitely, or even very much, in this country? If we do, what will happen to the people who now live upon the land? You cannot get any large number of persons able or willing to find the capital 645 and to follow the example of this experiment of the Government. You have to have a 6,000-acre farm, which is the correct acreage for this type of farming. I speak on the authority of a gentleman whom I would not mention personally if his name had not already been mentioned by Lord De la Warr. We all know that Mr. Orwin is the protagonist of this scheme and he says that the 6,000-acre farm is the correct size.
How many people in this country will take up 6,000-acre farms and farm them on practical lines? Only a few syndicates. The logical conclusion will be that the Government, having discovered that this farming is remunerative and that very few people are able to do it for financial reasons, will come to the House and say: "Here is a success, give us the money to go on with it" and, in course of time, enormous areas in the country will be farmed by the State on this large-scale basis. That, in my opinion, is very undesirable. We have to look at the consequences of success. You want success and, if you achieve success, where is it going to take you?
Another point is, what is going to happen to the tenant farmers and labourers now upon the land? I admit that, within narrow and restricted limits, it may be possible to accommodate a limited number of those labourers with small holdings, but not every man is prepared to undertake the slave labour of a small holding when he can more easily earn a decent wage by working for someone else. You cannot compel him to do it if he does not want to. In this Bill you propose to compensate the man for his loss of employment. It is hard on the taxpayer that you should take away his work and pay him for it. Remember, too, that he may be attached to his home, which may have been the home of his family for generations. He may not keep his pedigree as carefully as noble Lords keep theirs, but it is there all the same and his present home has been his home for generations. This is a, definitely antisocial measure and I cannot believe how a Socialist Government found it possible to embody this clause in their Bill. We have been told where it came from. I cannot conceive that this clause ever emanated from the mind of a Socialist Minister. It is definitely anti-social to propose to turn a labourer out of his job, to put him in a part of the country 646 where he does not wish to be, and to deprive him of the opportunity of earning his living in the way he wishes to. If there were no other objection whatever to this clause than this forcible ejection of the labourer who now endeavours to earn his living upon the land, I should vote against the clause. I doubt if there are many noble Lords present in this House who will not take the same attitude and I also doubt if half the noble Lords opposite will not follow me into the Lobby.
§ LORD BUCKMASTERSince the Second Reading of this Bill sufficient time has elapsed to enable all of us to give careful consideration to its contents. On the Second Reading I expressed myself as very critical of its value, and reflection has confirmed the view which I then expressed and has made me feel that possibly my criticisms were not sufficiently severe. It must be remembered that, in discussing this Bill and its provisions, you must discuss them in relation to the position in which we stand. That is especially true of Clause 1 which is now under consideration. Clause 1 stands by itself. Nothing in the rest of the Bill depends upon it. It is what I think physiologists call encysted. It is entirely within its own cell, and its rejection cannot possibly affect anything else in the Bill. Consider this First Clause and consider it in relation to the circumstances to which I have referred. It is necessary to examine its provisions a little more closely than has hitherto been done. The Bill begins by saying that, for the purpose of improving agriculture, there are experiments to be conducted by large-scale farming and otherwise. The noble Viscount, who moved this Amendment, and my noble friend behind me and, indeed, the noble Lord who has just sat down, assumed therefore that the real outstanding purpose of this Bill was simply to conduct large-scale farming experiments. There is no such restriction within the Bill at all. If you have a phrase "to conduct large-scale farming experiments and otherwise," it is as open for you to keep pigs or poultry as to have a large farm.
There is nothing in the world, once the Bill is passed, to prevent the people who have charge of this Corporation doing exactly what they please where they like. This is not a Bill which takes a definite 647 area and says that it is desirable that certain things should be done there and it is therefore proposed to conduct either experiments or what is hoped will be a successful commercial undertaking. It is nothing of the kind. The people in authority could go anywhere they please, from Cape Wrath to Land's End, from East to West, and conduct large-scale farming or small-scale farming or anything they please. That being the purpose of the clause, how is it proposed to carry it out? It is proposed to carry it out by establishing a company over which there is no public control. It owes no responsibility to any Government or any person. Its sole business begins and ends by having accounts audited, by keeping in touch with some Government Department so as to answer questions if somebody chooses to ask them. It is to be controlled by five or nine persons; one is to be a financier, two are to be taken from the land, and two more are to be taken from anywhere. Who these people are we do not know. When anything of this kind is introduced, as a rule, you put the names of the people in, in order that we might have some consciousness as to who is going to undertake the operation. Nobody knows that here and nobody knows why, if the operation is to be purely agricultural, only two out of five are to be agriculturists.
I asked one of the most eminent agriculturists if there was any reason why one should have a financier to control such a company and he replied: "That is only eye-wash," which is what my own unaided judgment led me to believe. It is incredible, unless you are going to start speculative transactions in land or pigs or poultry, that you should want a financier for a company which has not to raise the money—it is all raised for it by a grateful country—but which has only to spend the money on agricultural operations. This company, being formed, has powers similar to those of any ordinary company, but it never has to lay a balance sheet before the shareholders. I cannot see anything which distinguishes the company which is going to be worked under this clause, from a number of other companies which the City knows only too well are often blown like a bubble, and like a bubble burst, with the exception that, when the ordinary company has been burst, there are shareholders, and they have two remedies. The first is to attend 648 the meeting at which the directors hand in their accounts, and to ask questions and discover what has happened. There is no such power for anybody here. No person can attend the meeting when this thing fails. Somebody may make some comment in the House of Commons or in this House, but that is all that can be done. The shareholder has another remedy. He has the law behind him, and he can call the directors to account if they have neglected their duty. There is no such thing in this Bill. I am not saying that these five unknown men will neglect their duty. You do not ever appoint the directors of any company upon the hypothesis that they are going to neglect their duty. What I say is that, if they do so, there is no power by which they can be called to account under this Bill.
This company, so created and so constituted, is to have at its disposal a million of public funds. Supposing it gets deeply involved and wants more, we know perfectly well what is going to happen. Some provision will be introduced into a Finance Bill providing more money for this company. This million is only the million put down here as the amount from which they can draw. There is no reference to the overdraft, which will probably be just as real as the bank balance itself. Then, this company being under no obligation whatever to publish to anybody its accounts, the only opportunity left is a question, either in this House or in another place. What will a question in this House produce? Your Lordships all know perfectly well what it will produce. It will produce a type-written answer from some Government Department, which will be read out to us by some member of the Government. You have seen that done over and over again, and you will remember that on one occasion, to the amusement rather than the annoyance of the House, the noble Minister who read out a written answer had had two typewritten answers given him, and by mistake he read the wrong one. That is all you will get when you ask how this has happened.
If this country were in easy circumstances, if it had a million to scatter, if it were interested in trying a big experiment and were prepared to risk the money, there might not be very much ob- 649 jection to this clause. But to-day can anybody justify the use of a million of money on such a vague experiment as this? It is a rash and hazardous experiment, an experiment that in itself does not remedy any existing evil. It is nothing but an experiment, but it will most certainly aggravate some evils, though it will redeem none. I do sincerely hope that this Committee will unite in opposition to this clause. It is impossible to share the sanguine hopes of the noble Lord who has just sat down that any members on the other side of the House will join with us. It is their ugly, ill-favoured bantling, and you cannot expect them to join in killing it. That is no reason why we should not put an end to its existence, and I say that the Parties ought to join in doing so.
Speaking as a Liberal—though I have no right whatever, and make no claim, to speak on behalf of anybody except myself, and though the views that I express may be contrary to those of my noble friends who sit beside me—yet, speaking as a Liberal, I say that this clause ought to be rejected, and for these reasons. In the first place, it is vague and inexact. It is a clause to enable this company to go we know not where and to do we know not what. Such provisions will certainly shock the mind of anybody who, like myself, still remembers with pride that the Earl of Oxford and Asquith was his leader. In the next place, whatever else this Bill does, it is going to be an attempt at a semi-nationalisation scheme. This secured the approval of the noble Marquess behind me because he hoped that thereby public money would be wasted, public fingers would be burned and people would be warned off any further such rash and hazardous expenditure. At any rate this is contrary to what I have always understood to be Liberal principles, which are that self-reliance, industry, thrift, the hope and possibility of winning your own reward and the certainty that you will pay the penalty of your own neglect are the real mainsprings of all industry in this country.
Finally, this extravagance is enough to shock any Liberal who has an economic mind. It certainly is sufficient to disturb the very shade of Mr. Gladstone, even if it be, as at this moment I trust it is, in converse with the shade of Homer 650 in the Elysian Fields. Liberalism, therefore, ought, as I understand Liberalism, to reject this clause. Surely the official Opposition ought to unite upon it. The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Hailsham, when your Lordships gave a grudging—and at this moment I am not even sure that it was a wise—approval of this Bill on the Second Reading, assured you that the interests that we desired to protect should be protected on the Committee stage. Now is the moment to redeem that promise. This is a step forward in a proposal that will commit this country to a large, indeed an immeasurable expenditure. Without distinction of Party, I think that at this moment we ought to recognise the principle that, except in cases of proved and established necessity, we will consent to no measure that will add to the public burden. This is not a case where there is any proved necessity, and nobody has suggested it. We are asked to put national money upon an unknown card, an operation which is performed only by a spendthrift or a gamester, and at least in that case the gamester puts on his own money and, when he loses it, it is his own loss and, if he be ruined, it is he and his dependants alone who suffer. But here you are being asked to use the public funds, of which I suggest to your Lordships that we are trustees on behalf of the people, and, unless we are satisfied that the money is going to be properly spent, to permit this expenditure is a breach of trust. I say that it is impossible that the spending of this money can be justified in present conditions, and I would ask you not to risk any more of our slender resources upon what, after all, is nothing but a gambler's throw.
§ EARL DE LA WARRI hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I do not follow the noble and learned Lord into the clouds of eloquence to which he has just treated us. Perhaps I may say that at the moment I find it a little difficult to reply to noble Lords, because I am not really quite sure what we are discussing—whether we have left behind the Amendments of the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, and the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, and have come on to a general discussion. That is what I think has been proposed. If we had had a discussion on Lord Lothian's Amendment, 651 I should have said that His Majesty's Government did see considerable difficulty in the way of accepting that Amendment exactly in the form in which it stood, but that we were intending to promise it very friendly consideration. I mention that in spite of the fact that your Lordships wish to have merely a general discussion, because it illustrates the fact that we were looking at this question not from the point of view of any particular theory or of any particular form of Amendment, but simply and solely because we are convinced that a situation does exist, at the present moment, in the agricultural world, where it is essential that the Government should intervene and take some form of action. The noble and learned Lord who has just sat down said that if the country were in easy circumstances some such experiment would be justified.
§ LORD BUCKMASTERMight be.
§ EARL DE LA WARRMight be justified. I absolutely and entirely disagree with the noble and learned Lord. If the country were in easy circumstances, and if the whole of the farming area of this country were in a state of prosperity, then it would be completely unnecessary for the Government to intervene with any experiment with regard to new methods. It is because—the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, in his most interesting speech referred, I think, to my Second Reading statement—we are faced with the hard and terrible fact that the arable area of agricultural England is virtually in a state of ruin that the Government have decided to intervene. The question really is how the Government are to intervene. I can understand Lord Hastings opposing this clause, because he is quite prepared to put forward his own proposal. He believes that the Government should intervene by a form of Protection for arable agriculture. I do not know what particular views the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, holds on the fiscal issue, but I gather, as he still speaks from the Liberal Benches, that he is still a Free Trader. If he is a Free Trader, and does not believe that it is right to tax the consumer by giving protection to arable agriculture, what is his alternative for dealing with the situation in the Eastern counties of this country? Surely there is only one alternative, and that is to find a new 652 method of fanning. That is the proposition that the Government put forward.
Noble Lords opposite have said that this new method will mean a decrease in the amount of labour employed on the land. Apart from seeing certain large farms myself, and apart from having farmed on a fairly large scale myself, I have also read the records of a number of large farms, and I find that the experience is very conflicting. Whereas there are some large-scale farms, particularly of the type mentioned by Mr. Orwin—wheat-growing form of agriculture—where labour has been reduced, I have also read the records of five or six farms which have been joined, and where, as a result of the vastly increased productivity and efficiency, the labour has been almost doubled. Let me take the contention of Lord Hastings, in particular, at its face value and admit that under certain forms of large-scale farming labour may be reduced. The noble Lord from that fact deduces a terrible picture of taking up happy peasants from their homesteads and casting them forth. That would be all right if the situation in those areas was quite normal at the present moment, and they were happy and prosperous, but the whole case for agricultural reform, which many of your Lordships wish to bring about by Protection, is that the situation in those counties is such that the people living there are in a state of ruin. We know that at the present moment a great deal of that land is ceasing to be arable land, and is tumbling down to grass and being farmed on a ranching basis.
If we are faced with the facts as they are, and not as we would like them to be, then we must realise that it would be better to have that land farmed on an efficient basis, producing the maximum amount of food, even if it means a slight decrease of labour. The argument that we should persist in a particular form of agriculture, even though it be less efficient than the mechanised form of agriculture, against which we have to compete in the New World, is an argument that the cotton mill owners should be forbidden to put in labour-saving machinery in their mills, and that the coal owners should be forbidden to use laboursaving appliances in their mines, and that, on the other hand, the Government should subsidise the cotton mills and the 653 coal mines in order that they may be able to employ more men. I admit that the case for this new experiment in large-scale farming is a hard one. It is a matter of facing the hard fact that this great area in the eastern counties is in a miserable economic state; but I submit to your Lordships that, having to face that fact, we have to realise that the only thing to do, if we wish arable farming to continue, is to see that it is conducted on the most ruthlessly efficient basis possible.
I submit that that is equally necessary whether you have Protection or Free Trade because, whatever the advocates of Protection would contend, surely they would not say that they want Protection for arable agriculture in order to enable it to go on with methods which they know are less efficient than those of our competitors. I hope very much that, whatever your Lordships may do about the insertion of particular Amendments, you will still give Clause 1 the most careful consideration before deciding to throw it out of the Bill, because I do believe that it has got a real contribution to make to the development of agriculture in this country—possibly only a certain area of agriculture in this country but nevertheless an important one—and your Lordships, I believe, will be delivering a great blow to the future development of agriculture if you decide to throw out this clause.
§ LORD CLINTONThe two noble Lords who first spoke in this debate showed remarkable confidence that this large-scale farming would be of great benefit to the agricultural community. It is confidence which is evidently shared by the Government, but which, I venture to say, is not shared by any member of the agricultural community. What the noble Earl has described as the new style of farming is not of course in itself new. We have had mechanised farming in this country for many years and, what is more, carried on successfully. Many individuals achieved considerable success a few years ago. If it has failed now it is not because their methods were necessarily wrong or because they did not fully mechanise their holdings, but because of a fact which is affecting the whole of agriculture—namely, that the prices of produce to-day are not sufficient to pay the cost of production. That is affecting the whole of agriculture.
654 If the noble Earl in his new method is going to make a further mechanisation experiment, it can only, I imagine, be on a very much larger scale than we have tried before, and I am very much afraid that those who have advocated large-scale farming in this country—not necessarily the Government but others—have had in their minds Canadian or Dominion instances. There are many of your Lordships who know the prairie well and who know that the configuration of that land with its hundreds of square miles of absolutely flat country free from stones, free from drains and from the necessity of drainage, with soil of uniform texture throughout and with the same aspect for all their land, lends itself to large-scale farming with highly mechanised implements. But you will not find in this country areas which are comparable to that. I was glad to hear the noble Earl say that there might be opportunities for this in certain areas which have long been out of cultivation or which have not been cultivated at all, but there is nothing in this measure to say that the Government, or the Corporation, are going to confine themselves to that, and it does seem likely that they will take the opportunity—and naturally so—of getting what good land they can find. I am quite certain they will eventually discover that they are not able to use here these highly mechanised methods which have been possible in the Dominions and which the noble Earl visualises. The large-scale work in the Dominions was exceedingly successful so long as wheat was about a dollar a. bushel, but at the present moment, when its value is 60 cents a bushel, they are in exactly the same difficulties as we are here, and I think, from exactly the same causes.
My noble friend below me spoke of the trouble which was caused by the dismissal of labour, and I think the advisers of the Government, such as Mr. Orwin and Sir Daniel Hall, have all pointed that out. But it is not only labour which would be reduced. The acquisition of an area of 10,000 acres means the disturbance of occupying tenants. Almost the whole trend of our agricultural legislation for the last fifty years has been in the direction of obtaining better security for tenant farmers, and it has largely achieved success. The only cause for which they are likely to be disturbed now arises owing to the incidence of Death 655 Duties, but that has been largely smoothed over by the Agricultural Credits Act of the late Government, which enables tenants to purchase their farms and borrow the money at a comparatively low rate of interest. It has been an exceedingly effective piece of legislation, because for the last two years the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation have lent very nearly £8,000,000 for that purpose. But now there is not one tenant farmer who will be safe under this Bill. Nobody can guess where the blow may fall, and if you can imagine an official of the Ministry of Agriculture going to a district and making a noise about large-scale farming the whole place would be filled with consternation. I do hope that your Lordships will not only consider the matter of expense, which was so forcibly put before the House by the noble and learned Lord beside me, but that you will give effect to the view, in the interests both of the agricultural worker and of the tenant farmer, that we should refrain from passing a measure which may destroy the livelihood of both these classes.
§ LORD LAMINGTONMay I ask the noble Earl one question? I believe I am right in saying that the Government have at their command large areas of country, such as is held by the Duchy of Lancaster. If I am right in this assumption, I would ask whether they have introduced this system to remedy the evils under which agriculture is now suffering into any of those areas, either by way of experiment or as a proper means of improving the land. I do not know whether the Government can give me an answer off-hand, but I think I am right in saying that the Government have these large areas.
§ LORD BUCKMASTERI should like to correct the noble Lord. The Government have absolutely no right or power whatever over any land of the Duchy of Lancaster.
§ EARL STANHOPEI think your Lordships will realise from the debate which has so far taken place on this clause that the general feeling of the Committee is very strongly opposed to the proposals of the Government. My noble friend opposite, I venture to think, either said too much or too little. He first of all talked of having examined 656 a good many kinds of large farms where mechanisation was in operation, and that in some cases they were quite successful. Very well, if that is the case why does the Government require to make further experiments? Surely, you can already apply the lesson of what is being done by private individuals in various parts of the country. The Minister himself, in Committee in another place, drew attention to two cases of large-scale farming. In the one case there was an outdoor milk farm in Wiltshire, covering 2,500 acres, and there was another case of an area which he did not name but I think most of us recognise as Lincolnshire, where there was a farm of 4,301 acres, of which 2,451 were under corn and 897 under potatoes, and there were other crops in addition. Further, it had 2,000 sheep, 2,200 pigs and 450 cattle. There is an experiment going on under a private individual. Why should it be necessary to take public money to make further experiments?
But, after all, what is the Government going to try to do? It is going to try to prove that large-scale farming is a success. If it is a success, what then occurs? As the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, has pointed out, there are not many individuals who will be able to take on large-scale farming out of their own pocket. There may be a few syndicates which will be prepared to risk it, but, if they are going to accept the experiment of the Government, they will have to be thoroughly satisfied that the thing is run on commercial lines and by commercial methods. Everybody knows that with public money, whether it is a case of a land corporation or any other, you have to submit accounts to the Treasury. It is done in a form which is not common to commercial businesses, and therefore is not very acceptable, or considered very reliable by private individuals. Therefore, even if you have a successful experiment it is extremely doubtful how far it would be accepted by private individuals.
But there is more than that. As Lord Clinton has pointed out, land varies from field to field, and from farm to farm. Therefore, if you have an experiment, we will say in Lincolnshire, it is extremely doubtful whether Suffolk will agree that it is suitable to its own area. It is even very doubtful whether Sussex will approve, and more doubtful still 657 whether the West Country will. You might take any number of cases. You might have your experimental farm in the West, or the Midlands, or the South. You will have to have a whole series of experimental farms to encourage other people to follow your example. But private individuals will not follow your example, for the simple reason that they would not be able to raise the funds.
There is the other side. The noble Earl said there were large areas in the Eastern part of England which are going out of cultivation, and therefore it was infinitely preferable to have large-scale farming under the Government than to allow these losses to continue. What does that mean? The noble Earl realises that farming in that part of the country, under present fiscal conditions, cannot be made to pay, and therefore he quite deliberately proposes that public money should be spent in adopting an experiment which he knows is hound to fall; that is to say, an experiment where farming will be undertaken at a loss and not at a profit. It would be far better for him if he dealt with the fiscal position instead of producing the First Clause of this Bill.
There is one further point I should like to deal with which is, perhaps, the most important of all. If your Lordships turn to the Bill you will see that the Corporation is to have power to carry out "large-scale farming and otherwise" for the purpose of "promoting and improving the agricultural development" of land. What is meant by "promoting and improving the agricultural development" of land? I submit that anything is possible; not only farming, but the running of a bacon factory, a cheese factory, a jam factory, possibly of shops in which the jam and the cheese will be sold. Where are you going to end? By whom is this to be run? It is to be run by a Corporation more or less allied to the Government, and run with public money. If I wanted to nationalise land or the sale of food products or the production of things like jam and cheese I should do it by means of a land corporation. Therefore, as I am utterly opposed to land nationalisation, I shall, for that reason alone, oppose this clause. For the reasons given so strongly by the noble and learned Lord and by my noble friends Lord Hastings 658 and Lord Clinton, and for the reasons put forward from all quarters of the House, I hope that your Lordships will unanimously agree, at any rate those who sit on this side of the House, to reject this clause.
§ LORD NOEL-BUXTONThe opposition to this proposal from the Conservative Benches seems to me the more peculiar because we must remember that this suggestion originated not with Socialists nor with Liberals, but with Conservative authorities. Its parentage is entirely Conservative. I would venture to remind the Committee of the words used by the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, and others in 1919, when they urged that a limited number of large demonstration farms run on business lines should be established. The Report of the Selborne Committee was signed also by Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes, afterwards a member of your Lordships' House, Sir Daniel Hall and the late Mr. Edward Strutt, whose authority no one will dispute. Sir Daniel Hall published at the same time a book in which he said that he placed in the forefront the development in Great Britain of extensive farms worked upon the same principle as large industrial concerns. It seems to me that not on the merits but in some other aspect of the matter we must—
§ LORD CLINTONMay I interrupt the noble Lord for one moment? When he claims Lord Selborne as an authority advising large-scale farming he ought really also to tell your Lordships that the noble Earl only recommended it in conjunction with minimum prices for grain.
§ LORD NOEL-BUXTONHe recommended large-scale farms on their own merits. At the same time, as it was war time, he was certainly recommending guaranteed prices. But Sir Daniel Hall made no such qualification in his recommendation, and I do not think the Selborne Committee made the proposal dependent upon guaranteed prices. Why, then, must we? To what can we attribute the very strong, even violent opposition to this proposal? Is it not that noble Lords see in it the sinister hand of the nationaliser aiming at nationalisation? One remark which fell from the noble Lord, Lord Clinton, seemed almost to classify this proposal with a proposal for nationalisation in a degree. But would not that, if we look at the thing 659 without prejudice, be mistaking the nature of this proposal altogether? It is surely not the thin end of the wedge of Bolshevism being introduced under careful cover. Ought it not to be regarded as a proposal in the field of research? It is surely in its nature no more a nationalising proposal than the system of county farms, the system of the provision of small holdings by public authorities or the running of demonstration farms by institutes which are financed by the Ministry of Agriculture.
It may be that some noble Lords see little value in the considerable amount of money spent up to now on research. Surely we may distinguish between them and those noble Lords who take an active part in county agricultural work, who are keen on research and who, if they did not suspect a side-issue in this proposal, would be warm advocates of it. Indeed, the proposal might without conflict with principle perfectly well have emanated from a Conservative Government, as, indeed, it nearly did after the Report of the Selborne Committee. And would it not have been welcomed with open arms by some of those noble Lords who are thinking of voting against it? It may well be held that a tariff or a guaranteed price would do a great deal more for agriculture. But those noble Lords who are interested in research will not deny that, quite apart from the merits of the proposal, the question of the type of farm is of vital importance. Looking at the world in general we see that of the three types of farms—the mechanised farm, the medium farm and the family or small farm—the medium farm is going under. Those parts of the world which are still growing corn at a profit have either small holding farms or mechanised farm areas. The medium farm, extremely well as it has served this country in the past, is, unfortunately, going under. It is a melancholy thing that it should be so but no one can deny it.
As the very great merits of an experiment of this kind have not been very fully stated to-day might I remind the Committee that well known authorities such as Sir Daniel Hall have put them down as very many. To begin with, there is a greater insurance against risks and economy in management. Then such a plan would afford a better wage, the 660 wage of skilled labourers, but of course mechanisation could be carried very much further. No medium size farm can afford a motor plough which costs about £300. Further, such farms might do their buying and selling in bulk at very great advantage; and above all, you could afford trained managers such as have been very largely turned out by the institutions of this country already and, to our great loss, are not finding openings in business as in Continental countries, in particular in Germany, where great farms prevail and educated men have good openings to earn a living. Is it not time that we began to use the results of our education in making an experiment of this kind?
The noble and learned Lord alluded to the intolerable cost of such a proposal as this. But we are told from the Conservative Benches that the right remedy for the difficulties of corn-growing is a guaranteed price. What will that cost? To guarantee the price of wheat at 55s. under present circumstances would cost at least £3,000,000 a year; probably very much more, but at least that. And what is a million to produce? Possibly a very great development of genuine paying resources. I think it has been hinted that this very experiment has been made to a great extent, and may be adequately made, by private owners, but it, has not been adequately made. We have had a certain number of great farms. We have for many years had Mr. Loyd at Wantage, and Lord Rayleigh at one time, I remember, farmed 16,000 acres, but it was not on a modernised or mechanised plan; it was merely an aggregation of mediumsized farms. Then we have had such farms as those of Mr. Debenham and of Sir Charles Hiam. But they are not in big districts and big circumstances, but have been chosen rather in chance areas because of the interest felt by those particular men in the experiment. Nobody surely will claim that we have had as much experimentation as ought to be done. Is it not comparable to the situation in regard to forestry? You have a business involving very large capitalisation, and the necessity of waiting for returns for a considerable time, and, owing to the natural reluctance of private capitalists to put money into a business of that kind, the State has been obliged to intervene in afforestation. But I do not think even the noble and 661 learned Lord objects so violently to that. It seems to me a very comparable case where you do not get your experiment without the action of the State.
Just one word about the displacement of labour. If it is true, as the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, said, that the medium-sized farms are going to carry on, I would shrink from competing with them by mechanised farms, which would mean loss of labour, but surely the alternative is a different one. The land in view is not land which is suitable for small holdings, or, in many cases, for grass land. The light land of East Anglia you cannot lay down to grass, and it is becoming, as the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, said, land which is comparable to mere ranch land, and, as things are going, it will soon employ no labour or perhaps only a shepherd with his clogs. It is possible to save that land in time so as to employ some labour upon it. The choice is between some employment and none at all in a very large area which is now in danger. It seems to me that those noble Lords who are interested and believe in research, and think the method of farming and the type of holding is really a problem of extraordinary importance, will incur a terrible responsibility if they permit a chance of making an experiment of this kind to be rejected.
§ VISCOUNT NOVARThe noble Lord who has just sat down has minimised the effects of this clause, and treated it as a branch of research. I myself doubt whether this kind of research is needed at all. In Canada, to which my noble friend behind me referred, you had not to scrap equipment and displace a population. You entered upon a virgin prairie. The two things are so entirely different they can hardly be compared. But the noble Lord in charge of the Bill, in his enthusiasm, described what the real effect of this clause was intended to be. It was that that part of England which was in a state of agricultural depression should be taken in hand by the State and run in Soviet farms. England is to be divided up into small holdings, and Soviet farms of 6,000 acres, or whatever the economic area may be. What I do not think seems to have been sufficiently appreciated is the enormous eventual cost of these undertakings. We have had a mania for small holdings, which are mainly uneconomic. I know a farm 662 in my own immediate neighbourhood of 680 acres in which £60,000 of the taxpayers' money has been sunk, and the return to the State is rather less than it was when it was a well-managed individual holding. This proposal for the State to embark on farming on a large scale in order to replace the ruined agriculture of England will cost this country nobody can tell how many hundreds of millions of pounds. The agricultural equipment in Scotland represents at least £100,000,000, and that of England must represent many hundreds of millions of pounds. Wherever you go with these large farms you have to scrap all the existing equipment. You have to get rid of the tenants and you have a largely diminished number of people employed upon the land. I can conceive of no more revolutionary measure in agriculture than this and I trust, therefore, that this clause will be rejected by a very large majority.
§ VISCOUNT ASTORAs this very interesting discussion was started on an Amendment of mine, perhaps, with your Lordships' permission, I might say a word. I was put in the unfortunate position of having to expound the object of the clause. I should certainly vote against the clause as now drafted, but I should vote for the clause if my Amendment were accepted. I should also, as a compromise, vote for the clause if the Amendment of the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, were incorporated. I listened, as everybody did, to the very interesting speech made by Lord Buckmaster. I agree with a great deal of what he said. I think he was entirely right in his criticism of the drafting of the Bill. I think it might be a very good thing to take out the words "and otherwise," or to define more accurately the object upon which the money should be spent. It is because I agree with the noble and learned Lord that there is a very great risk of an unnecessary expenditure of money if some national authority acquires the land and carries out the experiment that I put down my own Amendment on the Paper. There is no trace of Socialism whatever in my Amendment. I specifically rule out the alternative of the Corporation owning the land on which the experiments are to be carried out. I propose that they should assist private 663 individuals competent and qualified to carry out research or experiment.
The more I discuss the present state of agriculture in England, the more convinced I am that it is in the national interest to try experiments to see if we cannot put things right. When the method of working cotton in this country was revolutionised last century—and it is being altered again to-day—exactly the same arguments were put forward then against the changed processes as are now being brought forward against this proposal. It is quite true that in certain cases an amount of labour might be displaced. That is the unfortunate consequence of co-relating and applying mechanism to industry, but we find by experience that as you make an industry up-to-date, progressive and prosperous, you get a return which compensates the community, and you get increased employment in other directions. That is why, on the question whether or not an experiment should be carried out, I am for the experiment, although I am against the way in which the Government propose to carry it out, in their Bill as now drafted
I listened to the speeches of Lord Banbury and Lord Hastings as to the results which would follow the adoption of machinery. Their arguments would equally apply to milking machines and tractors, which undoubtedly reduce the amount of labour employed, but, in the interests of progress, because our competitors have adopted them, we have had to adopt them also. I agree with Lord Hastings that there are very few people who can run these huge farms and that there are only a limited number of areas where it is possible to have them. He and other noble Lords have criticised and condemned this proposal as being costly. The alternative—and I speak as a Protectionist who would protect agriculture as I would industry—to some form of mechanisation and rationalisation, is much more expensive than anything which is contemplated under this experiment.
§ VISCOUNT ASTORBut you will keep men at work by using spindles and looms.
§ VISCOUNT ASTORUndoubtedly you get greater prosperity and greater employment. That is the history of the development of the last sixty, seventy and eighty years. You get a temporary displacement, but, with increased prosperity, you get increased and compensating employment. There was one other criticism made by the noble Lord, Lord Buckmaster. He criticised the proposals because the Corporation would not be under the direction or supervision of a Minister or Department. If you are to try any sort of research or experiment, you want the men who are to conduct the research or experiment to be free from Parliamentary interference. I presided over a Committee which was responsible for setting up the Medical Research Council and in suggesting machinery for conducting these experiments we thought it essential that the Council which was to carry out these experiments should be subject to dictation by no Minister. What we want is pure research and it would not be research if you could guarantee the results of the experiment.
I do not know what we should do. I personally should vote against the clause if not amended. I would vote for my Amendment and, if it were adopted, would vote for the clause as so amended. I gather from the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, that he and the Government would be prepared to adopt a sympathetic attitude towards the Amendment of Lord Lothian, but would oppose my Amendment, so, unless I am assured of a considerable measure of support from noble Lords on this side of the House, I do not see any object in moving my Amendment, which would be opposed by the Government and possibly by noble Lords on this side. As I am anxious to bring private enterprise and interest into this policy of experiment, I think it would be advisable to withdraw my Amendment in order that we might have the vote on Lord Lothian's Amendment. At the same time, if noble Lords around me are prepared to support me and not Lord Lothian, I am prepared to go to a Division.
§ VISCOUNT HAILSHAMIt might be for the convenience of the Committee if I were to ask the Lord Chairman for his view of the exact effect of the Division we are about to take. Otherwise there might 665 be some confusion when it comes to going into the Division Lobby. As I understand it, the Amendment moved is to leave out "such" in line 17 and the question is that the word proposed to be left out stand part of the clause. Those, therefore, who are in favour of the Amendment would vote "Not-Content"; those against the Amendment would vote "Content." Those of your Lordships, who share the view somewhat generally expressed on this side of the House that
§ Resolved in the affirmative and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
666§ the clause as a whole should be rejected, will vote "Content" on this Amendment to show their disapproval of this clause. The Government and those who support it will be voting in the "Not-Content" Lobby; those opposing it in the "Content" Lobby.
§ On Question, Whether the word "such" shall stand part of the clause?
§ Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 121; Not-Contents, 21.
665| CONTENTS. | ||
| Wellington, D. | Allenby of Megiddo, V. | FitzWalter, L. |
| Bertie of Thame, V. | Gage, L. (V. Gage.) [Teller.] | |
| Camden, M. | Burnham, V. | Greenway, L. |
| Exeter, M. | Elibank, V. | Hardinge of Penshurst, L. |
| Zetland, M. | FitzAlan of Derwent, V. | Hastings, L. |
| Hailsham, V. | Heneage, L. | |
| Airlie, E. | Hereford, V. | Howard of Glossop, L. |
| Albemarle, E. | Hood, V. | Hunsdon of Hunsdon, L. |
| Ancaster, E. | Novar, V. | Illingworth, L. |
| Balfour, E. | Sumner, V. | Kinnaird, L. |
| Bradford, E. | Lamington, L. | |
| Breadalbane and Holland, E. | Abinger, L. | Latymer, L. |
| Cawdor, E. | Addington, L. | Lawrence, L. |
| Denbigh, E. | Aldenham, L. | Leigh, L. |
| Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.) | Banbury of Southam, L. | Middleton, L. |
| Barnard, L. | Monson, L. | |
| Feversham, E. | Bayford, L. | Monteagle, L. (M. Sligo.) |
| Fortescue, E. | Belhaven and Stenton, L. | Newton, L. |
| Graham, E. (D. Montrose.) | Belper, L. | Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair.) |
| Grey, E. | Berwick, L. | Phillimore, L. |
| Harrow by, E. | Biddulph, L. | Polwarth, L. |
| Iddesleigh, E. | Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne.) | Queenborough, L. |
| Ilchester, E. | Buckmaster, L. | Raglan, L. |
| Jellicoe, E. | Chesham, L. | Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie.) |
| Lauderdale, E. | Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.) | Redesdale, L. |
| Lindsay, E. | Saltoun, L. | |
| Liverpool, E. | Clinton, L. | Sandys, L. |
| Lucan, E. [Teller.] | Cottesloe, L. | Sinclair, L. |
| Malmesbury, E. | Cranworth, L. | Somerleyton, L. |
| Midleton, E. | Cushendun, L. | Stanmore, L. |
| Morton, E. | Danesfort, L. | Stonehaven, L. |
| Mount Edgcumbe, E. | Darling, L. | Strachie, L. |
| Onslow, E. | Daryngton, L. | Strathcona and Mount Royal, L. |
| Peel, E. | Deramore, L. | |
| Poulett, E. | Desart, L.(E. Desart.) | Sudeley, L. |
| Radnor, E. | Desborough, L. | Sydenham of Combe, L. |
| Sandwich, E. | Douglas, L. (E. Home.) | Templemore, L. |
| Scarbrough, E. | Dynevor, L. | Trenchard, L. |
| Spencer, E. | Ellenborough, L. | Treowen, L. |
| Stanhope, E. | Ernle, L. | Wavertree, L. |
| Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.) | Erskine, L. | Wharton, L. |
| Yarborough, E. | Fairfax of Cameron, L. | Wynford, L. |
| Fairhaven, L. |
| NOT-CONTENTS. | ||
| Sankey, L. (L. Chancellor.) | Mersey, V. | Olivier, L. |
| Passfield, L. | ||
| Parmoor, L.(L. President.) | Arnold, L. | Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. |
| Gainford, L. | Rathcreedan, L. | |
| Beauchamp, E. | Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull.) [Teller.] | Remnant, L. |
| De La Warr, E. | Sanderson, L. | |
| Ker, L. (M. Lothian.) | Sandhurst, L. | |
| Astor, V. | Marley, L. [Teller.] | Snell, L. |
| Esher, V. | Noel-Buxton, L. |
§ THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE had given Notice to add to paragraph (e) in sub- 667 section (2): "to show that farming on a large or small scale can be made to pay under present fiscal policy." The noble Earl said: I wish to defer this Amendment until Lord Banbury's Amendment to leave out Clause 1 has been taken, if I may do so by leave of the Committee. I think this will save time.
§ LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved to leave out Clause 1. The noble Lord said: I do not think it is necessary for me to say anything after the discussion that has already taken place. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 1.—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
§ EARL DE LA WARRSo long as it is quite clear that we take the Division that we have just had as deciding this point, and that if we say nothing now we are not leaving it unchallenged—
§ VISCOUNT HAILSHAMHear, hear.
§ On Question, Clause 1 disagreed to.
§ Clause 2:
§ Power of Minister to acquire and hold land for use as demonstration farms.
§ 2.—(1) The Minister shall have power to purchase equip and hold land for the purpose of utilising the land as demonstration farms under the management and control, as agents for the Minister, of local authorities, universities, agricultural colleges, or other bodies, or of any persons who, in the opinion of the Minister, are qualified to manage and control such farms and to give instruction in agricultural subjects.
§ (2) The Minister shall make to Parliament not later than the first day of May an annual report as to the operations conducted under this section, including the annual accounts of each demonstration farm carried on thereunder, and such accounts shall include a profit-and-loss account for each farm and a valuation made at the end of each financial year.
§
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH had given Notice to move to insert the following new subsections:
(3) The Minister shall also have power out of the moneys to be provided for the purposes of this section and the immediately succeeding section to make grants to the Universities, agricultural colleges, agricultural research institutes, and other bodies carrying out research and experimental work in the interests of agriculture.
(4) Out of the moneys to be provided under this Act for the purposes of this section and the immediately succeeding section not less than one-tenth thereof shall he made available for the making of grants under the immediately preceding subsection.
§ The noble Duke said: I will not move this Amendment now but, if this clause is agreed to, I will put it down again on Report.
§ LORD BANBURY of SOUTHAM moved to leave out Clause 2. The noble Lord said: I do not think it is necessary to say much about this clause, because the arguments against it were practically all mentioned in the debate to which we have just listened, but I should like to call your Lordships' attention to one point. If you will look at Clause 22, you will see that it says, in regard to Clause 2, that the expenditure shall not exceed £5,000,000, "unless and until Parliament otherwise determines." If your Lordships will look at the other side of the page, you will see that, with regard to the £1,000,000 which were to be spent on Clause 1, which we have just rejected, those words do not occur, and consequently there must be some reason for those words appearing in regard to this clause. My belief is that those words are put in on purpose, in order that noble Lords and members of the House of Commons should think that £5,000,000 is the utmost that can be spent, whereas, by putting these words in, it is secured that all that is required in order to spend £10,000,000, £15,000,000 or £20,000,000 would be to put a sum in a Vote which, from my experience in the House of Commons, very many people would not see. The result would be, like the payment of members, that a large increase would appear and nobody would know anything about it, and when it came up to this House it would be held that we could not interfere with it. Therefore I move that the clause be omitted.
§
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 2.—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
§ LORD HASTINGSThis clause suffers to some extent from lack of exposition on the Second Reading stage on the part of the noble Earl in charge of the Bill. Of course, I do not want to accuse him of any intentional neglect, but I have looked up his speeches and it is very difficult to understand what the noble Earl was trying to get at by putting this clause in the Bill. Later investigation would lead one to suppose that this is really not a political but a Departmental effort to enlarge authority in a direction in which to some extent it is now restricted. It is plain 669 that this Clause 2 does not really in effect intend to take over the operations of experimental farms and of research stations, or any of those other activities which are now in existence, I am glad to say, in almost all parts of the country. What it intends to do is to establish demonstration farms, which are to be run in conjunction with local authorities, acting as agents for the Minister, in order to convey to farmers the information which has been collected in these experimental stations.
I hope the noble Earl will not suppose that I am speaking in favour of the clause. The question we have to consider is whether it is wise to give to these authorities, as the clause proposes, the powers to acquire lands and set in operation demonstration farms at the public expense. Is it really justifiable that at the present juncture this House, or Parliament as a whole, should place at the disposal of the Minister funds which he may use, through the agency of these sundry authorities, for demonstration purposes? I have had quite long experience in this matter of experimentation and demonstration of the scientific development of agriculture, and I know from that experience that if there is one thing more certain than another it is that when you begin to demonstrate you must simultaneously produce your accounts. No practising farmer will believe or give any credence to what you do in experimentation or demonstration, unless you can prove to him that it is a commercial proposition. This clause endeavours to carryout exactly what I have said, but it places these operations in the hands of local authorities, and suchlike, in whom, without in the least desiring to give offence, I would say that the farmers have no belief whatever.
If the farming community is able, as it is able, to run these demonstration farms, of course with expert assistance and a guarantee that the funds are being expended in a commercial fashion, then the farmers will believe, but they will not believe so long as demonstration farms are carried on by local authorities, and I consider that, however desirable it may be to have demonstration farms established, it is fatuous and futile to establish them so long as their administration is going to be in the hands of public authorities. That is one reason for voting 670 against the clause. Another reason, and a greater and financial one, is whether we are justified at the present time in permitting the expenditure of public money, the necessity for which has not been clearly demonstrated. No case has been made out for the clause, and even if it had been made out I should object to it because it is futile, and the purpose would fall to the ground.
§ LORD DYNEVOROn the Second Reading I said that I objected to the Bill on financial grounds alone, and that is the chief reason why I am objecting to Clause 2. The Government go on borrowing and borrowing money. Only a few days ago Miss Bondfield, the Minister of Labour, told the House of Commons that the Unemployment Fund Debt amounted to £76,000,000, and that the present borrowing powers of £90,000,000 would be exhausted in about thirteen weeks. Therefore in another twelve weeks the Government will be borrowing again, and this Bill suggests further and further borrowing. I wish as far as possible to curtail all expenditure of every kind. In paragraph 4 of the Financial Memorandum we are told that any sums required by the Minister other than the sums mentioned in the preceding paragraph are to be defrayed out of money provided by Parliament, up to such an amount as may be sanctioned by the Treasury. So we have no idea now what Clauses 2 and 3 are going to cost. On those financial grounds I hope that your Lordships will reject Clause 2.
§ LORD CRANWORTHI should like before we divide to support the plea of Lord Hastings that we should be told exactly what these demonstration farms are. I do not myself know in the first place how they differ from the experimental farms, or from the large-scale farms in Clause 1, and I noticed with some surprise that Lord Noel-Buxton considered that these farms were the same as the large-scale farms, because he called the large-scale farms demonstration farms, showing clearly the confusion that was in his mind This country is honeycombed with experimental farms, and may I say—I am excepting, of course, Lord Hastings—that many of these experiments are chiefly conducted with the object of showing how, for a certain expenditure, more produce can be grown, and they are just 671 about successful in showing how that is done. If, on the other hand, these demonstration farms were, by fair farming, whether by new methods or old, not by using surplus labour from factories but by fair farming, prepared to show how farming can be run at a profit, then I think they might be worth the experiment.
I think there might be lessons to be learnt by this experiment. I think the farmers might learn some useful lessons and I do not think the lessons would end there. It is possible that the Ministry might learn something from these farms. It is not impossible that the Minister might learn something; and I would finally suggest that if these demonstration farms remove one curious illusion, that the whole of the British public appear to suffer from—namely, that the farming community are the only portion of the inhabitants of this island who do not know how to make farming profitable—then it might be worth while entering upon this experiment.
§ EARL DE LA WARRI am very glad that at any rate the noble Lord, Lord Cranworth, feels that there is something in this clause even if it is only to teach the Ministry, the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary something about agriculture. Personally I feel that when dealing with farming a man is very lucky if he has finished learning when he has become a very old man indeed. Perhaps before I deal with the merits of the clause, I ought to say I quite agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, that I do rather owe the House an apology for not dealing with it more completely on Second Reading; but I felt that as it was rather a long Bill, I would deal with what I then thought were the more controversial parts. Perhaps first I might deal with the financial point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dynevor. He took the line that it was a mistake to spend anything at the moment, and he compared this expenditure with borrowing for the Unemployment Insurance Fund. I think that is a very unfair comparison, because whereas, once the money has gone out of the Insurance Fund, it leaves nothing behind, excepting that it has enabled a certain number of people to live for a certain number of weeks who perhaps 672 otherwise would not have been able to do so, here there are actually realisable assets—
§ LORD DYNEVORI did not compare the two. In effect I said, "You will have in a few weeks to borrow more money for the Unemployment Insurance Fund; do not borrow more money under this Bill."
§ EARL DE LA WARRWith all deference, that certainly looks as if the two expenditures are of the same type. But I want to suggest that this is a very distinctly productive expenditure. The expenditure will be made on purchasing definite assets in the form of land and building, then on running the farm on purely commercial lines, in such a way as to produce wealth for the community in the form of assistance to the agricultural industry and in the form of its being a commercial proposition; because the whole purpose of these demonstration farms is that they should be run definitely for the purpose of demonstration as commercial farms. From that point of view they are not intended in any way to compete with the existing research and educational institutions which are run by county councils, by the agricultural colleges and by the Universities. It is quite possible that a case could be made out even there for the State intervening, as there are only, I think, 33 educational farms in the country. We were told that the whole country was peppered with them, but there are only 33 over 60 counties. Therefore, there are a large number of counties without them.
However, the purpose of this clause is not to rectify that position at all. This clause is inserted because it is felt that, while there is an immense amount of scientific knowledge about farming being circulated from the various research and educational institutions in the Kingdom, there is very little actual economic demonstration going on. Such institutions have been run very successfully in other parts of the world, notably by the Canadian Government, and it was felt that here in this country was a very definite need left at the present moment unsupplied. It was with that in our minds that we inserted Clause 2. As far as I know from having attended the debates in your Lordships' House for a few years, it has been most noticeable that in the question of agricultural edu- 673 cation, agricultural research, or agricultural demonstration, the Ministry has always received the very greatest support in its enterprise, and I hope that your Lordships will decide to give this policy of establishing economic demonstration farms in this country a trial.
I hope particularly that Lord Hastings, who has done so much in his own county for agricultural research and education, will revise his opinion of this clause, and will give it support, which the Government would certainly value very much. His own experience of carrying on a demonstration farm has not been that it has been run on totally uneconomic lines, nor has my own personal experience in the County of East Sussex—the farm run by our County Council—been that at all. It has been a very successful research institution. It has also been run on very economic lines. It is very greatly respected by the farmers in the district, and it has been slightly hampered by the fact that its main purpose has been to carry out experiments. We want farms not to carry out experiments, but simply and solely to demonstrate the economic facts.
§ LORD BUCKMASTERI should not have intervened but for one remark of the noble Earl. This is no longer to be the conduct of a scientific experiment: this is to be an economic investment of public cash in a farm. We are told this is to be done to make a profit for the public purse, and to show other people how that profit can be made. Well, let those of you who believe that the Government can do what the private individual cannot do, that is, make a profit for himself, vote for the clause. Those of you who believe, as I do, that it is perfectly incredible that a Government Department, having no particular motive for making a profit, can succeed in making what the private individual, driven by his own necessities, fails to accomplish, will vote against the clause, as I most assuredly shall.
§ THE EARL OF ANCASTERI should like to supplement what the noble Earl has said. I think I am stating the absolute truth when I say that there is at the present moment a very large area of land in close proximity to myself, belonging to the Crown. The Ministry of Agriculture, it is true, have not complete power over the Crown lands, but I know that, 674 if it is thought that there is some good scheme on foot, arrangements can be made by which very often those who look after the Crown lands can adopt suggestions of the Ministry of Agriculture. In fact, I think I am right in saying that the Minister of Agriculture is practically the president of the body which looks after the Crown lands. Here is a practical suggestion then. Here you have a very large area of land, fairly good land, situated in Lincolnshire, which, at the present moment, has no tenants at all, and I believe the Crown have appointed a bailiff to farm it. Here is a demonstration farm: why not concentrate upon that and make that your demonstration farm? I am living in close proximity, and I promise I will be there every week to watch the operations and see how they are going to make it pay. It seems to me, without needing such a clause as this in the Bill, that here is a great opportunity for all the light and leading of the Ministry of Agriculture and all the professors in the land to get down to it and show how this large tract ought to be farmed, so as to make it of great benefit to the taxpayers, by the Crown lands paying a large amount towards the taxes instead of being a loss. It seems to me that the clause is not required.
§ LORD CLINTONI am very glad that the noble Earl has explained to your Lordships what this clause means because very few of us, I think, were acquainted with its meaning. It is quite clear that it has nothing to do with experimental research. It is purely a commercial business. Noble Lords will recollect that the Ministry of Agriculture have attempted the commercial side of farming on several occasions. I can remember at least three occasions on which they set themselves to show how a profit could be made. The noble Earl will perhaps remember first of all the demonstrations as to how sandy areas on the East coast could be made to bear crops. They devoted one such area to stock farming and the production of tobacco. In the course of three or four years on that area alone there was a loss of between £30,000 and £40,000, and but for the fact that they were able to persuade the Forestry Department to buy it from them at a very high cost the loss would have been very much larger. Then there was 675 another attempt which in a very short period lost about £1,200,000. Then there was a very interesting experiment in which an attempt was made to show that by arable farming you could give a farm three times the cow-carrying capacity it would have if it remained under pasture. That, of course, was a very unfortunate failure, because I think in individual hands the experiment might have been worked out successfully. In a very short time that experiment had to be given up, the few remaining farms were handed over to the Rural Economic Research Department at Oxford and the live and dead stock were driven away.
Even supposing that under this scheme you can show that a farm can be run commercially, can it be done in such a way as will bear comparison with the ordinary farming of the country? Recollect that under the University or the research station you would have the benefit of a highly competent manager who would have at his disposal the whole of the available scientific advice, and, so far as we are aware, he would have an unlimited command of money. If he is successful it really does not convey anything to the ordinary farmer who is farming under normal conditions. At the research station at Rothamsted we made an experiment not very long ago to show how land could be cultivated at a profit and we were successful in proving a negative. We have adopted now what is really a much better scheme which I am sure the noble Earl knows quite well—that after we have found certain things to be experimentally successful we hand them over to other farms to work out on a practical scale. I believe in that way it is possible to get a useful demonstration, but I doubt very much so long as it remains in the hands of a University or an experimental station whether you will ever find anything which will really benefit and assist the ordinary farmer.
LORD POLWARTHIt is with a little hesitation that I express the hope that your Lordships will accept this clause. We have just rejected large-scale experiments for the very good reason that even if they were successful no one could copy them. But here I think there is an opportunity of doing something to assist experimental and research work by demonstrating what can be done by 676 new methods, such as better grain and better treatment in various ways. It is more than thirty years since I visited the Government experimental farms in Canada. Even then they were doing most excellent work and the farmers came and saw crops raised there, which were better than their own, and they were ready to adopt the seeds and the methods experimented upon on those farms. No farmer that I know will copy his neighbour's methods; at least he will not acknowledge that he will do so. But if the methods are those of a body altogether independent of a rival farmer he may, and probably will, be ready to copy what he sees has been a success. If he sees a better crop of wheat or of oats than he is growing himself he will ask what kind of seed has been used.
In my part of the country, Scotland, the largest and best farmers are taking a very keen interest in such demonstration work as is now being done. In the seed testing stations, in the work of the society for investigating animal diseases, these men are taking a very keen interest and are supporting the work on the public and local authorities of which they are members. I think it would be a very great pity if anything were done which might check that in any way. I would rather say that we ought to do all we can to assist and develop the work which is contemplated in subsection (1) of Clause 2 under the management of local authorities, agricultural colleges and other bodies. Therefore, I hope that your Lordships will allow this clause to go through as I think it contains the germ of useful experiment which is within the reach of farmers to copy.
§ EARL STANHOPEThe noble Lord who has just sat down has to a very large extent answered his own speech. At the beginning of his speech he seemed to imply that there were no experimental farms in this country at all.
§ EARL STANHOPEWhereas, as the noble Earl opposite has told us, there are thirty-three. At the end of his speech the noble Lord told us that the farmers in Scotland were constantly going to seed testing stations and so on, and were keenly following out the experiments there made. If these proposed farms were merely a small extension of the ex- 677 perimental farms I think some of us would have less objection to them. Nothing surprised me more than the speech of the noble Earl, the Under-Secretary, because he told us that these were really not going to be experimental farms at all but what I think he called economic demonstration farms. One of the things that I thought the officials of the Ministry of Agriculture would not do was to suggest that the farmers of this country are not doing their utmost to make both ends meet. Surely we may say that in some ways they may be backward and are not perhaps in some respects prepared to spend as much money as some of us would like to see in making experiments; but everyone who knows them will agree that the farmer is doing his very utmost to make both ends meet and therefore requires no demonstration from the Government to make him do that.
Really to make a very large increase in the number of demonstration farms throughout the country to demonstrate things that the farmers are trying their very utmost to do already seems to me totally unnecessary. I ventured to suggest on the Second Reading of this Bill that far and away the cheapest method of getting farmers to use these methods is to put them into chars-a-bancs and motor cars and send them round to see the methods in action. The same remark was made in another place but the reply of the Minister was that farmers were very often prepared to admit visitors to their farms when they have time but they find it interferes with their work. It is not fair to ask them to accept these visitors. Exactly the same thing is true of Government farms. If the manager is to attend to his farming, he cannot welcome visitors. Therefore, if it is true that the farmer does not like visitors, it is also true of the Government farm. I suggest that in the financial condition of the country the number of demonstration farms which we have already is sufficient, remembering the very different conditions of agriculture in this country to those in Canada where, I agree with Lord Polwarth, the experimental farms have been of great value and interest, because prairies there have the same soil and climate, whereas in this country every county differs from every other county. 678 For those reasons, I think that largely to increase demonstration farms by the Government is quite unnecessary.
§ LORD BAYFORDBefore the noble Earl replies, may I put this point? Have not the local authorities powers to establish such farms as these now, and are they not the best judges of whether they are required or not? Is there any evidence that in places where they can be established the local authorities have been reluctant to establish them?
§ EARL DE LA WARRIn regard to the point just put to me, I do not think the house needs reminding that the present is not the time to expect very much development from the local authorities in this direction. One of the reasons why the Government decided to accept this responsibility themselves instead of placing it upon local authorities is that it was felt that at the moment local authorities would be unlikely to undertake any further development, or to wish to undertake any further development, in agricultural education. At the same time, we wish to avail ourselves of the experience that they have had, and, therefore, we were taking powers to make arrangements where possible to ask local authorities or other suitable local bodies to act as agents for the Government. I must say that the attitude of your Lordships, and particularly the attitude of the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, as regards the importance of agricultural education and demonstration, which he appeared to consider very slight, surprised me not a little. I think agricultural education is of great importance. What little experience I have had, and what I have learned at meetings with farmers, has forced me to the conclusion that everywhere there is a tremendous appreciation of what is being done by the existing institutions, and I should have thought that one of the most profitable developments we could have made at the present moment was in the direction of extending these facilities.
§ EARL STANHOPEThe noble Earl told the House these were not experimental farms.
§ EARL DE LA WARRWhat I am saying at the moment is that the value of these institutions for demonstration is tremendous. What is necessary is to have 679 institutions that are specifically established for demonstration. The noble Lord asked why cannot farmers go round to private farms? Then he answered himself by saying it is a nuisance to the private farmer. On the other hand, he said it would be a nuisance to the State institution also. It would, I may point out, be possible for the public institution to keep someone quite separate from the administration of the farm for taking visitors around. It would not be neces-
§ Resolved in the negative and Clause 2 disagreed to accordingly.
680§ sary to charge in the accounts the cost of showing whether or not the farm was a commercial proposition. I do appeal to your Lordships in the name of agricultural education and demonstration in this country to think twice before you vote against this clause.
§ On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
§ Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 20; Not-Contents, 112.
679| CONTENTS. | ||
| Sankey, L. (L. Chancellor.) | Astor, V. | Passfield, L. |
| Mersey, V. | Polwarth, L. | |
| Parmoor, L. (L. President.) | Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller] | |
| Clwyd, L. | ||
| Marlborough, D. | Dickinson, L. | Rathcreedan, L. |
| Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull.) [Teller.] | Remnant, L. | |
| Beauchamp, E. | Sanderson, L. | |
| De La Warr, E. | Ker, L. (M. Lothian.) | Snell, L. |
| Harrowby, E. | Noel-Buxton, L. |
| NOT-CONTENTS. | ||
| Wellington, D. | Bumham, V. | Gainford, L. |
| Churchill, V. | Green way, L. | |
| Camden, M. | Elibank, V. | Hardinge of Penshurst, L. |
| Exeter, M. | Esher, V. | Hastings, L. |
| Zetland, M. | FitzAlan of Derwent, V. | Heneage, L. |
| Hambleden, V. | Howard of Glossop, L. | |
| Airlie, E. | Hereford, V. | Hunsdon of Hunsdon, L. |
| Albemarle, E. | Hood, V. | Illingworth, L. |
| Ancaster, E. | Novar, V. | Kinnaird, L. |
| Balfour, E. | Sumner, V. | Lamington, L. |
| Bradford, E. | Latymer, L. | |
| Breadalbane and Holland, E. | Abinger, L. | Lawrence, L. |
| Cawdor, E. | Addington, L. | Leigh, L. |
| Denbigh, E. | Banbury of Southam, L. | Middleton, L. |
| Doncaster, E.(D. Buccleuch and Queensburry.) | Barnard, L. | Monteagle, L. (M. Sligo.) |
| Bayford, L. | Newton, L. | |
| Feversham, E. | Belhaven and Stenton, L. | Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair.) |
| Fortescue, E. | Belper, L. | Phillimore, L. |
| Graham, E. (D. Montrose.) | Berwick, L. | Queenborough, L. |
| Grey, E. | Biddulph, L. | Raglan, L. |
| Iddesleigh, E. | Brancepeth, L.(V. Boyne.) | Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie.) |
| Lauderdale, E. | Buckmaster, L. | Redesdale, L. |
| Lindsay, E. | Chesham, L. | Ritchie of Dundee, L. |
| Liverpool, E. | Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam) | Saltoun, L. |
| Lucan, E. [Teller.] | Sandys, L. | |
| Malmesbury, E. | Cottesloe, L. | Sinclair, L. |
| Morton, E. | Cushendun, L. | Somerleyton, L. |
| Mount Edgcumbe, E. | Danesfort, L. | Strachie, L. |
| Onslow, E. | Deramore, L. | Strathcona and Mount Royal, L. |
| Poulett, E. | Desart, L. (E. Desart.) | |
| Radnor, E. | Desborough, L. | Sudeley, L. |
| Sandwich, E. | Douglas, L. (E. Home.) | Sydenham of Combe, L. |
| Scarbrough, E. | Dynevor, L. | Templemore, L. |
| Spencer, E. | Ernle, L. | Teynham, L. |
| Stanhope, E. | Erskine, L. | Trenchard, L. |
| Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.) | Fairfax of Cameron, L. | Treowen, L. |
| Yarborough, E. | Fairhaven, L. | Wavertree, L. |
| FitzWalter, L. | Wharton, L. | |
| Allenby of Megiddo, V. | Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.) | Wynford, L. |
| Bertie of Thame, V. | Gage, L. (V. Gage.) [Teller.] |
§ Clause 3:
§ Power of Minister to acquire land for purposes of re-conditioning.
§ 3.—(1) If the Minister is of opinion, with respect to any piece of land, that the execution thereon of reclamation, drainage, or other work is necessary in order to enable the piece of land to be satisfactorily used for agricultural purposes, he may purchase and hold the piece of land and execute thereon such work as aforesaid for the purposes of letting, selling or otherwise disposing of the piece of land when the said work has been executed:
§ Provided that the Minister shall not acquire any land under this section otherwise than by agreement save as hereinafter in this section expressly provided.
§ (2) If it appears to the Minister that any piece of land suitable for use for agricultural purposes cannot be satisfactorily used for those purposes by reason of its being in a seriously neglected condition, the Minister may, after consultation with the council of the county or county borough, as the case may be, and after giving notice to the owner and the occupier of the piece of land, authorise any person to enter on and inspect the piece of land and report to him thereon.
§ (3) If after receiving a report under the last foregoing subsection with respect to any piece of land the Minister is satisfied that the piece of land is in a seriously neglected condition and that the condition thereof has been caused by the failure of the owner thereof to execute thereon any necessary works of maintenance, or in the ease of land not in the occupation of the owner, by the failure of the owner to take reasonable steps to reserve or enforce any right for securing the execution on the piece of land of any necessary works of maintenance, then, subject to the provisions of this section relating to arbitration, the Minister may cause to be served upon the owner a notice requiring the execution on the piece of land within such period as may be specified in the notice (not being less than six months after the service of the notice upon the owner) of such works as may be specified therein, and may, if at the expiration of that period the Minister determines that the requirements of the notice have not been complied with, purchase the piece of land otherwise than by agreement, and hold the piece of land and execute works thereon as if it had been acquired under subsection (1) of this section:
§ Provided that if, after the determination of the amount of the compensation to be paid to any person in respect of his interest in any piece of land proposed to be compulsorily acquired under this subsection, it appears to the Minister that, having regard to the determination, the total expenditure involved in proceeding further under this section would not be justified, the Minister may, at any time within six weeks after the determination, by notice in writing withdraw any notice to treat served on that person or on any other person interested in the piece of land, and in such case any 682 person on whom such a notice of withdrawal has been served shall be entitled to obtain from the Minister compensation for any loss or expenses which he may have sustained or incurred by reason or in consequence of the notice to treat and of the notice of withdrawal, and the amount of such compensation shall, in the event of a dispute with respect thereto, be determined by a single arbitrator appointed by agreement between the parties to the dispute or, in default of such agreement, by the President of the Chartered Surveyors' Institution.
§ (4) Where any such notice as aforesaid requiring the execution of works is served upon the owner of a piece of land, a copy of the notice shall he served as soon as may be upon every person upon whom the Minister would if lie proposed to acquire the land compulsorily, be required to serve notice to treat under Section eighteen of the Lands Clauses (Consolidation) Act, 1845; and all such notices and copies of notices may be served in like manner as such a notice to treat as aforesaid, and may require the persons served to give such particulars of their estate and interest in the piece of land to which the notice or copy relates as might be demanded by such a notice to treat as aforesaid:
§ Provided that, without prejudice to the duty of the Minister under this subsection to serve copies of notices upon such of the persons mentioned in the said Section eighteen as, after diligent enquiry, are known to him, no person shall be entitled to have such a copy served upon him unless he notifies the Minister in writing of his claim to receive such a copy not less than three months before the expiration of the time limited by the notice for compliance with the requirements thereof.
§ (5) In the event of any dispute between the Minister and any person upon whom a notice or a copy of a notice has been served in accordance with the provisions of the two last foregoing subsections as to whether—
- (a) the piece of land to which the notice relates is in a seriously neglected condition; or
- (b) the condition of the piece of land has been caused by the failure of the owner thereof to execute thereon any necessary works of maintenance, or, in the case of land not in the occupation of the owner, by the failure of the owner to take reasonable steps to reserve or enforce any right for securing the execution on the piece of land of any necessary works of maintenance; or
- (c) any requirements of the notice are unreasonable; or
- (d) the time limited by the notice for compliance with the requirements thereof ought to be extended; or
- (e) any requirements of the notice have not been complied with,
§ Provided that—
- (a) the arbitrator shall not award that the time limited by any notice for compliance with the requirements thereof ought to be extended unless he is satisfied that all practicable steps are being taken for complying with the requirements of the notice other than any requirements which he holds to have been unreasonable, and where the arbitrator awards that the time aforesaid ought to be extended his award shall specify the period of the extension; and
- (b) a person shall not be entitled to refer to arbitration a dispute under this subsection, in the case of a dispute as to the matters mentioned in paragraphs (a) or (b) thereof, after the expiration of two months from the date on which the notice or a copy of the notice was served upon him, in the case of a dispute as to the matters mentioned in paragraph (c) thereof, after the expiration of the time limited by the notice for compliance with the requirements thereof, in the case of a dispute as to the matters mentioned in paragraph (d) thereof, after the expiration of seven days from the expiration of the time limited by the notice for compliance with the requirements thereof, or in the case of a dispute as to the matters mentioned in paragraph (e) thereof, after the expiration of fourteen days from the date on which notice to treat is served upon him under Section eighteen of the Lands Clauses (Consolidation) Act, 1845.
§ (6) Any person upon whom a notice requiring the execution of work or a copy of such a notice has been served under this section shall have power, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any lease or other instrument, to enter on the piece of land to which the notice or copy relates and execute the work specified in the notice, and if any person other than the person executing the work is, under any lease or other instrument, liable (whether to him or otherwise) to execute the work or any part thereof, any expenses incurred by the person executing the work in the execution thereof or of that part thereof, as the case may be, may be recovered as a debt due to the person executing the work.
§ (7) Any person authorised by the Minister to exercise any powers or duties under this section shall be so authorised in writing and shall, if required by the owner or occupier of the land to which the authority relates, produce his authority to him, and if any person prevents or obstructs any person so authorised in the exercise of his powers or duties under this section, or prevents or obstructs any person entitled under the last foregoing subsection to enter on a piece of land and execute work thereon, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not 684 exceeding twenty pounds, or, on a second or subsequent conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months.
§ (8) Any of the powers and duties conferred on the Minister by this section with respect to any piece of land, except the power of acquiring or selling it, may, by arrangement between him and the council of the county or county borough, as the case may be, be exercised and performed by that council as agents for the Minister.
§ (9) An account, to be known as the Land Reconditioning Account, shall be drawn up annually by the Minister in such form and containing such particulars as the Treasury may direct, showing all expenditure incurred by him and the application of all moneys received by him for the purposes of this section, and that account shall be audited by the Comptroller and Auditor-General and shall be laid before Parliament together with his report thereon.
§ (10) For the purposes of this section—
- (a) every parcel of land in separate occupation shall be deemed to be a piece of land, and a piece of land shall be deemed to include any buildings usually occupied therewith and any easements or rights appurtenant thereto;
- (b) the expression "agricultural purposes" includes all purposes directly connected with the use of land as arable, meadow or pasture land, or orchard, or for market gardens or osier-beds;
- (c) the expression "owner," in relation to any land, means the person (other than a mortgagee not in possession) entitled, either with or without the consent of any other person, to dispose of the fee simple of the land;
- (d) the expression "works of maintenance" means the repair or reconditioning of farmhouses, cottages, agricultural buildings, drains, embankments, ditches, bridges, fences, walls, hedges, gates, roads, and water supply; and
- (e) the expression "agricultural buildings" has the same meaning as in the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1928.
§ LORD CRANWORTH moved, at the beginning after "If the Minister," to insert "in agreement with the council of the county or county borough as the case may be." The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to call in the assistance of the county council to the Minister to co-operate in the spending of money. I feel that this is an important Amendment and it is one which the noble Earl will find little difficulty in accepting. When the Improvement of Livestock (Licensing of Bulls) Bill was before the House, the noble Lord, Lord Strachie, very rightly pointed out that the interference of Whitehall in farming 685 was very unpopular. The noble Earl replied for the Government, also very rightly, that continuity of policy was more important still, and that, as the Ministry were already functioning in that respect, it was desirable that the county councils should not be brought in. In this ease that argument is entirely inappropriate because, as your Lordships are well aware, the county councils already function in regard to any land that is improperly farmed. That is a far more important function than that which is in question here, because your Lordships know that, whereas land that is left uncultivated may take years to get back, buildings left in an improper condition can be at once put right with an expenditure of cash. I hope that the noble Earl will find no difficulty in accepting this Amendment.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 31, after ("Minister") insert ("in agreement with the council of the county or county borough as the case may be").—(Lord Cranworth.)
§ EARL DE LA WARRThe noble Lord has asked me to accept this Amendment., but I think that if he considers it for a moment he will realise that in this part of the clause it is really quite inappropriate. What we are dealing with here is the matter of personal negotiation between the owner and the Government, and the county council does not really come into the matter at all. I quite agree, and it is admitted in subsection (2), that, where compulsion is to be exercised it is perhaps just as well to have some form of protection by the county council for the rights of the owner, but that question does not enter here, and I really do not see how the county council could be brought into subsection (1) because, after all, if the Minister or the State is willing to make a purchase, and if the landowner is willing to make a sale for a specific purpose, I cannot for the life of me see why we should drag in the county council to give its approval of an entirely voluntary bargain. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will not press this Amendment.
§ LORD CLINTONI think the noble Earl has probably good ground for the reply that he has given to my noble friend below the gangway. I should like to see the county council brought in merely as an assistance to the Minister. 686 I think it would be an advantage to him if he were in touch with the local authority, who would be able to tell him where land that required reclamation was to be found. Otherwise, he would have to have a survey of the whole country. It is only for that purpose that I should like to see them brought in, but on the whole, if the Minister does not require the assistance of the county council in this matter, I do not know whether my noble friend would desire to press the point.
§ EARL DE LA WARRI could give this assurance. Of course the Minister does intend to avail himself of the information which the county council will have in its possession but that is a different matter from inserting it compulsorily in the Bill. Therefore I think it would be better if the noble Lord would withdraw his Amendment and allow me to give an undertaking to act in consultation with the county council.
§ LORD CRANWORTHI am prepared to withdraw my Amendment and with less reluctance because I think it is only fair to point out to the noble Earl that so far as I am concerned I look upon this Clause 3 as perhaps not quite so crude as Clause 1 or so expensive as Clause 2, but in my opinion as otherwise the worst clause in the Bill, and I shall endeavour to get it deleted. Therefore I gladly fall in with the suggestion of the noble Earl at the present, moment.
§ LORD STRACHIEI hope the noble Lord does not intend to withdraw his Amendment because, speaking on behalf of the County Councils' Association, they support his Amendment and cannot see what objection there can be to it. Certainly it would be of advantage that those on the spot should be able to give information to the Minister. The Minister cannot go down and investigate the case and there might be some Minister who would know nothing about the particular case. On the other hand, we think that through the county council or its officers it could be ascertained whether the land was neglected or not. Therefore it seems to me that it is quite unreasonable not to accept this Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ LORD CRANWORTH moved, in subsection (1), after "satisfactorily," to 687 insert "and economically." The noble Lord said: I move this Amendment for this reason, that I have observed that what I should consider satisfactory is not always construed in the same way by other people, and there are certain people on the same side as the Government who look upon a thing as satisfactory merely according to the amount of money expended. I therefore venture to hope that the noble Earl, who is of my own way of thinking, will agree to this Amendment.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 34, after ("satisfactorily") insert ("and economically").—(Lord Cranworth.)
§ EARL DE LA WARRI have not really any objection in principle to the word "economically," if any of your Lordships really knows what it means. There are a great number of forms of value which it is possible to adopt. Do you mean 5 or 6 per cent., or 4 or 3 per cent. return, or are you to have regard to national economy too? If your Lordships are going to press the Amendment I do not think I am inclined to resist it, but at the same time I would appeal to the noble Lord not to press it, because it really is a most meaningless word, and might land us in great complications. I think really it is included in the word "satisfactorily," and I would, on the whole, ask your Lordships not to insert it.
§ LORD CRANWORTHI regret that the noble Earl looks upon it as a useless and meaningless word. I notice that it is so among many of his friends, but I myself do not feel inclined to withdraw the Amendment. The noble Earl asked whether we meant one, two, three or more per cent. return. I do not mean anything of the sort.
§ VISCOUNT HAILSHAMI am sure we are all interested to know that members of the other side are unable to understand the word "economically." It is a fact which we have long suspected but I am a little surprised to hear it frankly admitted by the noble Earl. We attach a little more importance to both the substance and the word, and when we are asked what sort of return do we mean the answer is that this clause does not mean anything in which you are carrying on a business. This clause empowers the 688 Minister to do certain reclamation work and thereafter to dispose of the land, and the test is whether what is done results in financial gain and not in financial loss. The transaction would not be economical if you spent more in buying and reclaiming the land than you would get for the land when it was sold. If the transaction results in a balance on the credit side, and not a debit balance, then it is an economic transaction, but if you are going to spend more than the land is going to be worth after reclamation, then we, at any rate, do not regard it as economic finance. I hope the Government will see their way to accept the Amendment, especially as the noble Earl's refusal was somewhat half-hearted.
May I take this opportunity of pointing out to him, and to the Government, that this is one of the matters to which I made reference on the Second Reading and on which it might be suggested that an Amendment might raise a technical question of Privilege. In any real sense it does not do so. At some stage we shall require to have from the Government an assurance that the question of Privilege on some of these Amendments, if they are put in the Bill, either by acceptance by the Government or by the vote of the Committee, will not be insisted upon in another place; that is to say, that the Government will invite the House of Commons to waive its Privilege, as it often does in a proper case. The reason why I raise the point now is that there are some of these clauses which some of us would be willing to let the Government have under certain limitations, but which if those limitations were not included we should not be able to agree to at all. I am sure that the Government would not wish to put us in the position of having passed clauses with limitations which we think essential, and then finding those limitations thrown out by the House of Commons on the ground of Privilege, and the clauses standing in the Bill in the form in which they originally stood and in which we should have voted against them.
I hope the Government will not think that I am doing anything that is unreasonable, but when the Report stage comes I shall ask the Government to be good enough to state what is their intention with regard to each of the clauses 689 ultimately passed, and if it should turn out that they are unable to give the desired assurance on some of the clauses which we have amended, then some of us who would have been disposed to vote for those clauses in their altered form would be bound to vote against them on Report. I hope the Government will not think I am saying anything which is unfriendly when I mention that caution, because I do not think it would be fair to them or to the House that we should go on and then find ourselves put into a position which we would not willingly accept. It does not arise very much here, but it does arise, and as this is the first opportunity I have had of mentioning it on the Committee stage, I have ventured to put the matter to the House.
§ EARL DE LA WARRThe noble and learned Viscount will forgive me if I say at the present moment it is quite impossible for me to say anything on the question of Privilege. Obviously that is a matter for the House of Commons to decide. Of course if the Government does accept a particular Amendment I presume the, Government is in honour bound to stand by it. On the question of the meaning of the word "economically," I accept that Amendment. I would, however, say that it is the intention of the Government possibly to let this land and therefore the question of the percentage return does come into it, and as the noble Lords, Lord Cranworth and Lord Hailsham, both quite failed to give any definition whatever of the word "economically" I think perhaps I might be allowed to stand by what I said about it. Subject to that, I accept the Amendment.
§ VISCOUNT HAILSHAMMay I just make clear—because I obviously failed to do so—what I was trying to point out before. Of course the question of Privilege is a question for the House of Commons, but, as the noble Earl knows, quite often the House of Commons is invited in a proper case by the Government of the day to waive the question of Privilege and to deal with an Amendment on its merits. What I am asking the Government to do is to give an assurance at some period, certainly not later than Report, as to whether they will or will not advise the House of Commons to waive their Privilege with regard to some Amendments. I ask 690 them to give that assurance because, unless we can get that assurance, so far as I am concerned, there are a great many clauses which I should vote against but which I should be prepared to advise those who vote with me to pass if they were passed with some of the Amendments which appear on the Order Paper. The noble Earl will see that the assurance I am asking for is not an unfair one, because the alternative is that some of us at any rate would feel bound to vote against the clause altogether.
Take Clause 3. As it stands, I would vote against it; with certain limitations I should differ from Lord Cranworth and do my best to get it through. Unless I know that the Government are not going to say that my Amendments raise questions of Privilege, I should feel bound to vote against the clause. I am not asking the noble Earl to give any answer, but I am doing my best to make clear that before Report it will be necessary for him to give an assurance of that kind, unless he wants to force those of us who would like to help him to get the clause in a modified form, but who cannot accept the clause as it stands, into the position of voting against the clause altogether for fear of having the Privilege point raised when the Bill is sent down to another place.
§ EARL BEAUCHAMPI regret very much that a very important constitutional point should be raised on this side issue with regard to this particular clause. It is a matter of such great importance that should have hoped we would have a discussion on this at a later stage, with due notice. I only rose to say that the suggestion made to His Majesty's Government is one which it would be exceedingly difficult for them to accept. I am quite sure that there would be found among the friends of the noble and learned Viscount himself in another place a large number of people who would repudiate the idea that the House of Commons is in a position to forego its rights and privileges in regard to money matters, brought before it whether by Bill or otherwise.
§ VISCOUNT HAILSHAMIt is done constantly.
§ EARL BEAUCHAMPThe rights of the House of Commons with regard to money matters are so clear and distinct 691 that I do hope that we shall not by a side issue at this present moment, or without due consideration, make even the suggestion to His Majesty's Government that they should take the course which has been proposed by the noble and learned Viscount.
§ VISCOUNT HAILSHAMIf the noble Earl would be good enough to look into the question he would find that, so far from its being a novelty, it is a matter which is constantly done in the House of Commons, and has been done in my own experience when I was there, without the slightest objection. It is the Privilege of the House of Commons, but, if the House of Commons chooses, it has a perfect right to waive Privilege, and the fact is then entered in the journals of the House of Commons. That is commonly done. It has been done on the advice of His Majesty's Government in my own experience more than once, and I cannot see any possible reason why it should not be done in this case. All I am proposing to ask the Government is to assure us that, in regard to certain limitations, they will give the House of Commons the advice to make that waiver because, unless they are able to do so, I should not be able to vote for some of the clauses.
§ EARL BEAUCHAMPThe House of Commons has frequently waived its Privilege, but I do not remember an occasion when the Government in these circumstances has been asked to pledge itself not to raise the question of Privilege in another place. That is a novelty to which I raise the strongest objection.
§ EARL DE LA WARRI am glad the noble Earl has spoken, because I felt that as a junior member of this House, it was not for me to pronounce on constitutional issues. But, now that the matter is raised, I would say that, whereas we would be most unwilling to see the noble and learned Viscount in opposition to Clause 3, or any other vital clause of the Bill, I hope he will realise that there are certain forms in which this Bill might leave your Lordships' House which might lead us to think that it might just as well be killed.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD CRANWORTH moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "letting." The noble Lord said: The purpose of this 692 Amendment is obviously to safeguard the public purse and the taxpayer. If you were to leave the Bill as it stands there would seem to be no limit to the expense that might be involved; but if the sole right that the Minister has, after he has taken land and reconditioned it, is to sell, I think it is unlikely that extravagance to any very great extent will step in, because it will be so obvious to the general public.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 37, leave out ("letting").—(Lord Cranworth.)
§ EARL DE LA WARRI hope that the noble Lord will not press this Amendment, because it might have very serious effects on the Exchequer, and it might cause very considerable expense. Imagine a case arising where certain land can only be sold at a very poor price. On the other hand, a good offer to let is received. Must the Minister be in the position of refusing that offer to let, so that he has to sell at a poor price? The noble Lord knows perfectly well it is very often more difficult to sell than to lease land, and therefore I hope that he will not press this Amendment.
§ LORD CLINTONI quite understand that it is to the convenience of His Majesty's Government to hold this land for letting or otherwise disposing of it. In my complete innocence of these matters I should have been inclined to agree with him; but I have had a severe shock as the result of reading a report of a meeting presided over, I think, by the noble Lord, Lord Noel-Buxton. So far as it is reported, that meeting decided that this Bill beginning at this clause was the beginning of land nationalisation. If that is so, surely we should be foolish if we did not take warning by what we were told. I say at once that it would not have occurred to me but it evidently was, it is reported, in the opinion of the noble Lord and we know it is the opinion of the Socialist Government that it should eventually come. I rather hope that my noble friend will insist upon his Amendment in the circumstances.
§ LORD HASTINGSI also hope that my noble friend will insist upon his Amendment. Here again, we have to look at the consequences. We have to look rather further than at what is actually contained 693 in the Bill. There is no denying the fact that it is possible that a very large number of owners of land which requires reclamation would be in no way reluctant to see this land purchased by the Ministry of Agriculture. It is possible that a very large area will be dealt with under this clause and if no condition is put into the Bill that the Minister is compelled to sell—let us add a time limit if necessary—he may well find himself in ten or a dozen years in the possession of an enormous area of reclaimed land. The difference between that and nationalisation is to me very difficult to define. If the noble Lord requires a Teller in favour of this Amendment I shall have the greatest pleasure in assisting him to insist, so far as we are able, in cutting out the word "letting." I regard it as of great importance that it should be removed.
§ EARL DE LA WARRSupposing land is left in the hands of the Minister, I cannot see what objection your Lordships could have to that in principle. A great deal of land is under the control of public authorities at the present moment.
§ LORD HASTINGSToo much.
§ EARL DE LA WARRIt seems to me that what the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, is really doing is this. In the pursuit of political prejudice against the State owning land or having any control over it, he is going to insist that possibly the Minister who has been responsible for reclaiming this land is to make a bad bargain at the expense of the State by having to accept a bad offer to sell instead of letting it at an economic rent. A great deal was said about inserting the word "economically" only a few moments ago. It seems that those who were most insistent on the insertion of
§ that word are now going to insist on the deletion of a word which may well allow the scheme to be operated economically. It seems to me it would be most unfortunate if the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, and others allowed their political prejudices to intervene in an economic matter and compelled the State thereby to be the loser.
§ LORD BAYFORDI rather agree with what the noble Earl has said. If we once admit the principle of the Ministry of Agriculture stepping in and executing this work, I do not think we ought to put unnecessary difficulties in their way. If we are going to tolerate the clause at all, I do not want to see it made unworkable. If you allow the Ministry to come in and to execute this work and then say "Unless you can get a buyer, you must farm it yourselves", I must say that I think you would be unnecessarily handicapping them, and I should not be willing to support that.
§ LORD CRANWORTHAfter what has been said, I do not think that I can withdraw my Amendment. I appreciate what was said by my noble friend Lord Bayford, and all my inclination is to remove the whole clause. I hope to do that in due course. I may not be able to do so and I may have to swallow it with such Amendments as I can secure. I look upon this as an important Amendment. To my mind, the whole of this subsection is put in as a little bit of jam to disguise from your Lordships the powder of nationalisation which the rest of the clause has in it.
§ On Question, Whether the word "letting" shall stand part of the clause?—
§ Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 81; Not-Contents, 34.
695| CONTENTS. | ||
| Sankey, L. (L. Chanedlor.) | Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.) | Spencer, E. |
| Stanhope, E. | ||
| Marlborough, D. | Feversham, E. | Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.) |
| Fortescue E. | ||
| Camden, M. | Grey, E. | Astor, V. |
| Exeter, M. | Iddesleigh, E. | Burnham, V. |
| Zetland, M. | Lauderdale, E. | Churchill, V. |
| Albemarle, E. | Lindsay, E. | FitzAlan of Derwent, V. |
| Lucan, E. | Hailsham, V. | |
| Ancaster, E. | Malmesbury, E. | Hambleden, V. |
| Beauchamp, E. | Mount Edgcumbe, E. | Hereford, V. |
| Bradford, E. | Onslow, E. | Mersey, V. |
| De La Warr, E. | Sandwich, E. | |
| Abinger, L. | Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull.) [Teller.] | Rathereedan, L. |
| Addington, L. | Ritchie of Dundee, L. | |
| Aldenham, L. | Heneage, L. | Saltoun, L. |
| Bayford, L. | Ker, L. (M. Lothian.) | Sanderson, L. |
| Clanwilliam, L. (E Clanwilliam.) | Kinnaird, L. | Sandhurst, L. |
| Latymer, L. | Sandys, L. | |
| Cottesloe, L. | Lawrence, L. | Sinclair, L. |
| Cushendun, L. | Monteagle, L. (M. Sligo.) | Snell, L. |
| Desborough, L. | Noel-Buxton, L. | Somerleyton, L. |
| Dickinson, L. | Oriel, L. (V. Massereene.) | Stanmore, L. |
| Digby, L. | Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair.) | Strathcona and Mount Royal, L. |
| Douglas, L. (E. Home.) | Passfield, L. | |
| Erskine, L. | Polwarth, L. | Templemore, L. |
| Fairhaven, L. | Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.] | Teynham, L. |
| Faringdon, L. | Trenchard, L | |
| FitzWalter, L. | Queenborough, L. | Wavertree, L. |
| Gage, L. (V. Gage.) | Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie.) | Wharton, L. |
| Gainford, L. | ||
| NOT-CONTENTS. | ||
| Wellington, D. | Elibank, V. | Deramore, L. |
| Novar, V. | Fairfax of Cameron, L. | |
| Airlie, E. | Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.) | |
| Breadalbane and Holland, E. | Banbury of Southam, L. | Hastings, L. [Teller.] |
| Cawdor, E. | Barnard, L. | Lamington, L. |
| Graham, E. (D. Montrose.) | Belhaven and Stenton, L. | Middleton, L. |
| Midleton, E. | Berwick, L. | Phillimore, L. |
| Morton, E. | Biddulph, L. | Raglan, L. |
| Poulett, E. | Brancopeth, L. (V. Boyne.) | Redesdale, L. |
| Radnor, E. | Chesham, L. | Strachie, L. |
| Clinton, L. | Treowen, L. | |
| Allenby of Megiddo, V. | Cranworth, L. [Teller.] | Wynford, L. |
| Bertie of Thame, V. |
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Resolved in the affirmative and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
§ LORD CRANWORTH moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "or otherwise disposing of." The noble Lord said: The noble Earl having had such a handsome success will, doubtless, be disposed to accept this Amendment to leave out the words "or otherwise disposing of." He will, of course, first of all explain what they mean. As they stand it seems to me they can do anything they like with the land. They might make it into demonstration farms or large-scale farms. In any case I feel quite certain the noble Earl will be inclined to accept the Amendment.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 37, leave out ("or otherwise disposing of").—(Lord Cranworth.)
§ EARL DE LA WARRI am afraid the noble Earl has rather misjudged the effect of the Division upon me, though I admit it has quite put heart into me for the moment, having felt rather crushed during the last hour. Many of these words are a simple form of protection to the Exchequer so that the best possible use can be made of the land. This land might be in an area where Part II, relating to small holdings, was going to be 696 operated. The land could be used for the purpose of small holdings, and it might well be found more economical for the Minister so to use that land rather than to sell or let it. Therefore I think it would be best if these words were left in and the matter left to the discretion of the powers.
§ VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAMEI hardly think the word "disposing" is the proper word to cover that "Disposing of" means giving away, or exchanging, or disposing of in some other form.
§ EARL DE LA WARRI am advised by my legal advisers that what I say is correct, and that this land might be used, if necessary, for small holdings. That is what is meant by "otherwise disposing of."
§ LORD CRANWORTHCould not the noble Earl meet me by putting in some words which would make it quite clear? It does seem to me that "or otherwise disposing of" does leave it quite open for any use to be made of this land.
§ EARL DE LA WARRIt gives no new powers at all, but I will look into it again, if the noble Lord would like, before Report and let him know, but I am advised it gives no new powers whatsoever.
§ LORD CRANWORTHIf the noble Lord will look into it and reassure me I will not press my Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE moved, in subsection (1), after "or" ["selling or otherwise disposing of"] to insert "feuing." The noble Lord said: I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 37, after ("or") insert ("feuing").—(The Earl of Lauderdale.)
§ EARL DE LA WARRI accept this.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN moved, immediately before the proviso in subsection (1), to insert "or he may enter into partnership with or make advances to public authorities or private corporations or individuals for the purpose of accomplishing the aforesaid object." The noble Marquess said: I feel a little difficulty in moving this Amendment for the reason that we have had no elaborate account or justification of this clause from the Government Bench. I imagine before the vote is taken we shall have some statement in detail of the case for this clause. I am not in a position to do that in detail, because I have not at my services the resources of the Government, but I have no doubt that this clause is sound in principle. I do not think anybody can travel about the agricultural land of this country without realising the decline which has taken place in its equipment since the War. In some earlier remarks I made this afternoon I said that one of the main reasons was the incidence and extent of taxation of agricultural land. I put forward the estimate, which I am prepared to substantiate in figures, that the amount of capital which is actually taken out of agriculture by the State every year is to-day about £10,000,000, and that, owing to the existence of taxes, it is almost impossible for an agricultural landlord who is not possessed of other resources to do more than maintain his property at best in its existing condition, and in many cases he is unable to do that.
§ I welcome this clause for the reason that it is a recognition at large by the State that it is necessary to put capital back into agriculture. The terms of my Amendment are designed not to inter- 698 fere with that purpose but to spread it over the whole land of the country. My objection to its being confined to land owned by the Minister is twofold. In the first place it means that an unnecessary expense is placed upon the Government in having to acquire land before it can reclaim it. In the second place I see no reason—assuming as I do assume, and as the Government must assume, that there is a general need for reclamation and reconditioning—why it should be confined only to land that is owned by the Government. It is obviously just as much needed in the case of land owned by other people. If there is a need, as I have not the slightest doubt that there is, for reclamation and reconditioning, it ought to be possible for the Government, through machinery with which I will deal in my next Amendment, to make advances on suitable terms for the reconditioning and reclamation of such land on suitable conditions, and not to confine it to land which is owned or purchased by the Government.
§ There are many precedents for this course. The most obvious is the Forestry Commission. In this case certain grants are made in the interest of plantations and so much per acre is allowed according to the character of the tree. The second instance is drainage, in regard to which an advance up to one-third can be made by the Department to private individuals or owners. The most obvious case, of course, is that of housing. Here a system of subsidising private enterprise has been, I venture to say, extremely successful—a great deal more successful than the method of direct Government action. There are many ways in which this particular problem of putting work which is essentially needed into the land can be worked out. I do not think it is necessary for me at this stage to go into further detail. I have quoted those precedents and there are obviously other ways in which it could be done.
§ It may be said that a great deal of this is already being done under Land Improvements Acts but if you look at the Report of the Land Department for the last year, you will find that the average annual sum expended in the last few years is £150,000, which proves the need for this kind of expenditure. If the Government think it necessary, as I believe it is, that this work should be 699 undertaken on a larger scale than hitherto, and if they have come to the conclusion that £5,000,000 can usefully be expended on this purpose, it seems to me that this House ought to require that the expenditure should be made in such a way that it will benefit the whole land of the country. That is the purpose of my Amendment.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 38, at end insert the said new words.—(The Marquess of Lothian.)
THE DUKE OF MONTROSEI would suggest, if I may, that the noble Marquess might leave out the words "enter into partnership with or," and his addition would then read:—
or he may make advances to public authorities or private corporations or individuals. …and so on. It seems to me that the words "enter into partnership" incur a danger of dual ownership, and that they would be better left out, merely empowering the Minister to make loans or advances.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANI do not feel at all strongly on this point. It is a method that has been worked out by which land could be reclaimed under conditions which would make it possible for the owner to terminate the partnership at a particular stage. I am not wedded to this form of words, but I think the method that I propose would be advantageous and might be useful in bringing back capital to the land on suitable terms.
§ LORD BAYFORDIn view of the place where the noble Marquess is sitting, I should like to ask him whether he realises that this is undoubtedly an Amendment on which a question of Privilege might arise? I should like to know if his neighbour, Lord Beauchamp, will support him in asking the Government to waive Privilege on this question.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANI am inviting the Government and the House of Commons to attain the object in this particular way. I do not think I can ask the Government at this particular stage to pledge itself to waive Privilege. Perhaps the House of Commons will have to take a free vote.
§ EARL DE LA WARRThis is certainly quite an interesting proposal, but I do not think it takes us very much further, 700 because there are already two bodies that are in a position to lend money to landowners for this purpose—namely, the Land Improvement Company and the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation. This means that a new method can only be brought into operation by the Government being empowered to lend money at lower rates than are already provided for by these bodies. This would really have the effect of knocking them both out of existence, or certainly the Land Improvement Company, and it would also be, in effect, a subsidy for landowners. I do not know what your Lordships' views are on the subject, but I cannot help feeling that the landowner should either be put in a position to look after his land or else he must get somebody else to do it for him. I do not see that there is any case for giving him a subsidy to carry out his obligations towards the land. I hope, therefore, that the noble Marquess will not press this Amendment. It is true that we were prepared to accept a somewhat similar wording on another clause, but that was in regard to special experimental work and not to carrying out a normal obligation. I am afraid, therefore, that I cannot accept this Amendment.
§ LORD CLINTONI think the noble Earl's objection is very typical of the attitude of the Party to which he belongs. He gives this proposal a bad name and says it is a subsidy to the landowner, and therefore it must ipso facto be stopped. But of course the proposal of the noble Marquess, as he has pointed out, is not without precedent. It is quite true that the Land Improvement Company and the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation lend money and, as I am a director of both, I must say that they lend it on the best possible terms. But we have done a great deal more than that. Ten years ago the Forestry Commission was allowed to give grants to private owners for planting, and very great advantage has been taken of this arrangement. I would personally very much rather see grants given to owners to reclaim land than that the Government should take it upon themselves. It would be done far more cheaply by the ordinary owner. I would support very strongly the proposal of the noble Marquess.
§ LORD HASTINGS moved to leave out the last line of subsection (1)—"save as hereinafter in this section expressly provided." The noble Lord said: The words "save as hereinafter in this section expressly provided" appear to those of us who have studied the matter to have no meaning whatever. The noble Earl may possibly take the contrary view, and we should be very interested to hear what it is. It will be realised that this subsection of Clause 3 provides for the acquisition of land by the Minister by agreement, and then the words that propose to leave out follow. When this subsection is carefully looked at it will be found that no provision of the kind is made, because in subsection (3) the provision made for acquiring land otherwise than by agreement applies only to the particular kind of land mentioned in this particular subsection, and therefore the words "save as hereinafter in this section expressly provided" are not only objectionable in themselves but are redundant and have no meaning.
§ Unhappily, the Lord Chancellor is not in the House. Otherwise, I would have made it my business to appeal to him for a ruling, but I do contend, and I think the noble Earl will agree when he looks into the matter with a little more care, that in subsection (3) of Clause 3, there are conditions providing that the Minister may acquire land otherwise than by agreement but only after inspection of land which is in a seriously neglected condition and when the Minister is satisfied that the owner is in default. That, however, does not apply to subsection (1). If the noble Earl is in disagreement with me no doubt he will give an explanation, but unless an explanation is forthcoming, it appears to me that these words are not only objectionable but redundant.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 41, leave out line 41.—(Lord Hastings.)
§ LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAMMay I point out that I do not think the noble Lord is quite correct. If you look at the clause you will see first of all that if the Minister is of opinion with respect to any piece of land that the execution thereon of reclamation, drainage, or other work is necessary in order to enable the piece of land to be satisfactorily used then he can acquire that land under this 702 section but not otherwise than by agreement "save as hereinafter in this section expressly provided." Therefore, what appears in the next subsection evidently relates to that particular provision. If you go to subsection (2), it says this:
If it appears to the Minister that any piece of land suitable for use for agricultural purposes cannot be satisfactorily used for those purposes by reason of its being in a seriously neglected condition, the Minister may, after consultation with the council of the county or county boroughdo certain things; and then by subsection (3), after "receiving a report under the last foregoing subsection," he may acquire the land by compulsion. What would the result be if those words were left out? The power would be entirely in the hands of the Minister. What is the good of leaving out the words proposed to be left out by this Amendment and leaving in these later words? You are going to do no good, but you will leave the Minister power on his own ipse dixit to acquire the land compulsorily. You must either leave this latter part out or leave the first part in.
§ EARL DE LA WARRI think it is mainly a drafting misunderstanding. If the noble Lord looks at line 41, he will see the word "section", and it also appears in line 40. That applies to the whole of Clause 3, but it says that "the Minister shall not acquire any land under this section otherwise than by agreement save as hereinafter in this section expressly provided." That is provided in the clause. Later on, in subsection (3), at page 5, line 28, you may be slightly confused by a reference to subsection (1), but 3 (1) is a subsection, and that part of the clause refers back solely to that subsection, whereas lines 40 and 41 are referring to the whole of the clause. I know the ways of lawyers are somewhat difficult to apprehend but I understand that it is actually right in drafting.
§ VISCOUNT HAILSHAMI am sorry to think that the ways of lawyers are difficult to understand, but I confess, having listened to the explanation and read the clause, that I do not think that this is properly drafted. The noble Earl says that the proviso with which we are dealing is a proviso which refers not to subsection (1) but to the whole clause. Then 703 it should be at the end of the whole clause. It ought either to read "The Minister shall not acquire land under this subsection otherwise than by agreement," and leave out the words which the mover of the Amendment wishes to leave out, or else the whole proviso should come right at the end of the clause. As it stands, it appears to deal with the subsection.
§ EARL DE LA WARRPerhaps the best way would be to deal with the matter on Report.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN had given Notice to move, at the end of subsection (1), to insert "provided also that the Minister may empower the Agricultural Land Corporation established under Section one of this Act to act as his agent for giving effect to this clause." The noble Marquess said: I am not quite certain whether I am in order in moving this Amendment. Clause 1 has disappeared, and therefore the Agricultural Land Corporation has disappeared too, but that does not prevent me from advocating the principle which underlies this Amendment—namely, that this function of reclamation and reconditioning should not be undertaken by the Minister, but entrusted to something in the nature of a public utility corporation. I do not know what may be the view of the noble Earl in charge of the Bill, but if he is able to accept the principle, it will be very easy to amend the form of words on the Report stage. I think most noble Lords will agree.
§ LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAMHow can any noble Lord move an Amendment to a clause which is not now in the Bill? We have deleted Clause 1, and it is only wasting time to move Amendments to a clause which has been struck out.
§ EARL DE LA WARRMay I make a suggestion which might help? The best course would perhaps be for the noble Marquess not to move his Amendment now, but to redraft it for the Report stage, when I can promise him, without committing myself further, to give it friendly consideration.
§ [The sitting was suspended at ten minutes before eight o'clock and resumed at five minutes past nine o'clock.]
§
VISCOUNT ASTOR moved, at the beginning of subsection (2), to insert:
If it appear to the Minister that farm buildings cannot be satisfactorily used for the purpose of milk production by reason of their not complying with the conditions set out in such orders as may be made by the Minister of Health under Section three of the Milk and Dairies (Consolidation) Act, 1915, the Minister may, either by way of grant or by way of loan, or partly by way of grant and partly by way of loan, make advances to the owner of the buildings for the purpose of the execution of any necessary alterations or repairs so that the buildings may comply with the conditions set out in the order:
§ Provided that—
- (a) If the buildings are in the occupation of the owner the grant or loan shall not exceed two-thirds of the estimated cost of the works in respect of which the grant or loan is to be made; and
- (b) If the buildings are let, a grant or loan for the whole of the estimated cost of the works may be made, but in such case the rent payable by the occupier in respect of the buildings shall not, for a period of twenty years, exceed the amount of the previous rent increased by a sum equal to three per cent. of the amount by which the estimated cost of the works in respect of which the grant has been given exceeds the amount of the grant given under this Act.
§ The provisions prescribed for the repayment of any loan, and the conditions attaching to buildings in respect of which any loan has been given, shall be made subject to the same conditions (in so far as they are applicable) as are set out in Sections two and three of the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, 1926, or"
§ The noble Viscount said: I trust that the Amendment which I move will appeal to your Lordships. It does not involve the expenditure of any more money than is already voted under the Bill. There is no compulsion arising out of my proposal and it does not deal with nationalisation in any way whatever. My Amendment would not enable any Government Department to acquire any property. Subsection (1) of Clause 3 deals with the reclamation of land. Subsection (2) deals with reconditioning of buildings. There is a definition in subsection (10) as to the buildings which are covered, but I thought it advisable to deal specifically with cowsheds.
705§ My Amendment is limited entirely to cowsheds. The structures where cows are housed are in an entirely different category from the structures where horses, pigs or bullocks are housed. Parliament by the Milk and Dairies Act has imposed certain specific and definite obligations on the owners of cow houses as: regards ventilation, light and so on. It has not imposed any similar obligation upon owners of stables or of sheds where bullocks are housed, or of pigsties. I think that all your Lordships will agree that in a large number of cases the Milk and Dairies Act is a dead letter. The other day I read an article in an important paper written by a well known medical officer of health and he said quite frankly that in the area for which he was responsible the administration of the Milk and Dairies Orders was, to use his own words, a dead letter. We know perfectly well that there are a considerable number of cowsheds which do not come up to the requirements. To a certain extent those buildings belong to small farmers. They find it difficult to comply with the conditions which are laid down under the Act in question.
§ I need not emphasise here the importance of assisting dairying. It is very interesting that in the last two days there should have been started, quite independently, in two popular newspapers, the Daily Express and the Daily Herald, a campaign, "Drink more milk." That shows how important it is to help to develop the dairy industry. I know from experience that you cannot possibly push a "Drink more milk" campaign unless at the same time you can do something to improve the cleanliness and hygienic condition of the milk. Improving the structures where it is produced is one of the first essentials. I have taken as the precedent for my proposal the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, 1926. Under that Statute assistance is given to the owners of cottage property to recondition their structures. That Act was passed by a Conservative Government and has within the last few days been extended for a further period of five years by the Labour Government; so that the principle of assisting private individuals to put their property in order has been adopted by two Governments—a Conservative Government and a Labour Government. My Amendment would 706 enable assistance to be given both to owner-occupiers and to tenants. Where the latter are concerned, I have specifically made it impossible for the owner to make use of the grant in order to exploit his tenants. Having got the grant, it is not possible for him to put up the rent unreasonably.
§ In the preparation of this Amendment I have been in touch with the leading association representing dairy farmers, the British Dairy Farmers' Association, and I may say that they are wholeheartedly in support of the Amendment. So I move it on the ground that it does not involve the expenditure of any more money than has actually been voted already; it does not reverse the purposes of the clause as drafted and it merely adds to the objects on which the money may be spent. I trust that my proposal will meet with support, and I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 42, at the beginning insert the said new paragraphs.—(Viscount Astor.)
§ LORD STRACHIEI do not quite understand why the noble Viscount refers to Section 3 of the Milk and Dairies (Consolidation) Act, 1915, because I see that that section has reference to power to stop the supply of milk likely to cause tuberculosis. The noble Viscount said that the county councils were simply ignoring orders with regard to the ventilation and lighting of cowsheds and the proper sanitary condition of those places. Nothing in the section which he quotes deals with such matters. The section deals only with milk which is tuberculous.
§ VISCOUNT ASTORI think that Section 3 was left in by mistake. I originally drafted the Amendment to deal with graded milk. I altered that after discussing the Amendment with the British Dairy Farmers' Association, so if the noble Lord omits the reference to Section 3 the Amendment will read: "such orders as may be made by the Minister of Health under the Milk and Dairies (Consolidation) Act."
§ LORD STRACHIEQuite so; but perhaps the noble Viscount will tell me when the British Dairy Farmers' Association passed any resolution in support of his Amendment. I happen to be on the Council of that Association, and I am 707 not aware that they have ever passed any such drastic Amendment as the noble Viscount suggests. As far as I know, in all the great dairy counties of the West of England, those dairying orders were found to be unnecessary. We are only dealing now with orders as regards cowsheds, their lighting and floor space and the general cleanliness of the buildings—that they should be properly whitewashed and things of that sort. The noble Viscount says that has been a dead letter. Why has it been a dead letter? I can tell him. If he lived in a dairy county, as I do, he would know that the order was a dead letter because it was absolutely unnecessary. I can inform the noble Viscount that a large number of people who competed in clean milk competitions in the County of Somerset got first or second or third prizes, or were commended for having perfectly clean milk, yet their buildings could not have passed the Milk and Dairies order requirements. That order was simply a doctrine of perfection.
Even if it had not been a doctrine of perfection, it was unnecessary, as we were able to prove in Somerset and other Western counties that clean milk can be produced under conditions which do not comply with the Milk and Dairies orders. The thing to do in order to produce clean milk is to see that the sheds, as they always are, are properly whitewashed and kept clean, and that the milkers are clean before they milk the cows, and that the cows are properly groomed and in proper condition. When you have manure in the milk it is because the cow has not been properly cleaned and its udders are dirty. It is that which produces unclean milk. I think that we were justified in the West of England in refusing to obey those orders, especially in the serious conditions of agricultural depression which prevailed. In some eases it would have meant, in order to make the alterations, that the landlord or the occupier would have had to spend from £10 to £20 per cow upon the milksheds. I cannot help thinking that if the noble Viscount were only aware of the circumstances he would realise why it is that these orders were a dead letter. It is because it was not necessary to apply them. If it were necessary to apply them, and it could be done, dirty milk might still be produced even if the sheds did have from £15 or 708 £20 per cow spent upon them. It might be said that the farmer, who could not afford that expenditure, would not be compelled to produce milk, but might be told, under those conditions, that he must not produce milk but must turn his attention to some other kind of farming.
I cannot understand why the noble Viscount wishes to put this provision into the clause. If he will forgive my saying so, I do not think it is germane to the clause. The clause says the Minister is to acquire land for the purposes of reconditioning, but it does not say the Minister is to be called on to pay for the reconditioning. I see the noble Viscount's Amendment talks about loans being made to landlords or owner-occupiers. The loans might be made at a high rate of interest. He also provides for the Government making grants. I think it would be very unlikely that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer would be ready to make large grants to landlords. The present Labour Government's idea is that they would like to get rid of landlords entirely. Therefore it is not likely that they would do anything to help them to improve their estates or cowsheds. I hope the noble Viscount will not press his Amendment. I am sure he quite misunderstands the purport of it. I hope he may be able to tell me what resolution was passed by the British Dairy Farmers' Association supporting this Amendment.
THE EARL OF AIRLIEI should like to support the noble Viscount's Amendment because, not only in my area but in many others, there are many farmers who would undoubtedly produce milk if aided in this way. The precedent has been given in the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, 1926. If more milk could be produced in this country, it would be a great help to farmers, as it is one of the few things which are at present paying their way.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCHI rise to contradict the noble Earl, because I should have thought he would have been perfectly well aware that at the present moment the whole production of milk in Scotland is a very serious matter.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCHPerhaps it is rather behind the others. The position is so bad that in Glasgow they would 709 not get on at all if it were not that the English farmers were so badly organised, and at the present time they are, in fact, selling 2,000,000 gallons a year to Cadbury's. I oppose this Amendment because at present it is a fatal thing to provide money for more byres. The production of milk is so great that it cannot be sold profitably at the present time and, although in the past few years it has been a profitable business, it is not becoming so now that there is a great danger of too much production. It is true we do not drink enough milk in this country, but that is because of the number of faddists and doctors who go round the country saying that the byres and cowsheds are not up-to-date. Taking the whole world over, milk is produced under cleaner conditions in Great Britain than in any part of the world. What inspection do the milk powders and the milk in tins, which are imported, receive? It would be a great mistake to give any public assistance to increase the number of dairies at the present time, because disaster would come on the whole of the milk trade.
THE EARL OF AIRLIEIn my area there was such a shortage of milk that I had to start a dairy farm myself to produce enough milk.
LORD BELHAVEN AND STENTONI must agree with the noble Lord who has just spoken, because the difficulty now is getting a certificate and the only way to get a certificate is to carry out the wishes in the matter of the sanitary inspector. I had a meeting with the sanitary inspector and said: "I am an old man and I would be glad if you would let me know what has to be done so that I may not be asked again in my life-time." I carried out the work. It was not very economically done, but it had to be done or I would not have let the farm. I know there has been a surplus of milk in some districts, but the fact remains that this would have been of the greatest assistance to me and would even now be of assistance to me, if this Amendment was carried.
§ LORD BAYFORDI would suggest to the Committee that perhaps it would be rather unwise to multiply breaches of Privilege. This is as strong a breach of Privilege as you could possibly have. There may be one or two privileged matters to be discussed later, about which there may be a good deal of con- 710 tention, but this is gratuitously putting in an Amendment that is as strongly privileged as it could possibly be, and I think it is unwise to multiply such examples.
§ EARL DE LA WARRIf the noble Viscount is going to withdraw this Amendment, I will not waste the time of the Committee upon it.
§ VISCOUNT ASTORI am not going to withdraw it.
§ EARL DE LA WARRI am sorry to hear it. I must say I am inclined to agree with the noble Duke. I am not sure that this Amendment, whatever its merits, is really appropriate to this Bill. Surely if it were intended by those who passed the Milk and Dairies (Consolidation) Act that there should be public assistance accompanying a statutory obligation regarding cowsheds it should have been inserted in that Act. If Parliament has changed its mind and thinks it should be done now, surely it would be more appropriate to bring in an amending Bill to the Milk and Dairies Act. On the question of Privilege, I would not venture to advise your Lordships either way. I leave that to the noble and learned Viscount who leads the Opposition. On the merits of the case, Lord Strachie said that the Labour Government wishes to do away with landlords. Quite apart from that point, which again is not very relevant to this Bill, I think that any Government of any complexion would be inclined to say that it is only reasonable, if provisions are made for milk production, that the owner should see to it that he has his cow sheds in the statutory condition. The landowner can borrow at present for that purpose from the Land Improvement Company and the Mortgage Corporation on very favourable terms.
One last point. Even if the points that I have already put do not count, I think that what the noble Duke said about the present state of the milk market shows that we are not justified in specially selecting milk and dairy cowsheds as an object of expenditure at the moment. We all know that the so-called over-production of milk is really rather under-consumption, but even with that qualifying factor we should not be justi- 711 fied in spending public money on this purpose. I would ask the noble Viscount, therefore, not to press his Amendment.
§ LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAMI should like to confirm that which my noble friend Lord Bayford said. This is a most extraordinary breach of Privilege. We may be perfectly right in moving to reduce expenditure, but this is an Amendment to put a charge upon the public. Let me tell the noble Viscount that if he were a member of the House of Commons he could not move an Amendment of this kind there. The only person who can move to impose a charge upon the subject is a member of the Privy Council—I do not think the noble Viscount is a member of the Privy Council—and he must have the consent of the King. I do not think the noble Viscount has the consent of the King. If he were a member of the House of Commons, therefore, he could not move this Amendment. Of course he could move an Amendment to reduce expenditure. That is the privilege of every member of the House of Commons, whether a private member or a Privy Councillor. But the noble Viscount is imposing a new burden upon this House, by giving the privilege to a member of this House to impose a charge upon the subject, which a member of the House of Commons cannot do.
§ VISCOUNT ASTORLet me answer one or two points made during the discussion. I do not understand that my Amendment increases the expenditure of public money.
§ LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAMAre you going to find it then?
§ VISCOUNT ASTORLet me explain. A definite sum of money has been voted by the House of Commons for certain clauses, including Clause 3. My Amendment does not increase the amount of money required; it merely adds to the purposes for which that money which has already been voted, may be spent.
§ LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAMBut if you have £100 voted to spend upon a certain subject, and you introduce another subject, how can you spend that £100, which has already been spent on something else?
§ VISCOUNT ASTORI propose to share the £100 between the object for which it was originally voted and something which is added. As to the question put by Lord Strachie, I think the letter signed by the secretary of the British Dairy Farmers' Association said that he had read my letter and that it was agreed to support my Amendment.
§ LORD STRACHIEThe noble Lord says that they accepted this Amendment but, as he explained, the Amendment does not mean what he intended.
§ VISCOUNT ASTOR.They said that, subject to my making the alterations which I have now made, they would support my Amendment. I amended my original Amendment in order to meet the suggestion of the British Dairy Farmers' Association. I am sorry I omitted to take out the reference to Section 3. I am surprised that I have not received more support for this proposal. Here is one branch of agriculture which can be developed. Here is a proposal to assist it in a way which will be far more economical than many of the proposals to subsidise wheat and sugar-beet growing, and I am very disappointed, regardless of any question of Privilege which might possibly be raised, that I have not received more support. Of course, if I do not receive any support from this side and the noble Earl in charge of the Bill feels that he cannot recommend the acceptance of my Amendment, there is no object in pressing it.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ LORD CRANWORTH moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "it appears to" and, after Minister, to insert "in agreement with the council of the county or county borough, as the case may be, is of opinion." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is really the same as one which I introduced before, and I think, if I heard the noble Earl aright, he agreed to accept it at this stage.
§ EARL DE LA WARRNo, what I did say was that bringing in the county council was much more appropriate on this portion of the clause than on subsection (1). I think the only disagreement is whether it should be "in consultation with" or "in agreement with." The Government has "in consultation with," and I am afraid I cannot agree to accept the Amendment.
§ LORD CRANWORTHThe noble Earl has gone a long way towards agreeing with me, because he says that he likes the bringing in of the county council, but he would rather have "consultation" than "agreement." I venture to suggest that "agreement" is somewhat better than "consultation," because you may consult a person for a very long while if you have made up your mind to disagree with him beforehand. As the noble Earl has gone so far as to say that he thinks the county council should be brought in, and in fact the Bill brings them in, I hope he will also agree that "in agreement with" is a better phrase than "in consultation with," which latter really leaves the matter entirely in the hands of the Minister.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 42, leave out ("it appears to") and after ("Minister") insert ("in agreement with the council of the county or county borough, as the case may be, is of opinion").—(Lord Cranworth.)
§ EARL DE LA WARRI think the point really is this, that whereas it is obviously desirable that the county council should be consulted on this matter, yet ultimately the responsibility for decision and action under this clause is the Minister's. He is carrying out a national policy in laying down a certain national standard. It is therefore obviously undesirable to bring the county council into the matter in such a way that they can prevent him from taking action. As your Lordships know, the words "in consultation" in an Act of Parliament are really very much stronger than in actual conversation. They do mean in effect that serious consultation has to take place and they mean that it is very unlikely that the Minister would take action against the advice of the county council; but they also mean that ultimately the standard that is laid down is national, not local, and I think that is obviously desirable in such a serious matter as this.
§ LORD CRANWORTHI am sorry to disagree with the noble Earl. The county council have the much more important duty of being the arbiter in the question whether proper cultivation is carried out, and I think I am right in saying that in that case they do not act in consultation with the Minister. If they are in fact the arbiter in such a matter surely it is not 714 very much to ask that the Minister should find himself in agreement with the county council in this matter.
§ EARL DE LA WARRUnder the powers referred to by the noble Lord the county council are the sole arbiters from beginning to end and the whole decision is their responsibility. In this case it is the Minister's responsibility, and it is not only the Minister's responsibility for taking action, it is also the Minister's responsibility for expending any money that needs to be expended. It is national money that is to be expended, not local money. Therefore I think the ultimate decision must be in the hands of the Minister. Obviously in these circumstances the Minister could not possibly operate without the assistance of the county council. After all, I am very nearly in agreement on this point, but I do think it is going rather far to say that in no circumstances can the Minister take action if the county council is against it. Also, in some cases, it might put the county council in a very invidious position. All of us who have served on county agricultural committees know how very unpleasant it is to deal with cases of certificates for bad farming, and, indeed, for purely personal reasons, how very difficult it is to get them. In the case of large landowners it might be even more difficult and more invidious and I should have thought that, both from the county councils point of view and from the landowners' point of view, it would be infinitely preferable to have the ultimate responsibility with the Ministry rather than with the county council.
§ LORD BAYFORDSpeaking as a county councillor I rather agree with the noble Earl. I think it would be a very invidious and disagreeable thing for the county council to have to do, and when there is a disagreeable thing to be done I would much rather it were done by the Government than by the county council.
§ LORD HASTINGSThere is another aspect of this. It is really a matter of whether we believe in centralisation or decentralisation. That is the important point, to my mind. As Lord Cranworth has pointed out, the county councils at present are directly responsible for seeing, or endeavouring to see, that the land is properly cultivated. They do their 715 best in that regard. But you are proposing in this Bill entirely to override and overrule the present jurisdiction of the county council in this particular respect. If you think that it is necessary that every county in England should aspire to a certain standard, and that the Minister should be the arbiter of that standard, well and good. But surely decentralisation has a lot to be said for it. Local option is a very important and valuable thing, and I cannot help feeling that in the long run, in spite of the fact, as Lord Bayford said, and rightly said, that it would be very invidious for the county council to decide these matters, happily their decisions are impersonal. They are conveyed to their officials; the individual county councillor is not necessarily brought into it. Obviously they have a better opportunity of determining whether or no the land is in the condition described in the Bill than the Minister and his inspectors have. They are also in touch with the local conditions which have caused the state of affairs to arise, but which the Minister's inspector is not in touch with. They are better able to say whether the individual is in default or not, and whether it is the act of God or the act of an individual. I think on the whole we should find it more convenient that the Minister should be in agreement with the county council rather than that he should be an independent arbiter in this case, acting of course through an official who has no definite local knowledge. I know there are two sides to the case, but I cannot help thinking it would be well on the whole to accept the noble Lord's Amendment. It seems to me that it would make the thing work better.
§ EARL DE LA WARRAfter what has been said, and after the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, has put it, I find it very hard not to accept this Amendment. On the other hand, I think that most of his arguments apply to the words already in the Bill "in consultation with" as well as to "in agreement with."
§ LORD HASTINGSYes.
§ EARL DE LA WARR.But I really think it puts it in a more workable and elastic form. For that reason, I would ask the noble Lord not to press his Amendment, but to accept my assurance and the assur- 716 ance of the Government that no Minister could possibly think of acting in the kind of manner described. Anyone who has dealt with these matters would know that such a thing was impossible.
§ LORD CRANWORTHIt depends upon the view of your Lordships in this matter. I am not convinced. I must confess that I am firmly of opinion that "in agreement with" is better than "in consultation with." I admit it is perfectly true that the county councils have not proved an entirely satisfactory body to administer the question of the cultivation of land. That is because, as we all know, the agricultural committees have consisted of a majority of farmers who have found it extremely difficult to have lunch with a man at twelve o'clock and in the afternoon to say that he was not farming properly. That does not apply in the present case. As long as the majority of the agricultural committees are farmers they will be perfectly ready to say that the landowner is not doing his job sufficiently well; in fact, they will be rather eager to do so. Therefore, I think that argument falls to the ground. I can see that the noble Earl is weakening. I honestly think it would be a very real gesture on his part and do a very great deal to bring Clause 3 into operation. I sincerely hope that he will agree to this Amendment. If not, and I can get anyone to support me, I think that I must go to a Division.
§ EARL DE LA WARRI do not like to refuse to give in after such a speech, but I should really like to make a gesture on another Amendment.
§ LORD CRANWORTHI have made one gesture. However, if I cannot get anyone to support me, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ LORD CRANWORTH moved, in subsection (2), after "satisfactorily" to insert "and economically". The noble Lord said: In moving this Amendment—
§ EARL DE LA WARRI will make the gesture here.
§ LORD CRANWORTHThis is an Amendment which has really already been agreed to, I think.
§ EARL DE LA WARRI will accept it.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 1, after ("satisfactorily") insert ("and economically").—(Lord cranworth.)
§ LORD CRANWORTH moved, in subsection (2), after "any" ["authorise any person"] to insert "duly qualified." The noble Lord said: This is really a verbal matter and probably the noble Earl will agree to it.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 6, after ("any") insert ("duly qualified").—(Lord Cranworth.)
§ EARL DE LA WARR.In principle there is really no objection to these words; but purely as a matter of drafting it always seems a pity to put in words that are not really necessary. I think it can be assumed from the wording of the clause that a man must be qualified. Indeed, the Minister would be very foolish if he did not appoint a qualified man, for he has to stand in a witness box, probably after having delivered his report, and justify himself before the arbitrator, who certainly is a qualified man, being appointed by the President of the Surveyors' Institution. For legal reasons it is always a pity to put in words that are not necessary. They may be interpreted in any way later in the Courts. If the noble Lord is not keen on these words, I ask him not to press the Amendment.
§ LORD CRANWORTHMy position is this. If the noble Earl were the person to select the official I would be satisfied, but I have not the same confidence in other people, and I think the man should be duly qualified. I do not think the words are redundant.
§ EARL DE LA WARRYou realise that the Minister will lose his case later before the arbitrator unless he does appoint a qualified man? The man has to justify himself before the arbitrator. I do not think the Amendment is really necessary.
§ LORD CLINTONSurely there is no real objection to the Amendment. Is this not a common form of words in an Act of Parliament? The words "competent" and "qualified" have been frequently used.
§ EARL DE LA WARRThe trouble is—I am speaking from what my legal advisers say—when it comes into Court a Judge always assumes that the words had some special reason for being put in, and he looks about for some interpretation of the term "duly qualified," and perhaps puts on some special interpretation which probably was never intended. It is always best, if words are not necessary, not to put them in. As it is perfectly clear as it is, I would ask the noble Lord not to press the matter. It is purely drafting.
§ VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAMEThe noble Earl has not answered the question of my noble friend Lord Clinton, as to whether or not it is a usual expression in Acts of Parliament.
§ EARL DE LA WARRThe answer is that it is not a usual expression.
VISCOUNT ELIBANKThe noble Earl says it is merely drafting. If it is drafting, why does he resist it?
§ EARL DE LA WARRBecause it is bad drafting, and it is important to keep the drafting as good as possible.
VISCOUNT ELIBANKFrom what the noble Earl says we, on this side, can only assume that the probability is that a person will be appointed who is not qualified; because if the noble Earl resists in this strenuous form the two words "duly qualified" the only assumption we can draw is that some person will be appointed who is not qualified.
§ VISCOUNT HAILSHAMIt is not often I find myself supporting the Government, and I always regret it when I do, but there is just this difficulty in the words suggested. If you say a duly qualified person, then the Judge or arbitrator who is called upon to interpret the words would look in the Act of Parliament to, find what was the due qualification of a person for entering and inspecting the land, because the expression "duly qualified" would imply there was a definition somewhere as to what qualifications were required—that he must belong to this, that or the other society, or have this, that or the other experience. I think it would create a difficulty if you said he had to be duly qualified, and then did not tell the tribunal, which will ultimately have to determine whether he 719 was duly qualified or not, what you meant by the expression and what was a due qualification.
My noble friend Lord Clinton asked if it was not common to put in an Act of Parliament such an expression as "qualified person." It is not uncommon, but then you put in the definition clause what a qualified person is, and, unless you are prepared to put in such a definition in this Bill, the words will not help. I believe the fact that this appointment and this report have to be justified before an independent and qualified person is probably a sufficient safeguard against an unqualified person being appointed and making a report, because the first question that will be asked is: "What qualifications did your reporter have?" and, if the answer is "None; he was a Member of Parliament," the arbitrator will say: "You could not expect the owner to accept a report by so ignorant a person." There is sufficient protection in the qualified tribunal and I suggest that the words "duly qualified" would cause difficulty in administering the Act.
§ LORD CRANWORTHI beg leave to withdraw. I would have done so with alacrity if the noble Lord opposite had not put up such a strenuous defence.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ LORD CLINTON moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "after receiving a" and insert "the." The noble Lord said: The object of this and the following Amendments in my name is to relieve the Minister of the very large powers given to him under this clause. There is a growing objection to the powers with which Ministers invest themselves and the fact that the Minister has powers in this clause against the taxpayer and the landowner makes it reasonable to see that every precaution is taken. In the last subsection the Minister can order a report to be made on the land in question and, under this subsection (3), important determinations would be left to him. In the first place, he has to say whether the land is suitable for agriculture, in the second place whether the land can be satisfactorily used on account of its neglected condition, and thirdly, he has 720 to determine if the condition is due to the neglect of the owner. All those determinations are questions of fact and can only be properly determined by a duly qualified person.
§
They are facts within the province of the ordinary surveyor and valuer and ought not to be left to the officials of the Ministry of Agriculture. It would add a great deal to our confidence in the decision if the decision is made by the valuer himself. If these Amendments are made the clause would read as follows:
If the report under the foregoing section with respect to any piece of land is to the effect that the piece of land is in a seriously neglected condition and that the piece of land is suitable for use for agricultural purposes but cannot be satisfactorily and economically so used by reason of its being in a seriously neglected condition"—
if the valuer reports that that is the case, then the Minister may give notice; he cannot himself decide any of these questions. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 8, leave out ("after receiving a") and insert ("the").—(Lord Clinton.)
§ EARL DE LA WARRI think probably a number of your Lordships can sympathise with the desire of the noble Lord that this power should not be left solely in the hands of the Minister, but I would suggest to your Lordships that the effect of this Amendment is to take the responsibility from the Minister, who, after all, can be got at by Parliament, and to place it in the hands of the official who is making the report and whom nobody can get at. This puts the Minister in the position of being able to go to Parliament and say that this action has been taken, but it is not really his responsibility because the report has stated certain facts and, as the result of these facts being settled, it was for him to take certain action. Whatever you feel about the Minister, I think you will agree that this is an infinitely worse position. This is almost a constitutional question, as to whose responsibility it is for this action to be taken. I should have thought that normally it is essential that whoever takes this action should be answerable to somebody, and in this case the somebody would be Parliament. I hope the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.
§ LORD CLINTONI do not, I am sorry to say, in the least agree with the noble Earl. The responsibility of the Minister is confined by these Amendments merely to giving notice. Everything after that goes, under a future Amendment that I wish to move, to an arbitrator. No constitutional question can be involved in the Minister giving notice. If, in the first instance, certain things have caused the land to be in a neglected condition, we go to an arbitrator and find out if the arbitrator agrees. The Minister does not act except by giving notice that he proposes to take the land over.
§ Resolved in the negative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
§ LORD CLINTON moved, in subsection (3), after the first "land", to insert "is to the effect," and to leave out "the Minister is satisfied." The noble Lord said: I beg to move.
722§ EARL DE LA WARRIn most cases the position of the official and that of the Minister can both be called to account before the arbitrator.
§ LORD CLINTONThe Minister may take action if there is no appeal, but when there is an appeal the Minister drops out and it goes to arbitration.
§ EARL DE LA WARRExactly.
§ On Question, Whether the words "after receiving a" should stand part of the clause?
§ Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 14; Not-Contents, 84.
721| CONTENTS. | ||
| Ancaster, E. | Dickinson, L. | Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.] |
| Beauchamp, E. | Gainford, L. | |
| De La Warr, E. | Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull.) [Teller.] | Rathcreedan, L. |
| Iddesleigh, E. | Sanderson, L. | |
| Noel-Buxton, L. | Snell, L. | |
| Mersey, V. | Stanmore, L. |
| NOT-CONTENTS. | ||
| Wellington, D. | Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.) | Desborough, L. |
| Digby, L. | ||
| Camden, M. | Allenby of Megiddo, V. | Douglas, L. (E. Home.) |
| Exeter, M. | Astor, V. | Dynevor, L. |
| Zetland, M. | Bertie of Thame, V. | Fairfax of Cameron, L. |
| Churchill, V. | Faringdon, L. | |
| Airlie, E. | Elibank, V. | FitzWalter, L. |
| Albemarle, E. | FitzAlan of Derwent, V. | Gage, L. (V. Gage.) |
| Bradford, E. | Hailsham, V. | Hastings, L. |
| Cawdor, E. | Hambleden, V. | Heneage, L. |
| Donoaster, E. (D. Buceleuch and Queensberry.) | Hereford, V. | Howard of Glossop, L. |
| Novar, V. | Lamington, L. | |
| Feversham, E. | Latymer, L. | |
| Fortescue, E. | Abinger, L. | Lawrence, L. |
| Grey, E. | Addington, L. | Middleton, L. |
| Ilchester, E. | Aldenham, L. | Oriel, L. (V. Massereene.) |
| Lauderdale, E. | Banbury of Southam, L. | Oxen foord, L. (E. Stair.) |
| Lindsay, E. | Bayford, L. | Phillimore, L. |
| Lucan, E. | Belhaven and Stenton, L. | Polwarth, L. |
| Malmesbury, E. | Berwick, L. | Queenborough, L. |
| Midleton, E. | Biddulph, L. | Redesdale, L. |
| Morton, E. | Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne.) | Sinclair, L. |
| Mount Edgcumbe, E. | Chesham, L. | Somerleyton, L. |
| Onslow, E. | Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.) | Strachie, L. [Teller.] |
| Peel, E. | Templemore, L. | |
| Poulett, E. | Clinton, L. [Teller.] | Trenchard, L. |
| Radnor, E. | Cottesloe, L. | Treowen, L. |
| Sandwich, E. | Cranworth, L. | Wavertree, L. |
| Scarbrough, E. | Cushendun, L. | Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.) |
| Stanhope, E. | Deramore, L. | Wynford, L. |
§ LORD CLINTONI consider them so, if the noble Earl will accept them.
§ EARL DE LA WARRYes.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 9, after ("land") insert ("is to the effect"), and leave out ("the Minister is satisfied").—(Lord Clinton.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
723
§
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 10, after the second ("is") insert ("suitable for use for agricultural purposes but cannot be satisfactorily and economically so used by reason of its being").—(Lord Clinton.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD CLINTON moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "relating to arbitration." The noble Lord said: I move this for the purpose of bringing the words in again later. I think the clause will read better if this Amendment is made.
§ EARL DE LA WARRHave we passed line 10?
§ LORD CLINTONYes. I regard that as consequential. Does the noble Earl wish to say anything about it?
§ EARL DE LA WARRI do not think I can now; I am sorry. I have only a slight drafting objection. It is not important and we can deal with it on Report.
§ LORD CLINTONThe noble Earl will see that line 24 is the more suitable place for the words I am proposing to omit here.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 18, leave out ("relating to arbitration").—(Lord Clinton.)
§ EARL DE LA WARRI will take it there.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD CLINTON had given Notice to move, in subsection (3), after "such" ["within such period"] to insert "reasonable." The noble Lord said: I do not think this is very important. If we get the word "reasonable" in when we come to the question of arbitration I do not mind. I now move, after "such works," to insert "of maintenance." I think it ought to be clearly stated here that the only works referred to are works of maintenance. I think it is implied by the clause, but I should prefer that the words were inserted.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 23, after ("works") insert ("of maintenance").—(Lord Clinton.)
§ EARL DE LA WARRI think this is purely drafting and I am advised that the clause is perfectly clear as drafted. I hope the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
724§ LORD CLINTON moved, in subsection (3), after "period," to insert "it is determined by the Minister or by arbitration under this section." The noble Lord said: This is a more important Amendment. The object is that when notice has been given there shall be a determination by the Minister or by arbitration. The arbitration clauses are on the next page.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 24, after ("period") insert ("it is determined by the Minister or by arbitration under this section").—(Lord Clinton.)
§ EARL DE LA WARRI am not quite clear what the purpose of the Amendment is and whether it is really drafting.
§ LORD CLINTONIt is something more than a drafting Amendment. After notice is given someone has to determine whether the work shall be carried out. Formerly the Minister determined that, but we have taken away that power from the Minister if the owner wishes to go to arbitration. If there is no objection the Minister will determine. If there is objection, the matter will go to arbitration to be determined.
§ EARL DE LA WARRThe subsection provides that the Minister may serve notice requiring certain work to be done. If, after the expiration of the specified time of notice for the execution of the work, the Minister determines that the requirements of the notice have not been complied with, he may purchase the piece of land otherwise than by agreement
§ LORD CLINTONThat is the clause as it stands.
§ EARL DE LA WARRYes. Subsection (5) provides for an appeal by the person served with notice to an arbitrator on any of the grounds specified in subsection (5). So that if subsection (5) is read with subsection (3) it is clear that if the person served with notice has appealed to an arbitrator, until the arbitrator has determined the matter in dispute no action can possibly be taken by the Minister to acquire any land under subsection (3). Surely as that stands it is perfectly satisfactory and I do not quite see what advantage there is in altering it.
§ LORD CLINTONI can explain, if the noble Lord will let me. In line 18, we have deleted the words relating to arbitration, so you have no reference to arbitration in this subsection. Now we bring it in here—"or if the arbitrator determines." I think it is quite clear what the intention of the clause is and it may not affect the original meaning of the clause very much. At the same time, I think it does help to show that the determination is not left to the Minister alone but is with the arbitrator also.
§ VISCOUNT HAILSHAMI should have suggested that there is very little difference between what the noble Earl intends and what my noble friend is making clear in his Amendment—namely, that there is a right of appeal to an arbitrator and, as the noble Earl quite truly says, subsection (5) (e) includes any one of the matters which may be arbitrated. The question as to whether the requirement of the notice has been complied with, having regard to the fact that I gather there has been deleted the three words relating to arbitration in line 18, I think probably it does make it clearer to have the Amendment which is suggested. I would suggest to the noble Earl that he should for the time being accept it and then see on Report if there is any misunderstanding.
§ EARL DE LA WARRThat is the suggestion I was going to make.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD CLINTON moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "the Minister determines." The noble Lord said: This is consequential.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 24, leave out ("the Minister determines").—(Lord Clinton.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD CLINTON moved, in subsection (3), after "under" ["under subsection (1)"] to insert" and for the purposes specified in". The noble Lord said: I will accept the view of the noble Earl upon this matter, but I think it does make it clearer if, after the word "under", you add the words "and for the purposes specified in". If the noble Earl raises any strong objection, I will not move it, but it seems no harm can come of it.
726
§
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 28, after ("under") insert ("and for the purposes specified in")—(Lard Clinton.)
§ EARL DE LA WARRI can only say we have discussed the matter thoroughly with our drafting officers, and I think, on the whole, they prefer the existing drafting.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, after paragraph (b) of subsection (5), to insert:
(c) the execution of the proposed works of maintenance would result in so increasing the economic value of the land as to render the cost of the proposed works remunerative; or
§ The noble Viscount said: May I start by saying that I hope when the time comes the whole of this clause will be thrown out In the meantime, I propose to move the Amendment which stands in my name. This clause gives power to the Minister of Agriculture in certain cases to acquire land for the purpose of reconditioning. By subsection (5), provisions are made for reference to a single arbitrator of certain questions, where notice has been served by the Minister requiring works of maintenance to be executed. The object of this very important Amendment is to procure that the arbitrator shall be required by the Act of Parliament to consider and decide whether the execution of required works of maintenance would be economically sound—that is to say, in the words of the Amendment, "would result in so increasing the economic value of the land as to render the cost of the proposed works remunerative."
§ It will be observed that in paragraph (d) on page 9 of the Bill "works of maintenance" mean the repair or reconditioning of farmhouses, cottages, agricultural buildings, drains, embankments, ditches, bridges, fences, walls, hedges, gates, roads and water supply. If the Minister requires the execution of such works, it might, as all who are acquainted with agriculture are aware, involve an expenditure many times greater than the value of the land and far larger than might be economically sound. To shorten the discussion, I will try to anticipate the answer of the noble Earl. He will point to the proviso at the bottom of page 5 of the Bill, under which the Minister may withdraw, if it appears to 727 him that the total expenditure involved in proceeding further would not be justified. Under that provision, however, the Minister may only withdraw after the determination of the amount of compensation to be paid for the land compulsorily acquired and that provision, therefore, rests on the amount of compensation to be paid. That is an entirely different point to the point of this Amendment, which seeks to secure that in the preliminary arbitration, before proceedings under the Land Clauses Act are instituted, it shall be decided by the arbitrator whether the proposals of the Minister are economically sound.
§ Amendment moved—
§
Page 6, line 42, at end insert:
("(c) the execution of the proposed works of maintenance would result in so increasing the economic value of the land as to render the cost of the proposed works remunerative; or").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
§ EARL DE LA WARRPerhaps it would be to the convenience of the Committee if we had a general discussion of all the Amendments to this effect. If that is so, I will not reply now.
§ VISCOUNT HAILSHAMI agree that there are three or four Amendments down which seek to achieve the same end. I do not know which those who support the principle of these Amendments think is the best. Speaking for myself, I prefer Lord Clinton's Amendment. It would obviously not be convenient to discuss each one of them and we might, while discussing the merits, decide which one we prefer.
§ VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAMEI am by no means wedded to the wording of my Amendment and would willingly withdraw it, if the noble Viscount thinks that Lord Clinton's Amendment covers the point raised in my Amendment.
§ LORD CLINTONIn all these Amendments we are seeking to reach the same object—namely, to avoid being compelled to carry out works of maintenance which are economically unsound. I am not quite certain whether, in doing works of maintenance, which, after all, are repairs, you would attract an increased rental. The definition of works of maintenance here is as in the Finance Act—namely, works which in almost every case are by legal obligation or custom of the 728 country to be carried out by the landlord to keep his place in repair. So long as we get something to prevent the owner being compelled to carry out works which no prudent man would do, I shall be satisfied. I do not want to lay any stress upon my own form of words, but I think the word "return" is on the whole better than "increased rental".
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALEMy Amendment is practically the same as that of Lord Clinton. It stands to reason that there must be a certain increase of rental if this extraordinary maintenance scheme is carried out at the instance of the Minister, and the chief factor which the arbiter has to keep in view is that question of increased rental. I am prepared to withdraw my Amendment in favour of my noble friend's.
§ EARL DE LA WARRThe difficulty about these Amendments is that, while it is clear in regard to subsection (1) that the matter is purely one of agreement between the owner and the State whether it is going to be to the national interest for the land to be taken over for necessary repairs, here it is rather a different matter, because one has to recognise that the more gross the neglect of an estate—and therefore the more necessary it is for the Minister to intervene—the less economic it is probably going to be to repair that estate. We all know that, if we take our repairs as they come, it is a simple and economic matter to keep the estate in proper repair, but if you allow things to go on—and it is only in that event that the Minister is likely to intervene—you are not going to get any great return to the owner for putting his land straight. I am tempted to refer to the famous case that I mentioned on Second Reading. There is very little doubt that when an estate is in such a condition as that the amount that will be spent on it will not in any sense justify an increase of rental. That virtually means that, if you put in stringent words about a specific return being necessary, you are going to make this part of the clause inoperative.
I would therefore ask you to consider a matter of principle. Do we or do we not consider that the ownership of land is a trusteeship? Do we or do we not 729 believe that certain obligations rest on all landowners to keep their land in repair'? Personally I take the view that there is that obligation, and I believe that it rests upon a landowner who has for a long time neglected his land to such an extent as to make it necessary for this clause to be brought into effect—after all it is only intended to bring it into effect in the grossest cases—to put his estate in order. I hope very much we shall not put in these strongly limiting words, which are virtually going to make the clause inoperative. I think the real difficulty is that perhaps it is not sufficiently realised how gross the neglect must be before this clause comes into operation. It is not intended to deal at all with matters of everyday application, but only with cases with which none of your Lordships will have the slightest sympathy. I therefore ask your Lordships to leave the clause as it is. We have made a concession by inserting the word "economically" at the beginning, which the noble and learned Viscount who leads the Opposition has told your Lordships has very considerable meaning. I hope therefore you will be satisfied with that concession and not press this Amendment, which will very considerably handicap this clause of the Bill.
§ VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAMEI understand that the great objection of the noble Earl is to the wording about increase of rent. My Amendment simply refers to "so increasing the economic value"—a rather different thing from rent.
§ LORD CLINTONI think there is no question about increase of rent; but I assure the noble Earl that we are not attacking the principle of the clause. We only want to avoid compelling an owner to spend more than, as a prudent man, he is entitled to do. There are too many cases in which land is going out of cultivation because the tenant could not work it at a profit.
§ EARL STANHOPEThe noble Earl hoped that we should be satisfied with putting in the word "economically." Perhaps we should have been if he had understood the meaning of it but obviously he did not. Therefore we cannot be satisfied that it is going to be sufficient protection.
§ EARL DE LA WARRIt was put in in another part of the Bill.
§ EARL STANHOPEI am glad he understands it at one portion of the Bill. The real point is this, that if an owner refuses to make improvements the Minister buys the land and does the improvements himself. If the land is in a very bad condition the price which the Minister will have to pay will be a very low price, and therefore, although he will have to spend a great deal of money to put it back into a proper state, he will be compensated by the low price. However bad land may be in this country it does not compare with what we have in such a Dominion as Canada. Take also the case of land in West Australia where trees have to be cut and grubbed before cultivation. Can he quote similar cases in the United Kingdom? All we suggest is that where you are going to undertake land improvement of this kind the price of the land and of the improvements shall not be so high that you will not get an adequate return for your money. We do not take the question of rent, but the Amendment proposed by Lord Clinton merely says the works of maintenance shall be such that the return which is received for that expenditure shall be adequate, and therefore shall be a sufficient reason for undertaking that expenditure at the public cost.
§ VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAMEWhat I propose to do is to withdraw my Amendment in favour of Lord Clinton's and reserve my rights till Report, after having had a consultation with my legal advisers to see whether his or my Amendment is the better of the two.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCHI hope Lord Clinton will stick to his Amendment, to which I think the movers of all the other Amendments have given way. We all know that it is a very different thing if one person has to order and another person has to pay, and there must be some protection. That rule applies in this case quite as much as in private life. It really is absolutely essential to provide a safeguard against abuses, and, far from it spoiling the Bill, I think it would have a great advantage, and it would probably have the practical result that people would keep their buildings in much better condition. One must remember that arbiters are not always up 731 to date, any more than railway inspectors are. One man orders one thing and another man orders it to be taken away. There really must be some safeguard. Take a landowner who has not kept his property in order. It may be his fault, or he may not have a shilling to do it with. But surely the worst thing you could possibly do for the future of agriculture is to make a man who has not much money spend a large sum on an alteration which will do very little good, and which will hamper him in doing other things to his property which really will maintain the land in proper condition.
§ EARL DE LA WARRIt is quite evident that your Lordships wish to have something on this matter inserted. May I suggest, therefore, that, in spite of your Lordships' preference for Lord Clinton's Amendment, you should consider the Amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, of which for the moment I am afraid I cannot promise acceptance without consultation, which of course will take place before Report. It certainly raises fewer difficulties for the arbitrator than any other Amendment. I think any of the other Amendments must face the arbitrator with very difficult hypothetical considerations—questions of return which are bound to make it very difficult for him. For the moment I know that Lord Radnor's Amendment is withdrawn, but I think the discussion is fairly open.
§ VISCOUNT HAILSHAMI confess I have a preference for Lord Clinton's Amendment. If it were a case in which the noble Earl were to say on behalf of the Government he could accept the words which Lord Radnor has on the Paper but that he should resist the other Amendments, I think that might be a matter which is worth consideration. But unless one can obtain that assurance I think it would not be wise to reject the Amendment which I think the majority of your Lordships prefer. I gather that the noble Earl is not in a position to give that assurance.
§ EARL DE LA WARRIf the noble and learned Viscount insists I will take my life in my hands and take the responsi- 732 bility of accepting that Amendment. What I would very much prefer and what would be simpler would be this. If you inserted Lord Radnor's Amendment, you could very easily change it on Report to that of Lord Clinton, if by that time I cannot give a definite assurance. That, I think, would be the easiest way of settling the matter. There would be a good chance of it not having to be changed again. I can most certainly promise the friendliest consideration of Lord Radnor's Amendment. I am afraid I cannot promise any consideration of the others.
§ VISCOUNT HAILSHAMIf we put in Lord Clinton's Amendment it would be quite simple to make it read with Lord Radnor's on Report merely by leaving out four or five words at the end. Perhaps the noble Earl would consider that. It is not worth fighting on a matter of convenience, but I think the feeling of the majority of the Committee is that it would be better to have Lord Clinton's Amendment in for the time being and then to see whether the noble Earl is prepared to go as far as he hopes when we come to Report. We shall then have an opportunity of considering—because he understands that I cannot undertake—whether or not that would meet the difference of opinion which divides us at present.
§ EARL DE LA WARRIt is clear that I cannot accept Lord Clinton's Amendment or promise any consideration at all. Might I ask how the matter really stands for Report? Is it that the noble and learned Viscount undertakes if we accept Lord Radnor's Amendment then—
§ VISCOUNT HAILSHAMI have no power to give that undertaking. The suggestion has only just been made and the noble Earl will see that I cannot possibly bind those who put these Amendments on the Paper. All I am suggesting is that inasmuch as the noble Earl seemed to think there was a chance of agreement on Lord Radnor's Amendment, since Lord Clinton's was Lord Radnor's plus five or six words, that we should put in Lord Clinton's, which is what we should like, and leave the Government, if it thinks there is any possibility of coming to an arrangement by 733 altering it to Lord Radnor's, to communicate, as is often done, through the usual channels with Lord Clinton and, if he likes, myself, to see whether anything can be done. For the moment, since obviously nothing can be agreed, I suggest that the Committee should put in Lord Clinton's, Amendment, for which I think the majority have a preference.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 43, after ("unreasonable") insert ("having regard in particular to the costs of the works of maintenance and to the return that may be expected from that expenditure").—(Lord Clinton.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD CLINTON moved, in proviso (a) in subsection (5), after "instrument," to insert "but after giving reasonable notice in writing to any other persons interested in the land." The noble Lord said: It is evident the idea is that there may be other persons concerned who are not at the farm. It is very important indeed that they also should receive notice of the intending inspection. I suggest to the noble Earl that he should allow these words to be inserted.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 9, after ("instrument") insert ("but after giving reasonable notice in writing to any other persons interested in the land").—(Lord Clinton.)
EARL DE LA WAREI think if the noble Lord looks at subsection (4) he will see that provision is already made for what he wants, but that the liability has been placed upon the Minister to serve this notice. That really is the point.
§ LORD CLINTONIt does not cover the point at all; it is merely telling everybody that he has to treat this notice as an indication that he is going to the farm to inspect it. They are two quite different points.
EARL DE LA WARNo; it is not only referring to where he is to treat, but it is all those with whom he has to treat, and he has to send the notice at once.
§ LORD CLINTONIt is a notice of his visit of inspection, and there is no doubt whatever that all the people interested should know that he is going to inspect.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
734
§
LORD LAMINGTON moved, after subsection (9), to insert the following new subsection:
(10) Where any works have been executed by the owner of the piece of land in accordance with a notice served upon him under this section it shall be competent for the owner to require that the rent to be paid for the piece of land as from the date when the said works are completed shall be fixed by arbitration, and, for the purposes of such arbitration the provisions of Section twelve of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1923, other than subsection (4) of that section, shall, so far as applicable, have effect.
§ The noble Lord said: Works of maintenance may include large items of expense, which have already been referred to. They include the repair and reconditioning of farm-houses, cottages, agricultural buildings, drains, embankments, ditches, bridges, fences, walls, hedges, gates, roads and water supply. It is obvious that a very large sum of money indeed would have to be spent. In many cases the farm, having fallen into disrepair, will be let at a very low rent; therefore it is desirable, when this very extensive expenditure is to be incurred, that the landlord should have some chance of recouping himself. In the Bill there is no provision for adjusting the rent and that is the object of my Amendment. As an alternative, instead of demanding arbitration, it might be better for him to have this expenditure included in the claim for maintenance and, therefore, this alternative provision is put in the Amendment. It is only just that, when these large sums, for which no return is likely to be given at all, have to be spent, the landlord should have a chance to recoup himself by appealing to the arbitrator to take it into consideration.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 3, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Lamington.)
§ EARL DE LA WARRThe object of this Amendment is to enable the owner, who has had to execute works of maintenance, to require that the rent to be paid for the land as from the date when the works are completed shall be fixed by arbitration. There is considerable justice in that claim, but, if the noble Lord will turn to paragraph (d) in subsection (5), he will see there is a question there of the time limited by the notice for com- 735 pliance with the requirements, which can be extended by the Minister or, if he does not do so, it is a matter for arbitration. That means, in fact, that either the Minister or the arbitrator could decree that the works to be executed need not be completed until there has been time for the owner to give the existing tenant notice under the Agricultural Holdings Act for the appeal to arbitration. I suggest it would really be better to leave the matter as it is with that power in the Bill rather than to attempt by a side wind in this Bill to amend the Agricultural Holdings Act. An agreement on that Act was arrived at only after long and arduous negotiations between the various parties interested and it would be very undesirable in this Bill to attempt any interference with it, especially as the point can be dealt with in the Bill as it stands.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCHI would advise my noble friend to withdraw his Amendment. It can be put down again if necessary, after further consideration, on Report stage.
§ EARL STANHOPEThe noble Earl spoke about giving notice to a tenant, hut, if you give him notice, you must give him two years rent as compensation.
§ EARL DE LA WARRThis is a question of arbitration.
§ EARL STANHOPEI understood the noble Earl to say that the completion of the works might be postponed so that you might give notice to your tenant. If the landlord gives notice, the tenant has the right to claim compensation up to two years rent.
§ EARL DE LA WARRIt was not a question of raising rent but of arbitration for rent, of which special notice has to be given.
§ LORD LAMINGTONAs an additional safeguard to the landlord, surely the noble Earl has no objection to it. He needs protection.
§ VISCOUNT HAILSHAMI do not think the answer of the noble Earl is very satisfactory. He says that there is power in paragraph (d) for the the Minister or arbitrator to 736 extend the time for completion. There is nothing in the Bill as I read it to compel the Minister or arbitrator to have regard to the fact that when the work is completed the landlord, who has done very expensive works, is to get no remuneration, in the case of a lease, for the expenditure incurred. I think a point has been raised by my noble friend Lord Lamington that requires attention. If the noble Earl would look into it between now and Report, it might be a good plan to withdraw the Amendment. I do not think the noble Earl's suggestion quite meets the difficulty.
§ EARL DE LA WARRI will certainly consider it. I agree that a real point has been raised, but I am unwilling to interfere with the question of the Agricultural Holdings Act.
§ LORD LAMINGTONI beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ LORD STRACHIE moved, in paragraph (d) of subsection (10), to leave out "drains, embankments, ditches." The noble Lord said: My Amendment refers to the complicated provision by which the Minister is able to give notice to an occupier to do certain works and, if he fails to do them, they fall upon the landlord. I do not think this is very fair. The agreement which the tenant enters into is a matter of arrangement. There are cases where the landlord undertakes the care of hedges, ditches, embankments, walls and roads, the tenant paying a higher rent. In the case we are considering, the tenant undertakes this work, being on the spot and seeing what work is needed. Apparently, by ibis clause, the Minister comes to the landlord and says: "Your tenant is unable to keep his ditches, and so on, in order; we call upon you to do the work which your tenant ought to do." The only way to enforce the tenant's duty is to give him notice. He will then claim compensation. I know many cases where the tenant has gone into Court and it has been decided that the rent was too high to allow him to do repairs, and he has received compensation. A very lenient view is taken by arbitrators in these cases, and it is often held that it is hard upon the tenant to place the cost of maintenance upon him. The Minister 737 says: "We do not care about that. We insist and we call upon the landlord to come down upon the tenant and if he does not do it the landlord has got to do it himself." That seems to be very unfair indeed—to call upon the landlord to execute work which the tenant by his agreement has undertaken to do.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 9, lines 22 and 23, leave out ("drains, embankments, ditches,").—(Lord Strachie.)
§ LORD HASTINGSI trust the Committee will give attention to this Amendment. A reasonable landlord naturally takes every opportunity of enforcing the terms of his agreement with the tenant, but at the same time difficulties are created by the Act of 1920. By this Bill you are adding insult to injury, because you are proposing to penalise the landlord for being unable to do that which by the Act of 1920 Parliament has made it impossible for him to do. Here you are placing obligations upon the landlord which clearly are obligations of the tenant, but which Parliament by a previous Statute has debarred the landlord from enforcing. I admit that it would be very difficult to get at the tenant, but that is no excuse for penalising the landlord. I regard the Amendment as being some improvement from that standpoint. It is a definite injustice which ought to be amended.
§ EARL DE LA WARRI really do not see where the difficulty occurs. I should have thought it was a perfectly clear matter. Of course where the liability under the lease is the landlord's there is no difficulty. It is a question of where the landlord has in his lease passed over the obligation to the tenant. The purpose of this subsection is to render first the landowner liable for the obligation that was originally his and then to give him power to enter upon and execute the works if the tenant will not execute them. In the last line of the subsection the landowner is given power to recover the debt that is due to him as a result.
§ LORD HASTINGSRecover from his own tenant and not from the Minister?
§ EARL DE LA WARRFrom the tenant, whose obligation it is to carry out the work.
§ LORD HASTINGSAny landlord who recovers from an East Anglian tenant is a very clever person.
§ EARL DE LA WARRIf the landowner has asked the tenant to carry out an obligation which he knows the tenant cannot carry out, he has passed on his obligation to one whom he knows cannot carry it out, and I do not think there is any point at all.
§ On Question, Amendment negatived.
§ LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved to leave out Clause 3. The noble Lord said: Clause 1 and Clause 2 stated distinctly their object. The first was to develop agriculture, and the second was to provide demonstration farms. But it is very difficult to discover what is the real object behind this clause. I have read it very carefully on many occasions, and this morning I read it again. I made a little note at the bottom of my Bill, and this is the note: "This is land nationalisation. Land in bad condition may be bought and owned by the Minister." I heard with much regret from Lord Clinton that I was correct, because the noble Lord, Lord Noel-Buxton, has apparently been making speeches out of Parliament in which he has stated that this clause is the beginning of land nationalisation.
§ LORD NOEL-BUXTONI made no such speech at all.
§ LORD CLINTONIt was at a meeting at which the noble Lord presided.
§ LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAMAnd I gather that the noble Lord did not contradict it.
§ LORD CLINTONHe did not say so.
§ LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAMThe noble Lord did not contradict it. It is perfectly evident that that is the real object. It is a very long clause, and the real object is concealed in a great quantity of verbiage. There are three or four pages, which an ordinary person would not understand, and which I believe even a noble Lord or a learned member of the Bar would not understand—or at any rate two of them would not agree upon what the meaning of it was. The meaning, however, is perfectly clear. I admit we have made it a little bit better, but not much. The Minister may practically do what he likes.
739 He may go round and say that the land requires reconditioning or that the buildings require it. There is to be an arbitrator. That is all very well, but who is going to pay his expenses or who will bother to go to him and point out that the land is not in a bad state or that the buildings do not require reconditioning? It all depends upon the opinion of the arbitrator and, having in view the fact that if he is pleasant to the Minister he may get an appointment, he probably will decide in the way the Minister likes.
The real object of the clause is to allow the Minister to take possession of land. An Amendment was moved to leave out "letting." It was not carried and, therefore, the Minister can take possession of land. He need not sell it; he can let it. That is the beginning of land nationalisation. It is ten minutes past eleven, when we all ought to be in bed, probably, and cannot discuss these things clearly. I do not propose to say any more than that this is an insidious attempt to start land nationalisation and I sincerely hope, as I am going to divide the House, that I shall be able to carry your Lordships with me.
§
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 3.—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
§ LORD CRANWORTHI support my noble friend in his appeal. As I said, when discussing this clause before, I admit that the clause is not so cruel as Clause 1 and is not so expensive as others which come later. But I look upon it as in some respects the worst clause in the Bill and for these reasons. First, that it finds fault in a man, not for the fault itself, but because the fault is combined with the fact that he is an owner of land. That is his real offence. In proof of that I would point out that certain of these works of maintenance are the duty of the tenant—ditches, gates, and fences in most parts of the country are the tenant's duty. Therefore you will find in two farms side by side a tenant who lets his fences, ditches and gates fall into disrepair, suffers no harm whatever, and renders himself liable to no penalty, while the man next door who is the owner of land and does the same thing renders himself liable to a very heavy penalty. The vast majority of your Lordships who know about land 740 will realise that it is a far greater crime to the nation to let good land get into such a state of cultivation that it is impossible to repair it within seven or eight years. If land becomes full of dock, spear-grass, charlock, thistles and the like, it may take seven or eight years to clear it. If works of maintenance are let down, it is merely a matter of the necessary money to put them right within a few months.
How is this crime which is inseparable from landowning to be punished? It is to be punished by taking away the land and handing it over to the Government. It is undeniable that that is nationalisation. I ask whether the Government have a mandate for nationalisation and I say emphatically that they have not. There is a majority in this House definitely pledged against nationalisation. It is possible that the day will come when nationalisation will be voted for by the people of this country. When that day comes it will be the duty of your Lordships to accede to that demand and to hand to agriculturists the inestimable benefit of getting their capital at 4½ per cent. instead of 1½ per cent. as they get it now. But that time has not yet come. I would point out that in my part of the country at all events the candidates who stood on the Government side made very little reference to nationalisation. Their reticence reminded me of the hymn with regard to entering the promised land in which it says "one glimpse enough for me." That in fact was the attitude of the Labour candidates in my neighbourhood. They were well aware that if the glimpse was of any length their chance of becoming members of Parliament was remarkably small.
The second point in regard to which I find objection to this Bill lies in the fact that its object is to hit a man when he is down. Agriculture for the last three-quarters of a century, through consecutive Governments of all shades of opinion, has been put in the background, subjected to every kind of adversity, until finally it is in a state when it is down and pretty well out, and this Bill takes the opportunity of saying "Now agriculture is down let us stamp on it." That is what it does. I think this Bill tackles the problem from a wrong angle. The problem is indeed a severe one, but I venture to suggest that the solution of 741 it is to say: "We will make agriculture a paying proposition." After all, the Government has a mandate. They took it themselves. It was acceded to by the whole of agriculture. Their mandate was to make farming pay. It was a mandate given to them by the noble Lord, Lord Noel-Buxton, and it was accepted by the whole farming community. If that had been adopted there would be no need for the present Bill. I think that if it were a paying proposition all these works of maintenance would in fact have been in the very best condition, as they were at a time when it was possible to make farming pay. Therefore I think the problem has been attacked from the wrong angle.
We have seen many Amendments to this Bill put forward by your Lordships. They have all been designed to try and minimise the hardships and injustices that are imposed by the Bill. How far have they been successful? Who have they left out? I suggest they have left out the big and rich landowners. They have left out the majority of your Lordships. They have, if my information is correct, undoubtedly left out the gentleman in Hampshire about whom we have heard so much. All of them will be able to say that they have not done the works of maintenance because it was uneconomic to do so. Has anyone been left in? say "Yes." I say there are many scores, hundreds, perhaps thousands of small men who own their own farms. Some of them inherited them, some bought them with their savings during the War. None of them got them as a free gift of charity, but they got them and they farmed them and they have seen during the last years their means sinking down, their land getting less valuable. They have not been able to carry out what we call the works of maintenance. Their works of maintenance have been to maintain bread in their children's stomachs and boots on their children's feet.
Why have they not retained their works of maintenance? Because they have not had the money to do so. Is it going to be said of us that we devised Amendments which let the rich landowners out but did not seek to provide protection for those poor men of whom I speak? Your Lordships would not; like to do that. In joining in the appeal of 742 my noble friend Lord Banbury, I say that this clause is wrong in principle and in intention, and is directly contrary to the votes of the electorate at the last Election, and I sincerely hope your Lordships will reject it.
§ LORD DYNEVORThe Bill tells us that Clauses two and three together will cost a capital sum of £5,700,000, but what will it cost annually we do not know. If the Minister carries out the powers given him under the provisions as to works of maintenance, the expenditure will be terrific. This Bill undoubtedly means an enormous increase in the staff of the Minister. The Bill makes no bones about that, because the financial statement says distinctly that the Bill will necessitate an increase in the Ministry's administrative and technical staffs and that it is impossible to state any precise figure as to the cost of such additional staff, but it will, however, clearly be large. I do not remember ever before having read a statement from the Government which so clearly stated that the cost of the extra staff was going to be large. When a Government issues a warning of that kind, you can be sure that it means adding hundreds of thousands to our annual cost. I support the motion of my noble friend Lord Banbury.
§ LORD CLINTONI am sorry to disagree with my noble friend. I can see some good in this clause. The first part of subsection (1) is the only part of the Bill which has any effect on unemployment. That is a reason why we should consider it favourably. One would much rather see the unemployed working on reclamation schemes than doing nothing at all. Complaints are made about the cast but, if it is the intention of the Government that these works shall be carried out by unemployed men, then the cost will be transferred to this fund from the Unemployment Fund and should not be an additional charge to the country. With regard to the second part of the clause, which deals with the power to enforce good management by the owners, let me remind your Lordships that this House passed a clause almost exactly similar in 1919 when Lord Ernie was Minister of Agriculture. I do not think your Lordships liked the clause then more than you do now, but 743 I remember the argument which my noble friend used. He said it was not the function of your Lordships to protect those who were not doing their duty by their estates. I agree that in those days it was somewhat easier to do your duty than it is to-day, but I am certain that this must be taken into account when you go to arbitration.
But I do not in the least agree with my noble friend when he says that the Amendments that we have made affect only the large owner and not the small owner. They affect both exactly alike. I do not think he can point to any instance of a small occupying owner being injured and the large owner escaping. I listened to him carefully, but I cannot understand why he attempted to put that argument before you. I do not want to speak at length, but I do feel—and I hope I can find some of your Lordships to support me—that this is not a wholly bad clause. It is one of the better clauses of the Bill, and therefore I think your Lordships should support it.
§ LORD NOEL-BUXTONSurely this clause deals with an evil which all feel to be an urgent one. Surely no noble Lord fails to experience distress when he encounters a case of wasted land or fails to attempt to cogitate a remedy. Here we have a purely practical proposal, which has no earthly connection with nationalisation, to prevent the many cases of neglect. Many of these are not due to the cause of which Lord Cranworth spoke—the inability to maintain repairs—but to caprice. The case in Hampshire to which Lord De La Warr alluded is not an isolated one, though no one who has been in the Ministry of Agriculture will fail to feel that this case alone is sufficient ground for some attempt at administrative action to make such conditions impossible.
Let me point to an experience which shows that neglect is a fairly widespread trouble which needs drastic treatment. Take the experience of war time. You then had conditions in which farming was profitable. We are told that neglect is due to the level of prices, but that certainly did not cause neglect in war time. Public opinion added a further stimulus to land owners. Yet the exceptional powers of war time had to be used on an astonishing scale. Out of forty-nine English counties, forty-five used these 744 powers to deal with neglect. I will not trouble your Lordships at this hour with figures. Broadly, the agricultural committees, quite apart from orders to plough up land, served several thousands of notices upon farmers because of neglect. That was neglect which indicated that land was not being used in an economic manner where conditions made it profitable to farm.
§ LORD CLINTONPerhaps I may be allowed to interrupt. The neglect to which the noble Lord alludes is not neglect of works of maintenance which is considered under this Bill.
§ LORD NOEL-BUXTONI am inclined to dispute the statement to this effect, that they were very largely associated with negligence of this kind, and the fact that it was thought necessary after the War to deal with these cases shows that it was not purely a phenomenon of war time. Lord Lee's Act provided very drastic machinery for dealing with neglect and to my mind it was a disaster that that part of the Act was repealed which gave power to the State to acquire mismanaged properties. That seems to me evidence that some proposal is needed. I wish we could hear of any other, but do let us at least give a fair and unprejudiced consideration to a plan which is surely not to be rejected because it incidentally involves the acquisition of a certain amount of land which is trifling compared with the amount which has been acquired by local authorities for other purposes.
Surely negligence to-day does constitute a very great national loss and an injustice to the men employed on the land. Neglected land is not only a loss in itself but a pest to the neighbouring farmers, and it seems to me that it would be most disastrous if the clause were rejected.
§ LORD HASTINGSNoble Lords on the Government Benches seem to be determined not to understand that the reason why works of maintenance have not been enforced and land has fallen into a poor condition is that the prices of produce have been so low that farmers have been unable to maintain cultivation. If the Government would devote their minds to improving the prices of agricultural produce then there would 745 be no need for Bills of this kind, because with better prices there would be no further trouble.
A great deal has been made throughout the debate of the notorious case in Hampshire. I do not propose to go into the matter in detail, but I think it will be of some interest to noble Lords that the owner of this property who has been so much execrated let it in pre-War times when the buildings were still good at 10s. per acre. That will give your Lordships some idea of the value of the land if that was a proper rent at a time when agriculture was not in too had a way and when the buildings were in a good condition. What sort of rent do your Lordships suppose such land would fetch to-day? And what kind of profit would the Government be likely to make out of reclaiming it? I am told that the land is so poor that even the thistles are now dying out owing to the poor quality of the land. If that is so Heaven help the Department which endeavours to reclaim and then let or sell it at a profit. If we had a little common sense and did not talk so much nonsense we should get on better. There would be no need for such clauses if only the Government would devote their minds to the real problem how to make farming pay, which is one of the reasons why they sit on those Benches and we do not.
§ EARL DE LA WARRRepresentatives of noble Lords opposite sat on these Benches for a great deal longer time than we have done and possessed more power in another place a short time ago. I do not think it is necessary to go any further into the question of what we are coming to know as the man in Hampshire. I do not know what he let his land at before the War, but I can tell the noble Lord that one part of his estate was farmed by a farmer who was well known throughout the county for his sheep, corn, and the large dairy which he kept, and that in another part of his estate a farmer with 1,000 acres ran a large pedigree flock of sheep, and produced some of the best cereals grown. Further, a great deal of the discussion has really turned round this particular individual—probably a great deal more than the man is worth.
746 The fact remains that, however much the noble Lord, Lord Banbury, may try to arouse our prejudice by talking about land nationalisation, we have got a specific problem here to deal with. It is not a question of nationalisation nor is it even necessarily a question of allotting blame. The noble Lord, Lord Cranworth, talked about the eternal finding fault with the landlord. We are not dealing to-night with the moral issue of who is to blame for this condition, we are dealing with the fact that as a nation we are facing a problem of vast areas of land which are in a very bad state, and somehow or other we have to attempt to find someone who can put them right. It is perfectly clear, and doubly clear from what has been said this evening, that the landowner is not in a position to tackle this problem, and therefore we offer him a way out. We say in subsection (1) that if you feel that you are not able to invest the necessary capital in your land we will give the State powers and finance to negotiate with you, to take your land off you voluntarily, and do that which you yourselves would like to do. Surely that is a reasonable proposition. I should have thought that it was a proposition that every landowner who had a real love for and devotion to his land would jump at. Because surely there are a great many of us in this country who would much rather see our land in a first-class condition of equipment than merely have the satisfaction of pointing to it and knowing that it belonged to ourselves.
And even on subsections (2) and (3) and the rest of the clause, the part of the Bill which Lord Cranworth spoke of as the condemnation of the landlord, I cannot see that at all. The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, spoke about the land in Hampshire. If this were a question of general condemnation, he would have been discussing, not the land in Hampshire but his own land. He knows perfectly well that his land is not in that condition, nor is the land of any noble Lord in this Chamber. The fact of the matter is that subsections (2), (3) and (4) are designed to deal with quite exceptional cases of neglect. I should have thought that almost any landowner would have felt that it was really almost in defence of his own system that he should insist that cases of this type should be dealt 747 with, because I am quite sure that if any attempt is made to defend cases of gross neglect it can do nothing but hasten the end of the whole system.
We are told that we have no mandate to deal with this question—I think the noble Lord said with the question of nationalisation. I know nothing about a mandate for the nationalisation of land. This Bill does not deal with that subject. I say that we are perfectly prepared to face the country on the provisions of this Bill and I ask what your Lordships are doing if you oppose this clause? As far as I can see you are saying to the landowner and to the State: "We will not permit you to negotiate for the voluntary acquisition of a landowner's estate in order that the State may put it into proper repair." And you are supporting cases of the grossest neglect of agricultural properties. I cannot believe that anyone in your Lordships' House is prepared to adopt that attitude—the attitude of refusing the voluntary acquisition and reclamation of land, or of defending the type of case that the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, has just mentioned.
Those are the only matters contained in this clause and for that reason I appeal to your Lordships to leave it in the Bill. You have altered a very great deal of the clause. I think you have altered it in almost every case where you wished, and the clause is now drafted in the form in which you desire to see it. The Government, of course, were unable to accept a number of the Amendments; nevertheless, it is now in the form as amended by your Lordships. I would hope, therefore, that you will leave it in the Bill as it is. You have already removed a great deal of the substance of the Bill and apart from anything else, it would be very satisfactory if we could leave the Chamber this evening with something accomplished in the direction of something left on the Paper.
§ VISCOUNT HAILSHAMI will not detain your Lordships very long. I confess I felt a good deal of sympathy for the indignation expressed by some of those who opposed this clause at the attitude of His Majesty's Government. It is true that they came into office with a mandate and on a promise of making farming pay. It is true, of course, that this Bill is not going to make farming 748 pay. I entirely sympathise with those who say that the Government are not by this Bill carrying out their mandate. That to my mind does not conclude the matter. I agreed entirely, indeed I voted with the decision of the Committee in refusing to pass Clause 1 which proposed this large scale-farming experiment. I agree entirely with the refusal to pass the demonstration farms in Clause 2. I confess that if I were confronted with the alternative of having Clause 3 as drafted or no Clause 3 at all I should have voted against the clause.
But we have not Clause 3 as drafted. We have made what I think are very material improvements in the clause. In the first place, we have made it a condition of subsections (1) and (2) that the method must be economically sound. Secondly, we have inserted provisions that the work which is to be done under subsection (2) must be reported as work which will render the land suitable for use for agricultural purposes and that the land cannot be satisfactorily and economically so used by reason of its being in a grossly neglected condition. We have, therefore, very much limited its operation. Finally, and much the most important of all, we have made it a condition which may be determined by arbitration, a condition of any works which the Minister requires, that they will be works which will justify the expenditure put into them. So that nobody can be compelled to do work which will not repay the cost of doing it.
That being the position, what is it that this clause does, as it now stands? Under subsection (1) it allows the Minister to reclaim land which can be satisfactorily and economically reclaimed and which he can acquire voluntarily by agreement with the owner. As my noble friend Lord Clinton has pointed out, that may be a power which will be a useful one in dealing with unemployment. All subsection (2) of the clause does is to provide that where land is in a grossly neglected condition—remember those words—where by reason of that condition it is prevented from being satisfactorily or economically used for agricultural purposes, and where works are required which when done will pay for themselves by the improved value of the land—that in those conditions, and those 749 conditions only, if a, man refuses to allow the work to be done, then my noble friend Lord Cranworth said the land is to be taken away from him. He will forgive me saying that is not quite an accurate description of what happens. The land is not taken away. The Minister is able to buy the land at a fair price. That is not at any rate confiscating the property.
Another noble Lord said there would be an immense annual cost on these works of maintenance beyond the £5,000,000, but in fact doing the works of maintenance will be part of the capital cost, because you are not here carrying on the business of running a farm. What you are doing is acquiring the land which is grossly neglected in order to put it in a proper condition for disposing of it by sale or lease or otherwise and therefore the cost of these works of maintenance is necessarily part of the £5,000,000. It is true the financial memorandum says that the Bill as a whole will require an increase of the Ministry staff, but it is not fair to say the whole of that increase is to be put down to Clause 3. I think it is obvious only a small part of it will be so put down. If we refuse to pass this clause then all we are in fact doing is to say we will not allow the Minister where he can acquire land by agreement which can be economically reclaimed to do so, and that we will not allow these people whose land
§ is grossly neglected and which can be put right by financially sound expenditure to be interfered with, and that we will not allow that land to be put right by buying it at a fair price when people will not put it right themselves.
§ I think that if we were to take up the position of championing these few black sheep among the vast land-owning community it would be a position that would be a very unfortunate one to adopt, and one which does not in the least agree with the practice or theory of the great bulk of your Lordships' House. I do think it would be a great mistake for us to throw out Clause 3. At the same time, when the Report stage comes I shall ask again for an assurance that we are not going to have our Amendments cast out in another place on the ground of Privilege and then be told that we have to take Clause 3 as it stood in its original form. If there is any risk of that then I shall put down an Amendment to leave out Clause 1 of the Bill on Report. I shall do that if the question of Privilege is raised with regard to these Amendments. I hope your Lordships will now pass this amended clause, because I believe it would be. a mistake to throw it out.
§ On Question, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill?
§ Their Lordships divided: Contents, 75; Not-Contents, 17.
751| CONTENTS. | ||
| Marlborough, D. | Allenby of Megiddo, V. | Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull.) [Teller.] |
| Wellington, D. | Astor, V. | |
| Churchill, V. | Heneage, L. | |
| Camden, M. | Elibank, V. | Ker, L. (M. Lothian.) |
| Zetland, M. | FitzAlan of Derwent, V. | Kinnaird, L. |
| Hailsham, V. | Lamington, L. | |
| Albemarle, E. | Hambleden, V. | Latymer, L. |
| Ancaster, E. | Mersey, V. | Middleton, L. |
| Bradford, E. | Noel-Buxton, L. | |
| Cawdor, E. | Abinger, L. | Oriel, L. (V. Massereene.) |
| De La Warr, E. | Addington, L. | Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair.) |
| Feversham, E. | Bayford, L. | Polwarth, L. |
| Fortescue, E. | Belhaven and Stenton, L. | Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.] |
| Grey, E. | Berwick, L. | |
| Iddesleigh, E. | Biddulph, L. | Queenborough, L. |
| Lindsay, E. | Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clan-william.) | Rathcreedan, L. |
| Lucan, E. | Sanderson, L. | |
| Malmesbury, E. | Clinton, L. | Sandhurst, L. |
| Mount Edgcumbe, E. | Dawson of Penn, L. | Sinclair, L. |
| Onslow, E. | Deramore, L. | Snell, L. |
| Peel, E. | Dickinson, L. | Somerleyton, L. |
| Poulett, E. | Douglas, L. (E. Home.) | Stanmore, L. |
| Sandwich, E. | Fairhaven, L. | Stonehaven, L. |
| Scarbrough, E. | Faringdon, L. | Templemore, L. |
| Spencer, E. | Gage, L. (V. Gage.) | Trenchard, L. |
| Stanhope, E. | Gainford, L. | Treowen, L. |
| Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.) | Hastings, L. | Wavertree, L. |
| NOT-CONTENTS. | ||
| Exeter, M. | Hereford, V. | Dynevor, L |
| Fairfax of Cameron, L. | ||
| Airlie, E. | Banbury of Southam, L. [Teller.] | Lawrence, L. |
| Lauderdale, E. | Phillimore, L. | |
| Radnor, E. | Chesham, L. | Redesdale, L. |
| Cranworth, L. | Strachie, L. | |
| Bertie of Thame, V. [Teller.] | Digby, L. | Wynford, L. |
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
§ Resolved in the affirmative and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
§ Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 4:
§ Provisions as to acquisition, of and dealing with land by Minister.
§ 4.—(1) In relation to the acquisition of land by the Minister under this Part of this Act, the Lands Clauses Acts, as amended by the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919 (except Sections sixteen, seventeen, ninety-two, one hundred and twenty-three, one hundred and twenty-seven to one hundred and thirty-three, one hundred and fifty and one hundred and fifty-one of the Lands Clauses (Consolidation) Act, 1845) are hereby incorporated with this Act, subject to the modifications mentioned in Part I of the First Schedule to this Act:
§ Provided that—
- (a) before giving notice in accordance with Section eighteen of the Lands Clauses (Consolidation) Act, 1845, of his intention to acquire any land otherwise than by agreement, the Minister shall, except in the case of land which he is empowered so to acquire by the last fore going section, comply with the provisions of Part II of the said schedule; and
- (b) nothing in this Part of this Act shall authorise the compulsory acquisition of any land which is the property of any local authority or has been acquired for the purposes of a railway, dock, canal, water, or other public undertaking, or which is, or forms part of, any common or any town or village green, or any area dedicated or appropriated as a public park, garden, or pleasure ground, or used for the purposes of public recreation, or which forms part of the trust property to which the National Trust Act, 1907, applies.
§ (2) Any land held by the Minister under this Part of this Act shall be held on behalf of His Majesty, and the Minister shall, subject to such conditions as may be determined by the Treasury, have power, for any purpose to manage, sell, let, or exchange any such land, and to pay or receive money in respect of equality of exchange.
§ LORD HASTINGS moved, at the end of subsection (1), to insert "or is owned or occupied for the purpose of working minerals." The noble Lord said: This Amendment really speaks for itself. It is merely a proposal to add to the exemptions and I trust the noble Earl 752 may find himself able to accept it, because it is perfectly obvious that areas occupied for the working of minerals could not really be made available for the purposes of this Bill. It is only a limited portion of land and it must not be thought it is covered by a slag heap. Around a pithead, where seams are being worked, it is greatly to the interest of the colliery company to occupy the land, if only for a period, in order to avoid payment of compensation for subsidence. No sensible Minister would desire to take land liable to subsidence, but it would be wise, I am advised—and I share that opinion—to include this among the exemptions. This will cause no difficulty to the Ministry in carrying out the Bill.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 16, after ("applies") insert the said new words.—(Lord Hastings.)
§ EARL DE LA WARRThis Amendment was moved in another place and, after considerable discussion, was not pressed to a Division. On general principles I agree with the noble Lord. Indeed, under the Bill we have only power to purchase land suitable for agricultural purposes, by reason of its being seriously neglected. Apart from the fact that we have no power to purchase mining land, if there were a mining property on the land, it would obviously be to the advantage of the Ministry not to purchase it, because it would be at a very inflated value and mean expending a lot of money on purposes foreign to the Bill. The reason why we do not want to accept the Amendment is that it is quite possible there might be on the estate being purchased a chalk or gravel pit, or some such small mining undertaking, and its inclusion in compulsory acquisition might rather seriously affect the value of the remainder of the land. I can assure the noble Lord that we are in absolute agreement with him on the principle which persuades him to move the Amendment, but we prefer not to put the Amendment into the Bill because it would make complications in these small cases.
§ LORD HASTINGSIt is very satisfactory to be told by the noble Earl that the Ministry would not in ordinary circumstances apply the powers of the Bill to this particular kind of land. But I think it would be infinitely safer if it were put in the Act of Parliament. The noble Earl will not for ever sit on that Bench nor will the present Minister be for ever Minister of Agriculture and one does feel that a very reasonable provision such as this ought to find its way on to the Statute Book. It is very probable that another Minister might wish to take this land, and it is possible under the Bill, and I submit that it would create no hardship to the Ministry and would not interfere with the operation of the Bill if this Amendment were inserted; and it might avoid disastrous complication which otherwise could occur. I hope the noble Earl will reconsider his decision.
§ EARL DE LA WARRSo far as I can see either way there is slight risk of complication arising and it seems to me we have to decide on the basis of where complication is least likely to arise. In the case of property with a mining value the whole assumption is against the Minister being willing to pay what would no doubt be a very high mineral value for the land.
§ LORD HASTINGSThat is not so. The noble Earl must not suppose for a moment that this only concerns land actually round about the pit head. It is not land on which the mining company wants to deposit slack. It is the custom for a mining company to occupy land in order to avoid a much larger expense which would arise in the event of a subsidence. It is agricultural land which the Ministry might reasonably be able to 754 acquire at an ordinary agricultural value. That is the kind of land I have in view. It may even be poor moor land, but if the Ministry is able under the powers of the Bill compulsorily to acquire it that would interfere very gravely with the coal trade and might involve a coal company in large sums for compensation. Having raised the point, and thereby established my right to refer to it again on Report, if the noble Earl will do me the favour of inquiring into the matter rather more closely on the lines I have indicated, I am quite willing to withdraw the Amendment, provided I have the prescribed right of putting it down on Report.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ LORD STRACHIE had an Amendment on the Paper to move, at the end of subsection (1), to insert "or any land which forms part of any park, garden or pleasure ground or land adjoining a dwelling-house or garden attached thereto, or any woodland." The noble Lord said: After considering what the effect has been of the deletion of Clauses 1 and 2, and the substantial amendment of Clause 3, I think it is undesirable at this moment for me to move this Amendment, but I reserve my power to do it on Report.
§ Clause 4 agreed to.
§ Clause 5 agreed to.
§ House resumed.
§ EARL DE LA WARRMy Lords, I beg to move that this House do now adjourn.
§ House adjourned at five minutes past twelve o'clock midnight.